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? |
|
|
|
Не, "много чем занимается" это у нас про почту России... Надо им предложить  Если мне не изменяет память, их новый начальник как раз собирался получить лицензию на убийство ведение банковской деятельности, лол... |
|
|
|
If banks made loans and someone necessarily borrows then why are there $4 trillion sitting in bank reserves? Why is velocity at decade lows? It is simply not true that someone necessarily borrows. There is a limit to debt based systems and I can see the end is coming soon.
This is called liquidity trap, if I'm not mistaken. I think it is actually a consequence of the previous credit boom... Also, that part somewhat contradicts this: The fed reserve then helps the rich by printing money to suppress long term interest rates, which encourages yet more credit creation which devalues the dollar via asset price inflation. Meanwhile, workers are subjected to mild inflation whilst their wage growth is stagnant. |
|
|
|
Governments and banks love loans. Other people not so much. Prior to the 80s loans were actually paid back with real savings. Minsky describes that the end phase of debt systems is towards disequilibrium because more debt is required just to pay off old debt and cover interest. Economists always forget Minsky.
I'm sure you are aware that the whole point of bitcoin is to replace centralised systems like banks. You can argue with this all you want but now there is real competition and choice.
Banks were not centralised initially, so centralization is not inherent to them. It means that they can coexist with bitcoin without a hitch... Businesses love loans too. If banks make loans, someone necessarily borrows from them 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.... |
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
People lend money in exchange for bank receipts. These receipts in case of bitcoins will become the simplest bitcoin derivatives which can be used as negotiable instruments (such as checks). Anyway, you will necessarily have to use some offline bitcoin derivatives, provided it ever takes off...
Banking system will persist as long as persist loans (and humans love loans)...
Governments and banks love loans. Other people not so much. Prior to the 80s loans were actually paid back with real savings. Minsky describes that the end phase of debt systems is towards disequilibrium because more debt is required just to pay off old debt and cover interest. Economists always forget Minsky. I'm sure you are aware that the whole point of bitcoin is to replace centralised systems like banks. You can argue with this all you want but now there is real competition and choice. Banks were not centralised initially, so centralization is not inherent to them. It means that they can coexist with bitcoin without a hitch... Businesses love loans too. If banks make loans, someone necessarily borrows from them |
|
|
|
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.
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... 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) |
|
|
|
You can speak only for yourself. Indeed, if this were the case for all people, banks wouldn't exist in the first place, right? Do you really think that people lent gold backed dollars to banks (that would later go belly up) and now they wouldn't lend bitcoins?
People will lend bitcoins. But I doubt many will do so in exchange for paper money. Like I said before, paper money in exchange for gold makes sense in many ways that paper money in exchange for bitcoin doesn't. Furthermore, we've learned a lot about the evils of fractional reserve banking since the 19th Century, and if Bitcoin ever becomes ubiquitous it's likely that we'll learn even more, as ubiquitous Bitcoin will probably coincide with yet another (and possibly the final) collapse of the fractional reserve banking system People lend money in exchange for bank receipts. These receipts in case of bitcoins will become the simplest bitcoin derivatives which can be used as negotiable instruments (such as checks). Anyway, you will necessarily have to use some offline bitcoin derivatives, provided it ever takes off... Banking system will persist as long as persist loans (and humans love loans)... |
|
|
|
No, that doesn't need to involve paper money, but nothing either prevents banks from issuing some "paper" bitcoins (i.e. bitcoin redeemable notes).
If they can find anyone dumb enough to let them do that. I'd rather say, greedy enough. And they already do that (I mean fiat derivatives), so there is no question about (the possibility of) that really... I don't see what greed has to do with it. I'm as greedy as anyone (and more greedy than most), but if anything that's a reason not to lend my bitcoin to banks. You can speak only for yourself. Indeed, if this were the case for all people, banks wouldn't exist in the first place, right? Do you really think that people lent gold backed dollars to banks (that would later go belly up) and now they wouldn't lend bitcoins? |
|
|
|
No, that doesn't need to involve paper money, but nothing either prevents banks from issuing some "paper" bitcoins (i.e. bitcoin redeemable notes).
If they can find anyone dumb enough to let them do that. I'd rather say, greedy enough. And they already do that (I mean fiat derivatives), so there is no question about (the possibility of) that really... |
|
|
|
Greed is above reason?
Yes, that's why there are Ponzi schemes and all other kinds of fraudulence based on greed taking over reason... |
|
|
|
People in the 19th century already loaned (i.e. gave) their gold and silver coins to banks accepting paper "bank notes" in return, i.e. just receipts. Why should it be different now, especially if peeps wanted to borrow from banks?
Bitcoin already has most of the advantages that paper has over gold, divisibility probably being the most important one. The only advantage it really doesn't have is the ability to do completely offline transactions. If people want to lend to banks and borrow from banks, that's fine. But that doesn't need to involve paper money. No, that doesn't need to involve paper money, but nothing either prevents banks from issuing some "paper" bitcoins (i.e. bitcoin redeemable notes). Banks right now issue many forms of private money redeemable for fiat, bills of exchange being just one such example (and someone obviously buys them)... |
|
|
|
Суммируется время, когда пользователь остаётся в системе залогиненным. Если стоит автологин, то пока он не закроет соответствующую страницу в браузере или сам браузер (я так понимаю)...
Нет, нужно периодически переходить по страницам (или просто обновлять страницу), примерно не реже чем раз в 7-10 минут. Не буду спорить, вполне может быть (проверять всё равно лень), но я слышал именно про версию, изложенную в моём посте (если включена опция stay logged-in, или как она там правильно называется). Кроме того, может быть включено автообновление страницы средствами самого браузера... |
|
|
|
we can call this spamming as one already replied and other doing same this its not acceptable need to stop this type spamming
It wasn't there when I started writing. After you finish writing, though, it alerts you saying that somebody else posted and to check your post. True postoholics deliberately turn this option off (they don't need reading, they need writing), lol That's possible? So how many spam tools are there in these forums? at the moment we have no tool but as complaints are coming specially against PD we have some very soon Maybe limiting the minimum amount of words in a post could reduce spam, of course coupled with moderating posts by the staff. I have already suggested something like an automatic quotation index, which could be easily implemented here as a means to gauge total usefulness of a particular poster. After some discussion, this idea has gradually fizzled out... |
|
|
|
забавно
Сообщение написали только ради того, чтобы подпись прочитали? |
|
|
|
И каждое сообщение добавляет +1 к Активити? Или есть ещё условия?
Активность определяется как минимальное из двух чисел. Первое число соответствует количеству сделанных сообщений, а второе - числу дней на форуме, округлённое до целых недель (если мне не изменяет память). Вот у меня активность равна 84, что означает, что я на форуме уже по-меньшей мере уже 84/7=12 недель (поскольку сообщений у меня больше 84)... все стало гораздо понятнее, спасибо Я, кстати, немного ошибся, там округление происходит даже не до недель, а до двухнедельного периода. Поэтому у меня, например, следующий "уровень" активности будет сразу 84 + 14 = 98... а как определяется время проведенное на форуме? я зарегистрирован уже с августа, хотя, вверху слева пишут "Total time logged in: 10 hours and 46 minutes", и, почему-то, после пяти реплик возможность писать куда-нибудь кроме как сюда так и не появилась Суммируется время, когда пользователь остаётся в системе залогиненным. Если стоит автологин, то пока он не закроет соответствующую страницу в браузере или сам браузер (я так понимаю)... |
|
|
|
Так что в данном конкретном случае экономически выгоднее способ Спаноса. Зато ваш имеет гораздо более широкую сферу применения . К тому же положительное стимулирование намного более действеннее отрицательного в долгосрочном плане с чисто психологической точки зрения... |
|
|
|
we can call this spamming as one already replied and other doing same this its not acceptable need to stop this type spamming
It wasn't there when I started writing. After you finish writing, though, it alerts you saying that somebody else posted and to check your post. True postoholics deliberately turn this option off (they don't need reading, they need writing), lol |
|
|
|
Всем следует посылать своим политикам пожертвования в биткойнах. А уж они сделают свое дело Гг, а ведь этот самый Спанос прав - нет более надежного способа обеспечить поддержку биткойна на государственном уровне . Почему же... Недавно тут писали о другом способе. На названное лицо заводился кошелек, и желающие слали деньги не политику, а киллеру, что с политиком будет работать, когда наберется нужная сумма. Довольно свежий подход к лоббированию идей  Идея выглядит заманчиво, однако сразу же стоит напомнить про Silk Road, где потенциальный киллер оказался самым что ни на есть настоящим агентом ФБР (особенно прикольно выглядела переписка сторон, изложенная в соответствующем докладе). Так что будьте бдительны, кому отсылаете монеты и на какие цели! |
|
|
|
....
This is oversimplification. Inflation (as price increase) also depends on money velocity and productivity. I am also curious about the source of the data...
I didn't say that money supply is the only variable in the equation of exchange. But we need to respect the economic terms for what they are and not mix different categories even if they are in a cause and effect relationship Right, but we should always keep in mind that there are at least two more independent factors (since Fisher's equation isn't perfect either as it may just not work) that can and do override the money supply factor in this cause-and-effect relation... Wow, bamboozle me with BS why don't you? What? You mean an economic formula called Fisher's equation is not perfect? Unbelievable! Imagine that, an imperfect economic equation that may not work. When I said Fisher's equation is not perfect (and yes, you read me correctly) I meant it doesn't always hold true. As with most formulas (and this is especially true for economic ones), in practice they don't always work as mathematics put in them dictates. Regarding this one, increasing money supply doesn't necessarily lead to price inflation (even if other factors are constant) as happens, for example, in a liquidity trap... That there upsets me no end. A mathematical formula that doesn't work is an oxymoron. The real questions to be asking is, should we be printing boat loads of money when the formula doesn't work? Is it right to suppress long term interest rates and hurt the savers/retirees/prudent people? How did we end up in a liquidity trap? Can we still deny it is the debt? I really can't wait for bitcoin to takeover the world. There will be no more of such inane debates. 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... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
