The velocity is not relevant. If you sell a bitcoin to me and buy it back tomorrow, we won't have additional GDP. Additional credit (debt) leads to additional GDP.
Velocity is relevant when the trades are in exchange for goods and services, which applies to everything I wrote in the posts upthread. A bitcoin is a goody. If you sell a bitcoin to me and buy it back tomorrow, we won't have additional GDP. Additional credit (debt) leads to additional GDP. It depends on how you compute the GDP. As far as I know, currency exchanges are not counted as goods and services in the computation of GDP. However, purchases and sales of assets I believe are counted. When you buy and sell a house, this indeed does cause people in the economy to earn salaries and commissions, and thus does increase the GDP. Buy and selling BTC does also to some extent. Sorry if you are arguing that velocity of money has no relationship to GDP, then I should just ignore you as being retarded. It is quite obvious that the rate at which money changes hands in the economy, effects the amount of salaries and commissions earned by humans and thus the level of the economic activity. Additional Salaries and commissions can only be earned and payed, if somebody else creates additional debt/credit. No economy ever in history did bartering itself up. It's the (additional) debt, stupid. Conflating increasing debt with increasing productivity is what you stupid socialists do. Sigh. It's you, who is the collectivist. I am pro anarchism. Anarchist communities beyond the state do not have debt, and therefore no economy and no business. They are self-sufficient. No debt - no GDP. Monetarism and austrianism is mickey-mouse economics. |
|
|
|
The velocity is not relevant. If you sell a bitcoin to me and buy it back tomorrow, we won't have additional GDP. Additional credit (debt) leads to additional GDP.
Velocity is relevant when the trades are in exchange for goods and services, which applies to everything I wrote in the posts upthread. A bitcoin is a goody. If you sell a bitcoin to me and buy it back tomorrow, we won't have additional GDP. Additional credit (debt) leads to additional GDP. It depends on how you compute the GDP. As far as I know, currency exchanges are not counted as goods and services in the computation of GDP. However, purchases and sales of assets I believe are counted. When you buy and sell a house, this indeed does cause people in the economy to earn salaries and commissions, and thus does increase the GDP. Buy and selling BTC does also to some extent. Sorry if you are arguing that velocity of money has no relationship to GDP, then I should just ignore you as being retarded. It is quite obvious that the rate at which money changes hands in the economy, effects the amount of salaries and commissions earned by humans and thus the level of the economic activity. Additional Salaries and commissions can only be earned and payed, if somebody else creates additional debt/credit. No economy ever in history did bartering itself up. It's the (additional) debt, stupid. |
|
|
|
The velocity is not relevant. If you sell a bitcoin to me and buy it back tomorrow, we won't have additional GDP. Additional credit (debt) leads to additional GDP.
Velocity is relevant when the trades are in exchange for goods and services, which applies to everything I wrote in the posts upthread. A bitcoin is a goody. If you sell a bitcoin to me and buy it back tomorrow, we won't have additional GDP. Additional credit (debt) leads to additional GDP. |
|
|
|
October 10 to June 11 we saw a 500-fold price increase. The actual bubble is still very small in relation to that one.  |
|
|
|
Got some bads news for you and I'll let you figure it out on your own. Violence works. It always starts as "peacefule" demonstrations in the streets and then accelerates into someone shooting someone else. Always. "A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery. It cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another." Mao Zedong. Not that I advocate violence but let's get real here, mkay? My $.02.  A hyper collective beyond Dunbars Numbers is always and per definition organized by organized violence (aka the state/church mafia). Capitalism is collectivism. No state - no market. |
|
|
|
|
The velocity is not relevant. If you sell a bitcoin to me and buy it back tomorrow, we won't have additional GDP. Additional credit (debt) leads to additional GDP.
|
|
|
|
Actually, this (misconception) points out very clearly why Bitcoin/Gold are on the same side opposite modern day fiat.
Modern day fiat monetary systems are almost all 'debt based'. The currency is actually created by someone going into debt and extinguished by someone going out of debt through one means or another. The paradox is that if there were not debt, there would be no money. This explains, among other things, why pretty much everyone and every corporate and government is in debt.
Money has always been debt based. The state mafia indebted the people from the very beginning with a tax (debt ex nihilo). To pay this debt you had to produce more than a stateless, selfsufficient community, and that enforces the nationalized people ( society) to borrow more and more. The state mafia itself is also indebted from the very beginning. The henchmen get a promise by the state mafia to be paid with the money they have to collect. Debt is always the base of the money, wheter it is backed by metal, grain or any other property, which is the case today. Private debt is backed by private property. And that will never change. But there is a very important distinction. When the base money (that the debt or fractional receipts are based on) can't be created by a power center, then the debt write-downs (defaults and bank runs) are more frequent and self-liquidating. This is what we had in the 1800s. When the free market is allowed to run, the downturns only last about 2 years, e.g. the 1919 depression that no one remembers. Whereas when government tries to stop the write-down, then it drags on for decades, e.g. 1929 to 1946. And 2007 - 2024. Yes, but 'free market' is an oxymoron. The market has always been a state bastard; organized, enforced and controlled by the state (mafia). The state is the player in the game that makes the game (supracommunal collectivism) dysfunctional from the very beginning. The state doesn't write down its own debt and therefore the state is growing in the long run in relation to the private part of the economy. Collapse of society is always predetermined as soon as a society is established (transformation of the human into a cartoon of itself: the citizen, by organized violence through the eternal complicity of military and church). Historically and empirically there is only one alternative to the society (collectivism): the self-sufficient community beyond the state and the market. In the rainforest, some communities are living self-sufficient until today: beyond the state and beyond the market. Beyond the state there is no need for a market. Sorry for my poor english. Ignore this guy. I read his posts upthread and he is suffering the goldbug delusion. I don't have time to correct all his wrong thinking.
I already had a long discussion with him and others about anarchy vs. patriarchy ... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155570.msg2311170#msg2311170https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155570.msg2311504#msg2311504https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155570.msg2316060#msg2316060https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155570.msg2360803#msg2360803https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155570.msg2365513#msg2365513https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155570.msg2370741#msg2370741https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155570.msg2376880#msg2376880https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155570.msg2379142#msg2379142... and the fairytales of the aristocrats from Vienna. Austrians are not anarchists, they are minarchists (=collectivists). https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=239609.msg2573373#msg2573373https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=239609.msg2601822#msg2601822https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=239609.msg2611507#msg2611507 |
|
|
|
Actually, this (misconception) points out very clearly why Bitcoin/Gold are on the same side opposite modern day fiat.
Modern day fiat monetary systems are almost all 'debt based'. The currency is actually created by someone going into debt and extinguished by someone going out of debt through one means or another. The paradox is that if there were not debt, there would be no money. This explains, among other things, why pretty much everyone and every corporate and government is in debt.
Money has always been debt based. The state mafia indebted the people from the very beginning with a tax (debt ex nihilo). To pay this debt you had to produce more than a stateless, selfsufficient community, and that enforces the nationalized people ( society) to borrow more and more. The state mafia itself is also indebted from the very beginning. The henchmen get a promise by the state mafia to be paid with the money they have to collect. Debt is always the base of the money, wheter it is backed by metal, grain or any other property, which is the case today. Private debt is backed by private property. |
|
|
|
I support anyone's right to disagree. Anyone could form a group of like-minded peers and make an attempt to give bitcoin a special legal status that can disregard laws. A status that allows you to receive stolen goods or transfer money around the world with no need to obey international agreements. But I don't think it will work.
You're not fooling anyone with this doublespeak. Working with regulators is the opposite of supporting the right to disagree, because regulation is in fact suppressing disagreement with unilateral measures up to and including sending armed thugs to kidnap people who disagree and lock them in a cage. And for the last time I don't give a fuck about Bitcoin's legal status, and neither should anyone else. In fact, we should assume that's illegal and make sure our infrastructure is robust enough that it doesn't matter. FinCEN and their ilk in the District of Criminals are the enforcement arm of the Manhattan Financial Crimes Mafia. They are gangsters and we should be using all available resources to protect society from them. Exactly. This is the hand, the hand that takes ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VIqA3i2zQwhttp://www.absolutelyrics.com/lyrics/view/laurie_anderson/o_superman |
|
|
|
Man, Peter sound but-hurt. I almost feel a little sorry for him.
The guy at least gets that 'one Bitcoin' is just a matter of setting a decimal point so he beats about 90% of people, but that's definitely a 'thinnest kid at fat camp' sort of a thing. He has yet to put a little arithmetic into the problem though.
Yo, Pete: Try this:
Fiat: backed by law.
Gold: backed by physics.
Bitcoin: backed by mathematics.
Gold and Bitcoin are very similar when compared to fiat.
You can choose as money what you want. It was always valued in debt and debt is backed by the law of the state mafia. No state: no debt. No debt: no value of FIAT/Gold/Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Using some form of log regression doesn't make sense to you, but drawing a random line does?
Yes, because a line that is painted by a genius of prediction has more predictive value than a regression line which includes the very first periods of trading. |
|
|
|
Drawing a line through $0.06 and $2 is simplistic. Yes, but I guess, that a linear regression, which includes the very first period of trading is not only simplistic, but stupid as well. Is linear regression perfect? No.
I think, it can be an accurate method, but not if you include periods which can't be relevant for the future, and such a period is the very beginning of the game, say the first 1-2 years of trading. Many other indicators support the view, that the increase is flattening out with time passing: http://blockchain.info/charts/blocks-size?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=1&address=Still for the sake of argument lets pretend you "randomly picked and drawn line" was a perfect predictor of price on a long term scale. You still really haven't shown that the trend is unsustainable.
I have shown that the trend is flattening out within the shown period. Bitcoin is risky and there have been a lot of risk "hits" in the last year (FinCEN, MtGox getting seized, SR closed, various exchange hacks/thefts, etc). It is entirely possible that risk is discounting the actual price from the trend line and as Bitcoin gets bigger (possibly growing below the trend line but still growing. As Bitcoin gets bigger much of that risk will be reduced and you could see the price rise up to meet the trend line some years in the future. Simply put drawing a line across three years of data and saying it is broken long term while the price followed the trend just discounted from is .... well silly.
Maybe, but I think it is not more silly than to include the very first periods of trading into a prediction based on linear regression. Thank you for hearing me .. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj_xKA5C2vU |
|
|
|
edited: You are right, 500-fold only, 0.06 to 32
October 10 - June 11; which is included in the linear regression, which will never happen again.
Nevermind. I see you still didn't educate yourself on what linear regression means. No, I think I know what it means. a segment of the data can contain such an increase but that doesn't mean that the extrapolation of the line of best fit ever includes such a rapid growth again. In fact, the crash post 32 pulled down that line a lot by all chance.
But not down enough: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=328186.msg3561426#msg3561426 |
|
|
|
$0.10 to $32 (as an unsustainable peak which crashed back to ~$2) isn't a thousand fold increase.
Unsustainable was not only the trend line to the peak, but the trend from 0.06 to USD 2 as well:  |
|
|
|
It's arguably the best starting assumption, though. At least a straight line that is a best fit for the data is the simplest starting assumption. Occam's razor suggests not making it more complicated without particular reason, and it seems to me there's enough shooting in the dark as is that there's a very high bar on adding more complexity to the trendline.
True. You'll note I said that I'm not rejecting linear regression at all. Just that I want everyone to be clear about the assumptions made. For me, it is useless in this case, because a thousandfold price increase within some months is possible exclusively in the very beginning. Or does somebody really believe that this could be repeated later in the game? Where do you see a "thousandfold price increase within some months" anywhere in the above chart? The analysis basically said: 10-fold increase each year. In reality, we're above the price predicted by that line right now. edited: You are right, 500-fold only, 0.06 to 32 October 10 - June 11; which is included in the linear regression, which will never happen again. |
|
|
|
It's arguably the best starting assumption, though. At least a straight line that is a best fit for the data is the simplest starting assumption. Occam's razor suggests not making it more complicated without particular reason, and it seems to me there's enough shooting in the dark as is that there's a very high bar on adding more complexity to the trendline.
True. You'll note I said that I'm not rejecting linear regression at all. Just that I want everyone to be clear about the assumptions made. For me, it is useless in this case, because a thousandfold price increase within some months is possible exclusively in the very beginning. Or does somebody really believe that this could be repeated later in the game? |
|
|
|
Right, but if you change the line by selecting a subset of the data, you should be able to describe your methodology and a reason why it should be accepted as a model. I have a feeling your methodology was "this looks good".
Yes, pure guessing based on the assumption that the 8 month-period of October 10 to June 11, in which the price went up thousandfold, will never be repeated again. Then, instead of pure guessing, just start a logarithmic regression line after June 11 and post that. Just drawing an eyeballed line IS simply less legitimate. 1) I'm completely free to paint what I want. 2) I think, linear regression doesn't make sense even if we exclude the first Bubble. |
|
|
|
Right, but if you change the line by selecting a subset of the data, you should be able to describe your methodology and a reason why it should be accepted as a model. I have a feeling your methodology was "this looks good".
Yes, pure guessing based on the assumption that the 8 month-period of October 10 to June 11, in which the price went up thousandfold, will never be repeated again. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
