The main difference is between BTC and gold though is this is a lot easier to trade and "use" for everyday purchases, transfers etc.
Yes, as long as you have Internet at hand. The main weak spot of bitcoin is hidden where its strengths come from. You can trade in gold using some primitive scales, without Internet, electricity or whatever... It is very vulnerable without a state behind it I'm not buying that. Transporting gold from place to place is extremely vulnerable to brigandage. Storing gold anywhere makes it vulnerable to robbery. Bitcoin, not so much; it's up to you how secure or insecure your bitcoin are; there are no physical limits. I think using gold depends on the state much more than does using bitcoin. Without Internet all your bitcoins instantaneously become just digital garbage. Gold is not perfect, but it has been around as a means of exchange and store of value for almost five millennia... How would internet disappear? Just unplug your cable or turn off your wi-fi router. As easy as that... |
|
|
|
The main difference is between BTC and gold though is this is a lot easier to trade and "use" for everyday purchases, transfers etc.
Yes, as long as you have Internet at hand. The main weak spot of bitcoin is hidden where its strengths come from. You can trade in gold using some primitive scales, without Internet, electricity or whatever... It is very vulnerable without a state behind it I'm not buying that. Transporting gold from place to place is extremely vulnerable to brigandage. Storing gold anywhere makes it vulnerable to robbery. Bitcoin, not so much; it's up to you how secure or insecure your bitcoin are; there are no physical limits. I think using gold depends on the state much more than does using bitcoin. Without Internet all your bitcoins instantaneously become just digital garbage. Gold is not perfect either, but it is material and has been around as a means of exchange and store of value for almost five millennia (compare it with just five years of bitcoin, lol) despite all its drawbacks... |
|
|
|
True or not, seems weird to dump poison in the atmosphere - why not err on the side of clean air?
CO2 is not a poison. Anything is a poison in the right doses, but what about carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, methane, etc.? It is interesting to note that normal concentration of CO2 in the blood of mammals is higher than that in the atmosphere. It means that in ancient times the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were much higher than now. So, by burning coal, we just return carbon to the atmosphere that was previously taken by plants... |
|
|
|
I assume you mean "top 50 addresses"? (I don't see how one could get information about "top holders" as in persons, not addresses, for Bitcoin.) In that case, these addresses probably include business addresses of exchanges, for instance. In the USD world, you also can't include accounts that banks own into your statistics. It works both ways, i.e. a few addresses in these top 50 may well belong to the same person. I don't know if there is a way to check this, but we can for sure find (if they are yet unknown) and exclude exchange addresses (and other big businesses') out of the equation... |
|
|
|
Internet could be broken up into some isolated parts. The weak points are the submarine communications cables. Those are few in number (relatively). Other ways to cross seas and oceans, such as satellite, will quickly be confiscated by governments.
In case that after such an event two different block chains exists and connectivity is restored, I think the block chain which is the longest will be chosen. That is, if same protocol is used.
All transactions done in the other block chain will be worthless, and also the miners will lose all there earnings.
Double spending shouldn't be a problem, because then you would've access to both networks. And that isn't possible according to the assumptions.
Satellites will be even sooner turned to just garbage by a bucket of small nails thrown in the space at the required orbit (and each satellite gone to pieces yet more aggravating the situation). I think both Russian and American military sputniks can do this (blow out forming a cloud of lethal particles) in case such a need arises... |
|
|
|
Wow I'm shocked they asked you this, especially as the first question. I would have been like totally shocked and wondered why they were asking me...like how would thye know? if they asked a family member who did nothing with Bitcoins I would think it was the weirdest thing, I would wager most people at banks don't even know what Bitcoins are!
It may just happen that they study the local bitcoin community around them, i.e. how many people know about bitcoin and whether it has or may have interest to them in the future to get the advantage of being the first with their service for bitcoiners in the area... |
|
|
|
I would say:
"Used mainly for value storage, online transactions and international transfers."
I think it will be more similar to virtual gold than virtual currency.
Did you quote this or make it up yourself? It's by far one of the best explanations I've seen describing what most likely Bitcoin is starting to become and one day hopefully it will become. The main difference is between BTC and gold though is this is a lot easier to trade and "use" for everyday purchases, transfers etc. Yes, as long as you have Internet at hand. The main weak spot of bitcoin is hidden where its strengths come from. You can trade in gold using some primitive scales, without Internet, electricity or whatever... It is very vulnerable without a state behind it |
|
|
|
А чем Activity отличается от Posts?
Хотя бы эту страницу можно было прочитать, не? Ну или хотя бы этот пост, процитированный несколькими сообщениями ранее... |
|
|
|
Привет, на КриптоХабре в тестовом режиме появился форум. А какой смысл, в открытии очередного форума. Тут что, тесно ? Скорее тут много лишнего. Ага, и никакой цензуры с Роскомпозором. Под лишним, очевидно, имеется ввиду иноязычная составляющая данного форума... Не взлетит |
|
|
|
In Maths the above statement = fail
In Chem the above statement = fail
In Physics the above statement = fail
In Computer Science the above statement = fail
Even in sociology the above statement = fail
Economics is littered with examples of "formulas that don't correspond well to actual data". Then economists run a massive economic experiment called Quantitative Easing with these formulas...
It is hard to impossible to gauge human behavior (which is what economics is primarily concerned about) with strict mathematics. Also, wrong premises will lead to wrong conclusions which would not correlate with empirical data. I don't see how economics is different in this aspect from any other empirical science that operates with and checks its models against empirical evidence... Then it is not a mathematical formula is it? It is a very flawed approximation of reality that should not be used to run a massive experiment. Economics should be frank about this but it is not. That's the whole problem: economics ignores the empirical evidence to achieve political outcomes. It's bamboozle with BS all the way. It is still a mathematical equation But now it seems I see your point. And you're blaming the wrong party here. Economics is a science, and as a science all scientific methods (techniques for investigating things, acquiring new and correcting prior knowledge) are fully applicable to it. As far as I know Fisher's formula has never been considered as an ultimate truth in itself, but only as a very rough approximation to real life economical phenomena... It is surely not economics that you refer to here when saying that it ignores the empirical evidence to achieve political outcomes |
|
|
|
In one sentence, this animation illustrates your misconception about "They can only lend money they have in deposits. Technically, they can in fact lend money they don't have, but they will have to close this imbalance as soon as possible..."
First off, at the banker's counter you see two balancing rows of people; 1. adding money to a deposit and 2. borrowing money from the bank. All's well and sound. Yet, those were the old days and that situation complies to "our" common sense about a bank's process. Nowadays though, when a starter needs money, he goes to a bank where the banker gives him credits by filling in numbers in a computer. The bank's safe actually is (almost) empty (2% liquidity is no exception). So in fact the bank created money it did not possess merely by typing a number in a computer. This virtual number gets in the starter's briefcase and is spread into the market; invisible (non-existing) coins are everywhere and people treat them as if they are real. In times of crises however the whole imaginarium falls to pieces and the debt-relay ends at the tax-payers; those are your 4X.
This is likely what most people think about banks "creating money out of the thin air". And this is obviously not what money multiplication is all about in reality. If the shown animation (or your description of it) had any semblance with reality, banks could create assets without balancing them with corresponding liabilities (this would make the whole idea of FRB null and void)... |
|
|
|
деньги на счету меньше суток!!! респект Спасибо, стараемся  По второй заявке тоже сделали перевод. По-хорошему - должны сегодня поступить к вам. ну вы вообще........... вторая сумма на счету 3 часа 40 мин время исполнения!!!!! супер, что тут скажешь ПС. все-равно требую специальную скидку за рекламу сервиса И мне, и мне!!! Как раз и сумма собирается, теперь ждём курса подходящего... |
|
|
|
I hope you (both of you) understand that this "velocity" pays a price. This price is that two more participants are in debts; the loaner and the bank itself. Besides this increasing number of debtors, the moral question pops up wether a bank is really allowed to lend money it does not have? Who owns the 4X ? Do they agree? Hmm, strange to call this "one of the most prudent comments". You also seem not to properly understand how money multiplication works. Banks don't lend money they don't have (thus no "creating money out of thin air"). They can only lend money they have in deposits. Technically, they can in fact lend money they don't have, but they will have to close this imbalance as soon as possible... To better understand what's going on here, think not in terms of money (since both loans and deposits are the same money which is confusing) but in terms of assets and liabilities Here is a nice animation about "the creation of money", which you euphemistically call "money multiplication". Sorry, it's in Dutch, but you will get the gist ... hopefully. http://www.trosradar.nl/standalone-player/aflevering/16-12-2013/geldcreatie/#sites/radarextra/animatiesSorry, I didn't understand it, could you please explain the scheme as you see it? I'm always curious what are people's own thoughts on the theme, lol. Also, the term "money multiplication" is an official one, so in any case it is not me who called the process so... |
|
|
|
The meaning is that the results you get by using a formula don't correspond well to actual data. Usually it means that you chose the wrong formula or the formula has some limitations. What is oxymoronic in that?
In short, stop trolling...
In Maths the above statement = fail In Chem the above statement = fail In Physics the above statement = fail In Computer Science the above statement = fail Even in sociology the above statement = fail Economics is littered with examples of "formulas that don't correspond well to actual data". Then economists run a massive economic experiment called Quantitative Easing with these formulas... It is hard to impossible to gauge human behavior (which is what economics is primarily concerned about) with strict mathematics. Also, wrong premises will lead to wrong conclusions which would not correlate with empirical data. I don't see how economics is different in this aspect from any other empirical science that operates with and checks its models against empirical evidence... |
|
|
|
Banks under a 20% reserve requirement hold X 'actual' money, and loan out 5X that amount to people at interest. This increases the velocity of money by five times, because now the money, as loans, is spent as often as five people can spend it rather than only as often as one person spends it. There's still technically the same amount of 'actual' money, but the velocity of money hence the 'money supply' goes up.
This is one the most prudent comments I've seen here recently that doesn't go along those stupid lines of "banks creating money out of thin air". My addition is that it is not banks that change the velocity of money, or rather a primary driver for that. Banks are just an instrument to make it possible whenever it is required, a sports car where economy is the driver... What is going to take the place of this sports car in case there are no more banks? I hope you (both of you) understand that this "velocity" pays a price. This price is that two more participants are in debts; the loaner and the bank itself. Besides this increasing number of debtors, the moral question pops up wether a bank is really allowed to lend money it does not have? Who owns the 4X ? Do they agree? Hmm, strange to call this "one of the most prudent comments". You also seem not to properly understand how money multiplication works. Banks don't lend money they don't have (thus no "creating money out of thin air"). They can only lend money they have in deposits. Technically, they can in fact lend money they don't have, but they will have to close this imbalance as soon as possible... To better understand what's going on here, think not in terms of money (since both loans and deposits are the same money which is confusing) but in terms of assets and liabilities |
|
|
|
Banks under a 20% reserve requirement hold X 'actual' money, and loan out 5X that amount to people at interest. This increases the velocity of money by five times, because now the money, as loans, is spent as often as five people can spend it rather than only as often as one person spends it. There's still technically the same amount of 'actual' money, but the velocity of money hence the 'money supply' goes up.
This is one the most prudent comments I've seen here recently that doesn't go along those stupid lines of "banks creating money out of thin air". My addition is that it is not banks that change the velocity of money, or rather a primary driver for that. Banks are just an instrument to make it possible whenever it is required, a sports car where economy is the driver... What is going to take the place of this sports car in case there are no more banks? |
|
|
|
I have written above the primary purpose that banks serve in the economy. Unless you can substitute this with something else without the help of banks (or somehow eliminate the need for money redistribution), banks will exist....
By "bank" do you mean "financial institution"? Because not all lending institutions are banks. No. To play their role in the economy and accumulate significant means banks have to attract money into term deposits, which no other financial institution is allowed to do. In any case, the possibility of accumulation of money is what important here (names don't matter)... You only need banks if you want to play the fractional reserve game. (Is "game" sufficiently non-pejorative, or should I come up with something even more innocuous?)
I think I've already explained pretty clear why banks are needed in the economy. And this is obviously not "the fractional reserve game"... |
|
|
|
The primary purpose of banks is redistribution of money from those who don't need it right now to those who do (thus facilitating production, trade and so on)
Before, when there were lots of demand, bank could increase the utilization of money, and make the development faster, but once majority of demand is fulfilled, no need for banks to do this. And they start to gamble with other people's money There is no before, it is always now whenever the economy is expanding, i.e. there is a need for new money at first to be accumulated somewhere and then lent to finance this new growth. The interest is paid back for banks service with part of this growth. How on earth is this going to happen in the bitcoin economy if we exclude banks out of the equation? |
|
|
|
As for the existence of banks, there are two primary reasons for that. One is that banks do serve some useful purposes. Facilitating the fractional-reserve paper money scam isn't one of those purposes, but other bank services are. The second reason is that the government has repeatedly intervened to maintain the existence of banks and in particular the centralized fractional-reserve banking system. But each intervention has been bigger and bigger, and eventually the crisis is going to be too big, and the whole thing is going to collapse. And Bitcoin, should the government not succeed in killing it, likely will serve to make this day come sooner.
The primary purpose of banks is redistribution of money from those who don't need them right now to those who do (thus facilitating production, trade and what not) Why do you think money multiplication (which is the correct term for what you wanted to say here) is a scam? Do you also hold the view that banks can "create money out of thin air"? Besides that, first banks were just financial institutions without any centralized banking system existing along... Money multiplication is a scam because any idiot can borrow cheap money and speculate on property and shares, which pushes up asset prices. This devalues our currency in real terms. The rich then withdraw equity or generate capital gains to fund their lifestyles. They never have to spend their real wealth which they keep invested in assets. This widens the wealth gap as ordinary workers' earnings are less than capital gains of the rich, generated simply by holding assets. This is the exact definition of the rentier class that Keynes himself detested. What does it have to do with that as such? Should we prohibit lending money at all? You can't prohibit anything whether in fiat or bitcoin. That is the same top down thinking that has pervaded society. With Bitcoin, we won't need lending to provide liquidity. People now have a choice. To make banks irrelevant in the bitcoin economy you still have to address the primary issue, i.e. to take on the role banks serve in the economy by bitcoin alone (now without banks). Just saying that bitcoin is a superior substitute for banks won't do... I think I made it clear for now |
|
|
|
Bitcoin the PROTOCOL obviates the need of a third party in any transaction. Therefore, *poof* bank no longer required.
I have written above the primary purpose that banks serve in the economy. Unless you can substitute this with something else without the help of banks (or somehow eliminate the need for money redistribution), banks will exist.... Yes. Amazing to me you still don't realise that bitcoin is a superior substitute for banks. What about going into detail? If you haven't got it yet, you probably never will. I don't know why that is the case but it is not my problem to rectify. I just have no other option left but to draw a conclusion that you can't address the primary issue why banks are needed in the economy and where bitcoin itself would fail (without the help of creating bitcoin banks). That's all |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
