But Bitcoin doesn't exist for the benefit of miners.
What are the miners for? It is a marketing scheme. An extremely clever one, I admit. However, mining has become weaker and weaker as a marketing tool over time. June 2011 bubble. That is the power of marketing. We can't expect mining to help deliver anything like that again. Mining is becoming a pure liability. |
|
|
|
Kind of a chicken and an egg thing here, without mining you don't have bitcoin but without bitcoin you can't have mining. Ponzi is a bit harsh if you ask me and so trying to compare this to that is not a very easy thing to do.
Thanks. Case in point. ↑ Right. That is why everyone defends mining even though it is obvious that mining is extremely expensive and unnecessary. People like "free money" so much, that they convince themselves that the distribution of "free money" via mining is essential in some way. It is like pirate's essential secrecy.
Mining is a very important reason why bitcoin looks so similar to a ponzi.
In many ponzis, participants are asked to do some kind of useless work to make rewards seem justified (see Zeek rewards or whatever it was).
|
|
|
|
Suppose the central bank controls 51% of hashing power and wants to achieve a stimulus equivalent to a 3% increase in inflation. ...
It is pretty clear that the blockchain gives central banks unprecedented control over monetary policy. All they have to do is command 51% of hashing power. An absolutely negligible investment for such a well-capitalized institution.
Not sure you correctly understand the 51% hashing power weakness. But that aside the real issue with Bitcoin is the open-source nature in contrast to the closed-source nature of current monetary policy. The result of closed-source is greater information asymmetry amongst market participants leading to inefficiencies in the market. If central banks attempted to conduct monetary policy through an open-source instrument, like a blockchain, then market participants would adapt so swiftly and severely via algorithms and high frequency trading that it would render the manipulations powerless because there would be no uncertainty in the market place as a result of the open source blockchain. Statist monetary policy must be conducted in secret or it will not be successful at allowing the rent seekers to take advantage of market inefficiencies as a result of their access to power centers. Look at how vigorously the Federal Reserve attempted to defend Bloomberg when it came to disclosing bailout funds. You don't understand monetary policy. Changes in the interest rate are announced publicly. The aim is to erode the purchasing power of the unit of the account in order to encourage people to get it out of their hands like a hot potato. The market can't do shit about this (except abandon the currency). Maybe they would like to do that. Fine. That is what the central bank wants. But they have nothing widely accepted to turn to. This is what gives the central bank power. |
|
|
|
You are wrong, because you assume anyone would use a currency with a 51% weakness already in progress, and because your formula doesn't account for the initial investment in hardware required to achieve that 51%. You are only accounting for operating expense with that $212 million.
I am confused (as to why you would attempt to disagree with me given your limited intelligence and knowledge base). The K value I calculated is the annual capital expense (otherwise why would I include the interest rate and depreciation rate in the calculation?). |
|
|
|
Statist monetary policy must be conducted in secret or it will not be successful at allowing the rent seekers to take advantage of market inefficiencies as a result of their access to power centers. Look at how vigorously the Federal Reserve attempted to defend Bloomberg when it came to disclosing bailout funds. The whole "in secret" thing, I can vouch for it. In my country of origin, there existed (some still exist) quite a few characters who had connections with the money printers (this was before they dollarized the economy). They got rich as FUCK. As it is to be expected from a group of official counterfeiters and their scumbag friends. Their M.O. was, essentially, like this: the counterfeiters would tell their friends "we're about to devalue the currency by counterfeiting more money and changing the peg to the dollar", which prompted their friends to buy large amounts of dollars at the then-official price, after which they would print a shitton of bonds (which they of course eventually defaulted upon). Which would cause the currency to be worth even less nothing (try to imagine that grammar horror in terms of currency) than it was before. Then they would repurchase all the money they had sold, and then some, using the bought dollars. Kickbacks, of course, were the norm. Insider forex trading for the lose. Many people lost their homes, cars, businesses, some even their lives, to poverty. But that was all "okay" because these scumbags made hundreds of millions, hand over fist, until a new president (who was ejected from power in a coup) dollarized the economy. Now they're trying to bring back galloping devaluation (a national currency they will devalue at will, of course) using bullshit "sovereignity" arguments. Expect the same to happen with the Fed (except this time the insiders are literally inside the Fed). I've seen it happen, The Bernank is doing the exact same moves, there is no way in hell this isn't going to happen in the U.S., because it's -- quite simply put, and incontestably so, according to the history of every single statist currency that went bust -- the natural, and malevolent, destiny of paper currencies. What mathematically cannot continue, will not continue. Thank FSM we have Bitcoin to hedge against that inevitable upcoming disaster. Are you from Russia? |
|
|
|
I think the average person is less interested in the exchange rate and don't think any of my post referred to that. More people are interested in the "free money" idea.
Right. That is why everyone defends mining even though it is obvious that mining is extremely expensive and unnecessary. People like "free money" so much, that they convince themselves that the distribution of "free money" via mining is essential in some way. It is like pirate's essential secrecy. Mining is a very important reason why bitcoin looks so similar to a ponzi. In many ponzis, participants are asked to do some kind of useless work to make rewards seem justified (see Zeek rewards or whatever it was). |
|
|
|
Cunticula:
"He doesn't believe in Godvernment and Mommy isn't around to beat him up, so I'm going to whine until he goes away".
:-)
(Note: I haven't read his comment -- ignore list -- but based on my experience, I'll wing it and suppose that's a good transliteration of what he said.)
Thanks |
|
|
|
Oh Godvernment now the thread has a person who considers children to be chattel.
Well, at least he homeschools.
Moonshadow is an old time libertarian cadre. He was here for the long march up to $30 and the short fall down to $0.01. I suggest you watch your tongue. |
|
|
|
|
Reading the wiki, I think the funniest thing is that solidcoins were once valued at 0.04 BTC each. Not bad at all given the premine, fees, closed source code, and other revenue extraction scams.
It shows something about success via merit vs. success via unadulterated megalomania. Also, it wasn't like RealSolid even cared about the failure. He seemed to just be making money and having fun.
|
|
|
|
he doesn't even understand. news flash: bitcoin doesn't charge 23.99% APR on purchases
I'm confused. Neither do credit cards if you pay your balance each month. Are you an undischarged bankrupt? |
|
|
|
Oh, cunticula answered!
Hmmm, given that I can't read his reply, what's an appropriate reply...
Cunti culi, cunti cula
cunti culi, cunti culaaaa
lie lie lie lie lie, cunti culi cunti cula
:-)
Again, I am confounded by libertarian reasoning. Such sagacity! My interlocuter has bested me. I am at a loss for words. |
|
|
|
Cunticula keeps replying. He probably thinks he's having a conversation with someone who doesn't much care to read his garbage. Oops.
As a lowly Statist, I wouldn't dare reply using my own thoughts. I was merely citing the Great Augusto Croppo, the People's Libertarian Hero. Beloved of Theymos and sharing in his interests and hobbies. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=121093.msg1336091#msg1336091 |
|
|
|
I can't tell from the content, but looking at the mequetrefes from this forum collectively and suddenly assembling here, there appears to be a neutron star level concentration of statism in this thread. Like hardcore statism, probably suggesting that voluntaryists sell children to businesses because they do not share their selling-children-to-indoctrination-camps dogma.
Win.
We would never suggest such a thing. Owners take care of their property. If you read carefully, we were talking about unassigned common pool resources, namely orphans. Are you arguing that common pool resources should not be assigned to private owners? If so, I don't think this thread can help you. There is a re-education thread which may be more suited to your needs. I have noticed that the people's libertarian hero, The Great Augusto Croppo, has marked you for re-education. I suggest you take his advice. |
|
|
|
Too complicated. If some people think it's unfair that CCA or Foxconn get first dibs for no apparent reason, then decentralised ownership is clearly the way to go. In addition to block rewards and fees, "orphan services" should be added to the list of perks that the miners receive when discovering a block of currency units.
Brilliant! The txn fee problem can be solved by the appropriation of resources with ambiguous ownership, namely orphans. All we need to do is funnel more goods, people, etc., with no clear owner into the blockchain to assign owners and bitcoin will become sustainable. Theft doesn't occur in libertarian environments. Therefore, living chattel will not resist rightful appropriation. Question: Are females chattel? Can we randomly assign widows to new owners too? I haven't read the latest treatises on natural law. Please update me on the modern theory. Random assignment seems about right, but I wouldn't want to propose anything immoral. My only reservation: Random allocation via the blockchain is at odds with the principles of our colonial ancestors. They showed support for orphan auctions through common practice. On the other hand, the founding fathers did not have access to cryptocurrency technology. Given the technology, random allocation is obviously preferable. |
|
|
|
|
Very nice presentation Meni.
|
|
|
|
Established brand names need marketing too. How do you think one stays on top. Here's an example. Why did Google leave China?
Because only Nixon could go to China. That wasn't what I was thinking of. But it is a very good answer. |
|
|
|
perhaps preferring homeschooling or unschooling or private schooling
Of the three options for libertarians, it seems that option 2 is the most popular. |
|
|
|
btw, what happens to children in ancap when their parents die and there is no relative?
In colonial America, the community used to auction orphans in public market. [can supply references if need to be] There is a question about where the revenue goes if there is no minimalist state to collect it. Perhaps the orphan transfers itself to an entrepreneur and the entrepreneur auctions the orphan off? |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin: The Internet meets Payments
|
|
|
|
lol, wordpress needs marketing? it's only like 90% of the blogs online uses it? it's unlikely for a user to know bitcoin, but unaware of wordpress. Bitcoin is far less well known compared to wordpress.
Established brand names need marketing too. How do you think one stays on top. Here's an example. Why did Google leave China? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
