Snake Oil Salesmen Refuse Payment, news at 11.
Yeah that Thrive stuff is a bunch of BS, I wouldn't bother with them.. |
|
|
|
|
Ahh I didn't know that which sucks. I retract my pledge then.
|
|
|
|
http://youtu.be/ub0Th1ewlws?t=58mBullshit. My ears are bleeding. Yes, thank you God, you are so great.  This has been written in the early 1900s and published in 1910. Just a reminder. When I got to the god part I immediately turned it off. |
|
|
|
|
Personally I don't mind if we stay around this price for the next 6 month. I think the Bitcoin economy could really benefit for a repeat 4-6 months of price stability before the next up move.
|
|
|
|
|
I really don't care who writes it as long it's based on empirical evidence and logic and makes sense to me. If it'll meet these criteria and is of the appropriate length, I'll pay up.
|
|
|
|
|
I pledge 1BTC if the submitted material of 1000 - 2000 words also satisfies me.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin definitely does challenge Mise's Regression theorem. In order to emerge as a "money", an asset must already have been demanded for non-monetary reasons. Bitcoin never had an initial non-monetary use.
There are three ways you can proceed with this.
1. Actually, it did have an initial non-monetary use... In its initial form Bitcoin was valued as a sign of geekiness, a demonstration of one's devotion to technology etc etc. From this initial non-monetary seed, a certain degree of moneyness began to attach itself to Bitcoin.
2. No, Bitcoin never had a non-monetary use. It's intrinsically worthless. It's a ponzi scheme. In the short term, people can irrationally bid up the price to some non-zero amount. But in the long term the rational of the regression theorem requires that the price of Bitcoin fall to zero.
3. The regression theorem is wrong.
I think it did have an initial non-monetary use, specifically it was valued as a collectible. I don't think that guy that was prepared to barter 1 pizza for 10k BTC did so because he though bitcoins were money and he could get the same or more value out of them at a later point but I think it's much more likely he though they were cool and rare and wanted to hold some and thought the price of a pizza is fair while disregarding whether or not he will ever be able to find another person who would accept them for something else. This argument is explained a bit more thoroughly here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=116951.msg1256337#msg1256337 and in the post following that one. Even before the pizza guy there was a market being made here: http://newlibertystandard.wetpaint.com/page/2009+Exchange+Rate"During 2009 my exchange rate was calculated by dividing $1.00 by the average amount of electricity required to run a computer with high CPU for a year, 1331.5 kWh, multiplied by the the average residential cost of electricity in the United States for the previous year, $0.1136, divided by 12 months divided by the number of bitcoins generated by my computer over the past 30 days." Not sure how much was transacted. But it's an odd way to calculate price. Yeah but that's really the cost of manufacturing not really a valuation by a market.. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin definitely does challenge Mise's Regression theorem. In order to emerge as a "money", an asset must already have been demanded for non-monetary reasons. Bitcoin never had an initial non-monetary use.
There are three ways you can proceed with this.
1. Actually, it did have an initial non-monetary use... In its initial form Bitcoin was valued as a sign of geekiness, a demonstration of one's devotion to technology etc etc. From this initial non-monetary seed, a certain degree of moneyness began to attach itself to Bitcoin.
2. No, Bitcoin never had a non-monetary use. It's intrinsically worthless. It's a ponzi scheme. In the short term, people can irrationally bid up the price to some non-zero amount. But in the long term the rational of the regression theorem requires that the price of Bitcoin fall to zero.
3. The regression theorem is wrong.
I think it did have an initial non-monetary use, specifically it was valued as a collectible. I don't think that guy that was prepared to barter 1 pizza for 10k BTC did so because he though bitcoins were money and he could get the same or more value out of them at a later point but I think it's much more likely he though they were cool and rare and wanted to hold some and thought the price of a pizza is fair while disregarding whether or not he will ever be able to find another person who would accept them for something else. This argument is explained a bit more thoroughly here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=116951.msg1256337#msg1256337 and in the post following that one. |
|
|
|
|
OP I think you are mainly trolling here and that's why I don't really see a point in trying to explain it to you. Basically I think that it will take the actual empirical end result of this experiment to shut people like you up that's why all we need to answer your questions is time.
|
|
|
|
Oh come on, don't tell me you can't cough up $3 for his awesome site? We complained the price was too high, now that he lowered it we should buy again, I already did.
$3 or $3 a month? $3 a month I may just have to bite. Its a lot more reasonable than it was before as far as I can remember. He started out with something like $2 or something but then he raised the price to a ridiculous a bit above $10. It's a reasonable price now again I think so I bought 30days. |
|
|
|
Oh come on, don't tell me you can't cough up $3 for his awesome site? We complained the price was too high, now that he lowered it we should buy again, I already did.
$3 or $3 a month? $3 a month |
|
|
|
|
Oh come on, don't tell me you can't cough up $3 for his awesome site? We complained the price was too high, now that he lowered it we should buy again, I already did.
|
|
|
|
|
What idiot would sell 10k BTC Sunday night when the weekend plunge is almost over?!
|
|
|
|
Just to say, I think I've seen people merge threads on other boards using this software so there may be a way. Oh? I need to check into that! Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
There is no official Bitcoin forum.
|
|
|
|
But in that case where would our attentions be directed?
Simple: inovation! Imagine those 60 or 70% of stuff that we don't really need but we produce because the system incentivizes endless consumption through low interest rates, all that wealth and resources could have been spent on R&D. It's impossible to comprehend how much further along we as a species in our development could already be, were it not for some people thinking they own others. |
|
|
|
Why would you want to tell others adults what to do with their money and ther life?
I don't want to do that. Every time you open your mouth in this thread it's exactly what you want to do. Like in this same post: Who do you think you are that you think you can decide for other people what they should or shouldn't protect and the manner in which they would like to protect it?
I'm not, we develop and implement rules as a society. We attempt to form our society based on the best interests of that society. Bullshit, a small group of people thinks it's ok to develop and implement rules for everyone else and force everyone to follow those rules with violence. I never agreed to be part of your so called society. These generalized freedom arguments are so childish unless you think that everyone should be allowed anthrax and nuclear weapons in their homes. Why can't crazy fred protect his imaginary friend with mustard gas? Because, society.
Yes, I do think everyone can do whatever they want on their property as long as they don't hurt me or my property. And whatever includes owning nuclear weapons and anthrax. But when I'm on my property, I'm king, and I can do what ever the hell I want if I'm not hurting anyone else or their property. Only a psychopath could suggest otherwise.
However I do agree with you and I will give up the idea of owning a gun when everyone else does too (including so called police and military or private security).
So then please explain why you shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear or chemical weapons in your home. I never said I shouldn't be. If people were completely free, meaning they had complete control and ownership over their body and the complete control and ownership over their property, owning nuclear weapons is someone thing they could do. Btw people can still do this, even if there are some words on a piece of paper written somewhere that they must not. |
|
|
|
I haven't watched the video, so I hope I'm not just repeating ...
You should definitely watch the video because you don't have the full picture of what was going on. |
|
|
|
The only reason why I moved some threads discussing what ever aspect of Bitcoin Foundation with whatever opinion and not others is a time difference.
Specifically I moved all treads in the initial time period after the announcement when I thought I'd eventually move the announcement as well, I did so regardless of who started the thread and what it was about. And I now leave all threads in the time period after I was instructed to leave the announcement in Bitcoin Discussion and that I can do the same with threads commenting on it, and again I do so regardless of who started the thread and what it was about.
The inconsistency is a result of me trying to be consisted in the beginning and me being given my instructions and readjusting my moderation so that it could again be consistent. Anyone reading anything more than this into my actions is seeing motives or actions that just aren't part of reality.
is that yellow ignore button of yours not reality also? is the fact that you used the stupid "off topic" excuse to censor/delete my critical comments within seconds of posting to avoid embarassment also not reality? I didn't censor anything, I split the topic and moved your off topic posts to the appropriate section and deleted the few other off topic posts that you kept posting in the initial thread only because I couldn't split those and merge with the split thread as I've explained myself here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=118086.msg1267686#msg1267686and here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=118086.msg1268026#msg1268026 |
|
|
|
Btw I'm not trying to hold the Canadian model before 1935 as some hallmark of how free banking is done, I understand that, but you are trying to make the argument that the free market had something to do with it, which it did not. Not so at all. I'm trying to show that a system can perform ok when there isn't a specific kind of government intervention that would cause otherwise. it's just an example of a system that didn't have the same futile regulation as the US but also had no central bank that performed better, although far from the best. Quite debatable. http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/encyclopedia/BankinginCanada-CanadianBanks-CanadianHistory.htmAll the charters were alike and, therefore, the Bank of Montreal charter may be taken as typical. A study of this charter shows clearly that it was taken directly from that of the first Bank of the United States , which had been planned by Alexander Hamilton, the first secretary of the Treasury of the United States . Thus the Canadian banking system is a direct descendant - the only surviving one of the first Bank of the United States. You also failed to mention:
Meaning this "effective central bank" instantly got competition and in no way resembled a central bank of the European model.
I didn't fail to mention it, the Bank of Kingston quickly failed and was irrelevant. There were others, though: Through the collapse of the private Bank of Upper Canada at Kingston and the inability of the Bank of Kingston to get going within the period of its charter, the Bank of Upper Canada obtained a monopoly of banking within the province and hoped to keep it. With its control of the Legislative Council it could have thwarted all efforts to obtain new charters, but a financial crisis in 1821-2 made it necessary for the bank to apply to the legislature for a reduction in its capital and for other considerations. This gave the Assembly an opportunity to protest the monopoly, but it was not until 1832, however, that another charter - that of the Commercial Bank of the Midland District - was granted to the financial interests of Kingston whose first charter had lapsed. The Bank of Upper Canada had its charter extended in the same year. The point is that there were very, very few of them and they all had central bank-like charters. No, they were not central banks per se, but it is much more difficult for a national bank to fail than a regional one. Reserves can be re-allocated to areas that need it whereas regional banks have no choice but to fail under pressure. And once some regional banks start failing, panic generally ensues. And the supply of money was hardly fixed under this system, but that is another topic, I suppose. Yes it's quite important that we are exact. They didn't have a central bank, this is non debatable. Because what they really had was a private competitive banking system comprised of a just a few by the state allowed banks, a system that in no way was the result of a free market. Again neither I nor Dr. Salgin are raising the Canadian model as some kind of ideal or a role model that a market regulated strictly by it's consumers i.e. a free market would come up with, just that a banking system without a central bank can work reasonable well when there are no regulations that would fatally flaw such a system. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
