guess he wants to do arbitrage, but yeah, that's why arbitrage is not so easy after all and there are still quite significant price differences sometimes at the various exchanges.

Mich dünkt Sie sind ein Maulwurf von der NSA oder vom BND HerrPD. 

Mining-Power beschränken, damit ihr euern 51%-Angriff starten könnt, ja ja. 

do not trust statistics you didn't forge yourself.  



and the recent price drop is rigged of course. Any gold bug will tell you! It's because they're getting rid of the those funny gold certificates, and get the real stuff instead.  

Well unfortunately, reality is a bit more complex than this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOBD6v8g1F4 

Witziger Name, aber wenn du ernsthaft eine Internet-Währung künstlich national beschränken willst... ich persönlich finde das... nun ja... reaktionär.


Verstehe nicht. Was meinst du mit Bandbreite?


wozu?


Gerechtigkeitsempfinden ist erfahrungsgemäß eine sehr subjektive Angelegenheit.


Solange man eine P2P-Währung nicht an ein Bruttosozialprodukt oder Warenkorb oder sowas (also was externes) bindet (dann ist's aber kein neutrales Protokoll mehr, sondern wird furchtbar politisch), wird's immer "kranke Spekulationen" geben.

Aber z.B. die Leute von Freicoin versuchen mit Umlaufgebühr die Funktion als Tauschmittel zu verbessern. Kannst dich ja anschließen. Viel Erfolg! (bezweifel ich persönlich jedoch)

Shit looks much like Gold actually.

why should a game company adopt bitcoin when they can create their in-game currencies out of thin air?

they might even achieve significant real value.

heck, it might even be a business model. See OpenCoin and XRP (Ripple).

Cult leaders like Molyneux may preach such things all day, but this just fails at reality. The devil just always shits on the greatest heap, as we say in Germany.

Regulation is necessary, in a less hierarchical society it's just that it must happen in bottom-up initiatives through the people.

Back to topic, guys? 

Turns out Moore's Law is both correct and incorrect.

But in a way it's not so favorable to Bitcoin.

Single core processor speed as well as hard drive sizes have not significantly improved through the recent years.

That's because the desktop PC is dying. Everything goes smaller and mobile.

And these mobile devices are getting better and better. And the processors and storage media smaller and smaller.

It's only in this respect now that Moore's Law still holds true.

Either way, it's Satoshi himself who mentions that mining and blockchain storage will migrate to specialized data centers. And I'm afraid these specialists will turn out to be those corporations who don't care much if their servers cost $100,000 or a million.

I think most here would concur that wars are encouraged by the current monetary system that we have, with central banks and inflation, an economy that is in a perpetual need to destroy in order to be able to rebuild again.

I surely do hope that BTC as a debt-free currency would end such tendencies.


Because people everywhere would use the same currency? That's an argument that doesn't work in the EU with the Euro though. 

The 300 XRP are some kind of security or elaborate CAPTCHA.

Otherwise bots could create spam accounts and fake webs of trust en masse.

The size of those rocks is tightly regulated.

I think this interest thing is always a bit of a red herring.

The problem we have today is more succinctly described as socialism for the rich, and capitalism (without real capital) for the masses.

Interest the way it is often described in posts like this doesn't really exist. If anyone tells you money magically multiplies in your savings account, they are lying. They are hiding the real mechanics how things work: where value is created and where it’s sucked up. Today inflation alone outruns most grannys' savings accounts anyway.

If we have soft money (like credits or promises for future services), then we don’t need interest, because money supply can always be expanded on-the-fly by people on the spot. There is no counterparty risk. This is how it works in most LETSs (local exchange and trading systems). There’d at most be reputation loss.

If we have a hard currency (i.e. debt-free, think gold and silver or bitcoins), and I lend someone money, I carry the risk that they won’t pay back. So I charge interest. This way I can hedge against the risk of other debtors going bankrupt. Also without interest I wouldn't have any incentive to lend anyone any money in the first place.

Again, *I* carry the risk. If the debtor goes bankrupt, there’s basically nothing I can do.

The debtor is mostly a business. This means I’d basically have a share of that business. They need to produce the interest that I charge. This is also called dividends. So interest would always be backed by dividends. Interest and dividends are essentially the same.

The business can also make a loss. So I’d have negative earnings, negative interest in that month.

Yes, interest could also be negative. So you see, in an honest and not corrupted economy, everything is a transparent zero sum game. No magically multiplying money. The problem today is that banks do not have to take on such losses. They get the benefits of their investments without the risk. That’s why we have socialism for the rich.

Compound interest: another fallacy that’s often purported. If I have a share of a company, and I get dividends, and I reinvest them into the same share, what happens? The price of the share rises. Eventually it will be overvalued, and the price of the share will drop again: I will have made loss. Again, everything is correct, a zero sum game.

There was a phase of free banking in the US when things worked like that. Banking as a service mediating between lenders and debtors. If I get more and more debtors than savers, I can lower the rates for debtors and rise the rates I pay out to savers. If I get more and more savers, then I must lower the rates I pay them out. If savers compound, I must lower the rates as well. That way I’d always keep balances in check if my bank wants to stay alive.

Turns out the problem wasn't usury in this era: many banks went bankrupt. People demanded more stability, and the FED was introduced. The rest is history. Since then, the FED dictates interest rates: it’s a command economy that dictates growth without substance, mindless consumption and runaway inflation.

We now have the worst of both worlds (soft and hard currency): Money backed by nothing, it is debt (or promises, we’re held as collateral for public debt), but they charge interest on it nevertheless.

About deflation, I already wrote elsewhere:

This terminology comes from the "central bank" thinking.

Bitcoin is not "deflationary", because it is not an enforced monopoly money. It is just an asset. It follows supply and demand. So you could ask even today, why should I lend someone my dollars, if I can buy bitcoins instead? Simply because bitcoins exist, you would therefore want to charge high interest even on dollar loans. Or would you? No, because, as we see, the value of Bitcoin fluctuates; it is therefore not deflationary. And even in an economy that is dominated by the Bitcoin currency, it will have to compete with other assets that may promise higher return. So the average interest rate in an economy that is not dominated by a central bank would have nothing to do with the mainly used currency. It will rather be the median of any assets out there.

ah su auch wieder im lande, ahoi denn

mal sehen, wie die technik hinter diesem genialen patent bei einem zentralen dienstleister funktionieren könnte:

ich erzeuge eine magische zufallszahl in meiner datenbank.

ich gebe diese zufallszahl meinem kunden, die nur er und ich kennen.

der kunde sagt, bitte 10 euro mit dieser zufallszahl verknüpfen. und das muss er nicht mal über seine email machen, das kann er auch anonym (!) auf 4chan posten, falls ich's mitlese.

genial! oha, jetzt hab ich ohne erlaubnis von amazon das patent verraten. komm ich jetzt ins gefängnis?

Versicherung und Bitcoin geht nicht zusammen.

Du wirst nie nachweisen können, dass du die Bitcoins wirklich verloren hast, also dass die Adresse des "Diebs" nicht auch eigentlich dir gehört.

Was höchstens ginge ist, dass du die Bitcoins bei der Versicherung deponierst. Dann wär's halt 'ne Bank. Banken + Versicherungen, da kommt dann zusammen was zusammen gehört, nich wahr.

this transcript is from 2011.

Since then Eric Schmidt already has said he was aware of Bitcoin on some occasions. But indeed maybe JA was the first one to introduce it to him.

is jemand von euch am wochenende dort?

http://make-munich.de/

 

Looks to me it is the author who has a Kindergarten understanding. 
 
Friedman's approach would *not* be chaotic as Bitcoin, obviously. Such a fiat currency wouldn't be capped at 21 million. The public would not perceive it as a high risk investment. 
 
Bitcoin's "total chaos" and volatility comes from its uncertain future: it might be worth a lot one day, but it could also drop to zero.

removed.

but the web doesn't forget. 

http://goo.gl/lK69f