Topic: Why bitcoin isn't currency. - page 11. (Read 21382 times)

I think it is still valid to say that money directly increases productivity

What does directly increase productivity, in your mind? Being more productive?

What's it matter anyway? The important point, which you conveniently cut out, is that some people can get richer without some other people getting poorer.

I responded to a claim the "Money directly increases productivity."  [boldface mine]
And that's why i ask that the thread is kept tidy

Money is good. But my comment was that money is a good.

As for increasing productivity by spending more on printing presses to print more money:  http://www.marketwatch.com/story/new-100-bill-costs-60-more-to-produce-2013-10-08

Choosing not to vote is *exactly* like choosing not to trade "because the free market is unfair."
It is a choice, and a poor one.

It's not that simple. We can say that money improves productivity but it doesn't mean that any quantity of money would do so

Money sure is good, but it doesn't improve productivity.  If it does, US Mint should spend more of it on printing presses & print more, directly increasing productivity

Why is it neither here nor there? Could we just say that you've chosen not to trade because the free market is unfair? And correspondingly, not to vote because politics is corrupt?

When I ignore your request, it is because your attempt to throw a bunch of shit against the wall and hope that some of it sticks is misleading to others reading this thread.


Money directly increases productivity. And money is a good.

Money directly increases productivity. And money is a good.

As far as you choosing not to vote, that's neither here nor there.  That's like saying the free market is unfair because you chose not to trade. 

+1.

The idea that voting suddenly makes me part of the political class is an absurdity anyway. Walking up to Congress and waving my voter ID card is going to get me very little in comparison to waving around millions in campaign contributions, or better yet, actually being a congressman or other government bigshot. If I really was the government, you'd better believe things would be running differently. If "we" really were the government, things would also be running differently (as a starter, the bailouts would have never happened.)

The sooner we all wake up and realize anyone who arbitrarily claims authority over your life, liberty or property is just a "them," and we start (peacefully) resisting and rejecting them, the better off society will be.

Bitcoin investors aren't taking any risks?


Well, first of all, it's impossible for there to be a *guarantee* that the value of any commodity is going to go up. Whether it's dollar bills or gold bars or bitcoins or barrels of oil or whatever, there's always a possibility that the thing will lose value. There's also always a possibility that you'll die before you're able to cash in on your investment.

That said, it's quite common for it to be the case that you can expect, on average, to get more for your money by waiting. Whether you spend that waiting time on your ass or on your feet is irrelevant though. The important part is that, instead of consuming X now, you consume X+Y later.


You can repeat it, but it's not true. Money does increase the amount of goods in the world. Money facilitates division of labor, and division of labor facilitates productivity, and productivity is the rate at which goods or services are produced.

I don't vote, so no one in the government represents me or my interests.  That's why I think it is accurate for me to refer to them as "them".  I don't play their game.

You don't have to print money to manipulate the market, but you do have to have a stranglehold on the exchanges.  Peer-to-peer decentralized exchanges will allow people to route around the manipulation.

I don't vote, so no one in the government represents me or my interests.  That's why I think it is accurate for me to refer to them as "them".  I don't play their game.

On coinfinder guy...
There are many others that have never found their lost coins.  Likely a big part of the reason he forgot about those, was probably because he put the chance for success at much much lower than we are today.  So yes, there are the odd few who made money by taking an early risk and not contributing.  They relied on the enterprise of others.  

Is this Bitcoin's fatal flaw?
Is this the reason we ought all abandon it and try again?  
Well... if so... that's just what litecoin fixes.  Bitcoin's little sibling, not premined, different crypto, more evenly distributed.  Go for it.

Bitcoin solves some problems while creating others.  There is no need to print money to manipulate the market -- robber barons of yesteryear did it quite successfully without printing a single note.  The only thing required is a large amount of wealth, denominated in virtually anything; that's what makes economics so much fun.

It's hard to discuss money without getting lost in the details, it's a pretty complicated & often counterintuitive thing.  For instance, treating the governments as "them" is not quite accurate when, at least in principle, in United States they are an extension of you, *your* "elected officials."

Politics resemble the free market.  Theoretically, you can run for presidency and, if people like what you stand for & trust you more than your opponent, you should win.  Sadly, just like the case with the free market, practice falls short of theory.  There are established political parties (think monopolies), established laws (established rules of commerce), barriers to entry (campaign funds = starting business capital), etc., etc.  So yeah, the game's rigged.  But the game's *always* rigged -- no matter what's used for money.

There's the assumption I was missing...  We are starting with the bizarre assumption that Bitcoin is today, sound money.  But by the time Bitcoin becomes sound, there probably won't be much deflation left to it, and very certainly nothing like it is today.  Currently, it is anything but sound.  It is still a very risky venture, and even some of its strongest advocates and investors are giving a much less than 50% chance for success.

If everyone that has bitcoins just "sits around" with them, it is pretty much guaranteed to fail, if even half do this, it is probably dead.

The blasted stuff is still in beta.  Wait until it is version 3.x for this complaint, not beta version 0.8.x

However, the stakeholders are NOT just sitting around, and if everyone did, they wouldn't be worth much anyway.  Most are pestering anyone who will listen about it.  They are programming, they are developing, they are creating economies, they are looking for opportunities to make it succeed.  Some are hacking each other, and ddossing exchanges, and all manner of illicit craziness.  Others are shoring up defenses, building better exchanges, and trying to make a go of it.  We have not yet seen the real bitcoin adversaries even.  
These are very early days.

If you are under the illusion that your money held in bitcoins is not at risk, you probably won't have them for very long.
If you don't believe me, just ask Tradefortress.

If you think sitting on your ass *guarantees* you a riskless profit... I wish you luck with that.

At least they won't be able to profit by creating bitcoins on a whim, to bail themselves out, fund their deficits, or to "stimulate the recovery".  Stealing people's purchasing power by devaluing their money is off the table with bitcoin.  I think enough people understand that a bitcoin derivative is not a bitcoin.  Peer-to-peer decentralized exchanges will be needed to prevent market manipulation.  We should be seeing those within the next couple of years.