1. you presume the cost of regulation compares to the entry costs. establishing a rental properly is non-cheap, even if you toss out all regulations down to building codes. No, I dont. 2. what do you consider" government intervention"? does allowing limited liability qualify? yes |
|
|
|
Baseless statement that is a direct affront to the evidence provided in this thread. Baseless statement is baseless. Try again. Says the king of hand waiving. AyeYo you become more sureal as time goes. |
|
|
|
Savings in Bitcoin are actually old transactions. Yes, that were already payed. No, one can not pay for storage in advance since the use time is only measurable in retrospective. But it is not up to you to decide what type of cost should happen. Let the miners (and up to some point users) decide what is the best course of action. Why do you want to impose your criteria over the rest? Whats wrong with letting miners (and up to some point users) decide the best way to handle the costs (and benefits) of the network? When you let people decide on their own you get amazing creative solutions.
I am a miner and personally think the solution I suggest is rational, and some might find it even amazing and support. Thanks for your time, your questions helped me to develop and present the proposal. I admit it is not addressing a pressing problem until miner using home equipment feel adequately rewarded with freshly minted money. But better have a plan for the time thereafter. Im a miner as well, and I think you (and everybody) should keep in mind that Bitcoin is a voluntary currency. Anyone can drop its use at any time, so its very important to offer a good product (the product being money) and to keep confidence. You might be used to fiat currency, but people dont use it because they like it, they use it because its a monopolly. If you start abusing with the Bitcoin users, a lot of them might drop the currency, specially if there is competition (other voluntary currencies, maybe similar to Bitcoin). Its of no use to have more of something that has little value. |
|
|
|
We need fair markets for basic/vital goods and free markets for expendable goods. Can we have it the other way around? If we are going to have expensive prices, bad quality and even shortages I would preffer that it would ben on expendable goods and not on basic/vital goods. I don't buy into economic theories, I want economy to work for the people and not the opposite. Yes, so do most of the rest. That is why they study economic theory. Someone (Keynes) said: " If people need food and houses to live in, they need those things to be cheap enough (controlled market). Its the other way around. When government regulates it allows companies to avoid competition and introduces a lot of innecesary overhead. This produces more expensive and of less quality products. If you want food to be available for everyone, deregulate. If you want it expensive and bad quality regulate. If people want Ipods, well, that's not a primary necessity and you can let it's price float in a free market. If you have to regulate something, please regulate the iPods, not the food, otherwise you hurt people. Free markets are a chimera because of PRIVATE monopolies, not because of the government. Therefore we can't afford to have free markets(=private monopolies) for 1st necessity goods. This is economics 101. Monopolies can only happen because of government intervention. Please, check the origin of the word monopolly and when it changed of meaning. You will be surprised. |
|
|
|
|
Why do people complain about Bitcoin not being inflationary with the amount of inflationary currencies around the world? Almost all of them are inflationary. Its not like you dont have a choice...
|
|
|
|
"could"
Agreed. Also, time has a value. |
|
|
|
Savings in Bitcoin are actually old transactions. Yes, that were already payed. Their security is proportional to the processing power that was committed to the chain since they were transacted. That processing power had real cost to those operating the network.
This is the storage cost I refer to. But it is not up to you to decide what type of cost should happen. Let the miners (and up to some point users) decide what is the best course of action. Why do you want to impose your criteria over the rest? Whats wrong with letting miners (and up to some point users) decide the best way to handle the costs (and benefits) of the network? When you let people decide on their own you get amazing creative solutions. My proposal is to charge cost of storage by applying a minimum transaction cost proportional to the age of the source and amount for a new transaction. I need no philosophy or monetary policy behind the proposal it stands on economic logic. At the end of the day you can argue all you want, but the best path of action is to leave it to the miners to decide how they want to fund themselves. And if someone is not happy about it, he/she can jump in and compete with them (or start a new currency with more like-minded miners).
I am initiating thinking, I belive is rational, this is how things change or fork. |
|
|
|
That theory about energy and money is false and its easily demostrable. Its not science, not even close. But I decided some time ago to not loose time with people that dont want to reason. Anyway, good luck.
I am not aware of a theory you seem to refer to linking energy with money, and If I were, I was unlikely supportive of that. I do however believe that energy is needed to keep Bitcoins alive and secure. This universe will not make an exception for Bitcoins. The discussion is about who picks up the bill for that energy. Ok. Then its my mistake and I apologize for jumping to conclussions. I read second law of thermodinamycs and I though you were a monetary wacko. I re-read it and see now what you meant. But I think its a bit meaningless, someone could argue that the miners are there to keep the transactions valid, so only people doing transactions should pay. At the end of the day you can argue all you want, but the best path of action is to leave it to the miners to decide how they want to fund themselves. And if someone is not happy about it, he/she can jump in and compete with them (or start a new currency with more like-minded miners). |
|
|
|
I stopped reading at second law of thermodynamics.
You reject listening to scientific arguments and repeat dogmas. Im an engineer. I know how to recognize between science and charlatanery. This was a rather weak argument. Try again. Please start the competition. I really do want competition to Bitcoin.
I wish for a living standard not for a religious community.  I as an atheist wish for the same. I really dont understand what all this have to do with monetary policy. We are not talking about monetary policy, but allocation of costs of a system of common interest. Your unconditional but weakly argumented support for savings at no cost sounds like a dogma. No, Im actually done. When I saw that thing about the second law of thermodinamics I realize where you are comming from and the fallacies you believe in. That theory about energy and money is false and its easily demostrable. Its not science, not even close. But I decided some time ago to not loose time with people that dont want to reason. Anyway, good luck. |
|
|
|
nakowa, HD 6990 is not the best card for mining
too expensive. a cheaper 5xxx series will get you more Mhash for your $ AND use less power and run cooler
so you seem far from an 'expert' to me with your naive advice to buy expensive gear.
Really? Which cards do you recommend because I was planning to buy one 6990. The 5870 and 5970 are the more energy efficient (cheaper electricity bill). The 5850 and 5830 are usually the best for initial cost per MH/s but it really depends at the price you buy them (and you have to think that if you plan in selling it at some point, the series 6 will be easier to sell than the serie 5, but this is only important if you plan on selling). |
|
|
|
I stopped reading at second law of thermodynamics.
You reject listening to scientific arguments and repeat dogmas. Im an engineer. I know how to recognize between science and charlatanery. Please start the competition. I really do want competition to Bitcoin.
I wish for a living standard not for a religious community. I as an atheist wish for the same. I really dont understand what all this have to do with monetary policy. |
|
|
|
You might not like the direction of transfer but the proposal does not change the quantity of currency therefore is not inflationary through money creation. Yes, I already said that. Its not monetarely inflationary, it is price inflationary. Let me address your remaining argument the demand for currency:
People demand for currency in my opinion for purposes including:
- medium of exchange
- store of wealth
You argue the store has to come for free. No. Bitcoin storage is not free btw. I argue that you should not impose a artificial fee on storage. If miners decide that they dont want to support long time savers and want to charge them a more expensive fee, that is alright with me, but there is no need to have it by default. Let the miners decide their business model as they see fit. And please stop putting words in my mouth. I think that:
1. usability for storage is not eliminated by storage costs since all things relative. As long as it is competitive with other storage forms does not change the game. You will not buy anything for saving that depreciates faster.
2. if store is for free people will use it primarily for that purpose and seek an other way to do exchange. Which is bad for BTC economy to grow. It is a historic fact that savings promote long term growth, while economies that penalize savings go into consumption frencies that stop growth. But lets avoid discussing your opinion and my opinion, and let the miners and users decide by themselves. Yes. In this case the force is the second law of thermodynamics. Bitcoin savings exist because energy is continually expended to keep them secure. If savers do not pay for that somebody else does or the systems stops and saving destroyed. I stopped reading at second law of thermodynamics. I should have said depreciation of saving not currency. I think this is causing the disagreement. Neither me nor you want a depreciating currency that is actually inflation.
Cost on storage of savings is perceived by the saver as depreciation of his wealth but this is his view only. The miner who receives the storage cost perceives the same as return on investment. The currency in whole is not affected, this is not currency depreciation. There is nothing stopping the miners from implementing this by themselves if they see its needed. It would not be too late to balance out BItcoin between interest of saver and miner. Now these groups are nearly the same, that is why no one moans. If chance is missed, yes that gives room to competition. Please start the competition. I really do want competition to Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
There are three things backing the US dollar:
1. Trade in oil. Need to have dollars to buy it (although that's now less so than in the recent past)
2. USA is the world's largest economy. You'll get dollars for your goods.
3. Guns. Lots of guns. With nukes on top. World's best military buys a lot of respect.
I would say that ultimately reason #3 is the part that is holding all together. Without the army the dollar would collapse. Oil is still sold in dollars because the USA has the biggest military, and the USA economy is still working after so much abuse only because it has the world reserve currency that again is thanks to the military. There is a reason why the USA has bases all over the world and the rest of the countries dont. |
|
|
|
The other alternative for exchanges outside of a government body would be self-regulation. If an exchange participates in a self-regulation organization and follows a set of established best practices, the exchange would get a stamp of approval to publicize to customers and improve credibility. Over time, exchanges that participate would most likely gain share faster than ones that did not abide by the exchange industry's best practices in security, third-party auditing, claims handling, etc. Im not discussing which system is best. I personally distrust any regulated system. But in the eyes of a lot of people a regulated exchange has more credibility. Separately, while there is a lot of animosity in the BTC community regarding the US financial system, the FDIC and SIPC seem to be good ideas that may make sense to implement for exchanges and other eWallet providers that hold customer funds. These organizations provide insurance in the event of bankruptcy of a deposit-holding company, reimbursing customer for their lost funds up to a certain amount. This might also give newbies more faith in the system. The FDIC and SIPC are horrible ideas because protects reckless business. The exchanges doing it voluntarely would be a different issue since they would have the incentive to police each other to avoid someone abusing, because they would have to pay for it. |
|
|
|
|
Im getting lots of miner iddles. The weird thing is that if I restart the miner they will get work.
All this disconnects are probably why the total output of the pool dropped to 1800. The situation is getting ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
AMDOverdriveCtrl is pretty buggy. the -b flag doesn't engage the custom fan profile in the .ovdr file. Also, when creating a custom .ovdr profile, the clock setting would revert back to whatver default level was set in the gui. Settling on aticonfig commands ended up being the way to go. AMDOverdriveCtrl is rock solid. As I said you need to set the fanspeed in the GUI in order to be saved in the profile, but you can edit the file and do it yourself. The big advantage of AMDOverdriveCtrl is that it lets you change the voltage, either overvolting fro more speed or undervolting for less consumption, while aticonfig does not. Also, personally I find that being able to save a profile is more confortable and quick, but that is jus me. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Mhash/s per FPGA: 150 - 165 Mhash/s (temp-dependent) Consumption? |
|
|
|
Its called financial repression. By making the currency less than fully convertible, the locals are forced to accept low returns on their savings so local businesses get access to cheap capital. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_repressionIts worked well for China and Malaysia as countries but its very harsh on people with savings in those countries. It may work well for you guys as well. But you are probably wise to assume that Bitcoin is a good investment for Indonesians. I find it funny how economists come up with this fancy names to explain what was usually called inflate the debt away. I have to admit that "financial repression" sounds very good. |
|
|
|
It would redistribute money, not create any new. I do not see how it would be inflationary. It would not redistribute money in the typical sense that word is used. It would incentivate spending it instead of saving it. It would be price inflationary because people would not want to hold it. If you destroy the demand for the currency, even without changing its supply, its value goes down because you are changing the demand. My point was that there were long periods with depreciating currencies. Which is not addressing my point, since I said that said currencies do not last UNLESS imposed by force. As for the inflation I adressed above. With the clarification I hope I make clear what I mean and you can answer to it. For the Merchant BTC is not a store of wealth but a medium of exchange. He is more concerned of transaction costs, since moves much more money than he earns. But someone at some point will have to accumulate bitcoins in order to make big investments, like expanding the business. You are penalizing this type of behaviour and I predit that a lot of merchants will choose a currency that does not penalize saving if given the choice. I honestly hope that some competing currency to Bitcoin with depreciating or inflationary characteristics appears so you and anyone else can see for yourself. Transaction costs might become high explicitly because miner demand more profit or implicitly because unprofitable mining stops and network security endangers transactions. If miners do become annoyed with people having bitcoin savings, they can always refuse to process their transactions unless they give a big fee, which would be similar to your propposal. There is no need to impose it beforehand. If miners really become annoyed as you claim they can already react to it with the present implementation. |
|
|
|
There is a difference between consume and investment. Yes, so? A tiny cost of storage on money does not make you buy something you do not need, but makes you think on how to recoup it by e.g. running a miner that earns that and thereby securing the network. Really? You really think the reaction to the majority of the people would be: Hey, lets install a mining rig! The ones that wanted to would anyways, and the rest would not anyways. Your proposal is just an incentive to spend bitcoins quickly, triggering a inflationary spiral. Btw, you keep using this languate like tiny cost, small transaction, it needs to be done, etc... The fact that you add a subjective adjective to give the impression that it would be acceptable or that kind of rethoric does not impress me. Its a bad sign when debating someone actually. A storage cost does not necessarily eliminates saving incentives, since all things relative. If storage cost is smaller than the effect of built in deflation then it does not change the game. It changes the game. You might argue that not enough, but it changes the game. Remember that even holding gold has a storage cost either explicit for the vault or implicit by the chance that it could be stolen or lost if not in vault. Bitcoin can be stolen as well so that cost does not apply here. As for the rest, I might own gold and not be paying any storage. But still, I dont see your point. The fact that gold has the phisical need of being sotred and some people pay for that service does not change the fact that with Bitcoin is not necesary and any competitor that tries to impose that cost will have to fight against Bitcoin, that does not. Just a side note: Gold standard was a depreciating currency in fact for thousands of years. It depreciated by the fact that new kings used to clip the old coins. I dont support the gold standard, and there are a lot of types of gold standard very different from each other. I dont really get your comment. You have avoided addressing the problem of the inflationary spiral. Why would merchants accept a currency that they can not hold for long (or its devaluated) when anyone can easily create a currency that has the same properties except for the fact that it does not depreciate over time. How would your currency compete against that? (there is a reason why this kind of currencies are imposed and do not last long if done voluntarely). If you think it can, you should start your own currency and prove it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
