I can't accept your reasoning as convincing. We started with some abstract property of gold being purely subjective (i.e. prettiness to the eye) which you called its direct use, and now you turn to saying that we are concerned with what is the value of one dollar, one ounce of gold or one bitcoin. Then you say that the system itself, not the actual coins, is extremely valuable, but can't I say absolutely the same about gold, i.e. gold "system" being highly valuable for its properties, not actual coins? And now you implicitly suppose (not pronouncing it since it would sound too false) that security, anonymity and whatnot of actual bitcoins can't be direct use value for their owners. I am using you logic here, and nothing beyond it, and you suddenly stop using it in respect to bitcoins...
How come really?
The system, and the actual money, are two different things. Actually, I want you to address the following points. Firstly, if you call gold's prettiness direct use value, I'd like to know how it concerns with what is the value of one ounce of gold. Secondly, you say that it is the bitcoin system itself which is extremely valuable, but I was talking about properties that are related to individual bitcoins as well. If so, why we can't them consider as direct use value like we do in the case of gold's prettiness? If you disagree with that, please provide come convincing reasoning as to why they should be considered only on a system level, meaning they are inapplicable on a per coin basis. And thirdly, explain why then we can't consider gold properties in the same way as you propose we should do in the case of bitcoin properties? |
|
|
|
Please post in this thread with the following form. If you edit this original post YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE PAYMENT. If you claim payment and the original post you made signing up has an edit image next to it, you will be disqualified & NOT paid. Starting posts:
Bitcoin address: Stunna, please clarify that point. I often edit my posts for correcting mistakes and typos. Actually, I don't remember whether I edited the original post I made signing up for this campaign (for this new round), but since you paid me twice already, this shouldn't be a problem (you can see from my previous PM messages the number of posts I made before)... This doesn't apply to ALL your posts you make. Just the post on this thread whereby you are confirming you're signing up for the month. I thought it was evident from my post that I didn't mean all posts. I'm talking exactly about the post on this thread by which I confirmed that I signed up for the month. If I edited it (which I might), it would mean that I'm no longer eligible, right? I don't like this limitation |
|
|
|
The problem with such logic is that it is not only you who mines bitcoins. Though a feeling of being involved at issuing "money" can inflate one's ego somewhat, I doubt it will be enough to actually go and try to stabilize bitcoin exchange value (since you would inevitably incur losses on yourself). If what you say were true, it would have been done so long ago by those who have big wallets. If they haven't already done this, why should they do it right now or later?
I'm confident that there are many miners already doing this, include me (maybe even some mining companies). And it does not incur any loss, that's the reason after each bitcoin hype, it crashed to a new higher low For example, I have sold 10 coins with an average price of $800, received $8000. Now if bitcoin price crashed to $400, I need only $4000 to buy back all the coins I sold, thus there will be no net sell pressure from me and I still made $4000. I can even spend $6000 to buy 15 coins thus both of my bitcoin holding and fiat money holding increased after the crash Sorry, but this doesn't work that way. If you sell something dear and then buy cheap, it is called speculation. If you sold some coins at $800 and received $8000 in return and bitcoin price then crashed to $400, it means that some poor wretch has lost $4000. I just can't fathom how this could possibly be called support for bitcoin price... |
|
|
|
Please post in this thread with the following form. If you edit this original post YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE PAYMENT. If you claim payment and the original post you made signing up has an edit image next to it, you will be disqualified & NOT paid. Starting posts:
Bitcoin address: Stunna, please clarify that point. I often edit my posts for correcting mistakes and typos. Actually, I don't remember whether I edited the original post I made signing up for this campaign (for this new round), but since you paid me twice already, this shouldn't be a problem (you can see from my previous PM messages the number of posts I made before)... |
|
|
|
Hello i just finished a month promoting primedice and i think i 'll give bitsplay a try.
Please add me to the list.
15isYsW35AjT7Lsam1F6hRKY66yhU2GBrt
Gl to your site.
Just as I predicted, someone surely changes benefactors. Hey, if this one fails on his promises and doesn't pay out, will you come back to Stunna? |
|
|
|
War would not benefit China in the slightest. They've got enough shit to worry about at home (most of china being either smog ridden or in poverty). Going to war doesn't make any sense, especially if you end up destroying or being destroyed by a valuable trade partner.
That's exactly why Germany started the WWII. They had got too much shit to worry about at home, and the blitzkrieg war was probably the only path for the power clique (at least they thought so) to slip out from the inevitable bankruptcy of the state and its socialistic policy... |
|
|
|
If these gold coins are minted by that country's mint than yes, they are legal tender in that country at their face-value. But this is still a foreign currency in other jurisdictions, so I doubt it strongly that you could officially pay taxes directly with them anywhere in the world except a country of origin...
Only for the face value portion of the exchange. The commodity value is taxable separately. That was exactly my point. Is it really possible to pay taxes directly (i.e. bypassing banks and that kind of things) with gold and silver coins in the USA at their market price? No. If you don't pay the commodity portion of the tax due, you will go to prison and/or pay hefty fines. There are cases already. Do you mean to say that if you pay a tax with gold coins at their face-value just like you would do with paper dollars (this is my point, and I specifically mentioned that), I will have to pay additional taxes for the income which I might but didn't actually receive? Yes. You spent or received the coin which has a commodity value above and beyond its very low face value, e.g. gold 1oz US Eagles have a $50 face value yet are worth $1300. http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/employers-gold-silver-payroll-standard-may-bring-hard-timehttp://www.rapidtrends.com/robert-kahre-vs-the-irs-and-doj/http://www.dailypaul.com/210328/can-i-accept-payments-in-gold-report-face-value-as-incomeIt seems that you don't understand what I mean. Your examples only look relevant to my point, though in fact they are quite the opposite of what I mean. If you pay taxes with gold coins at their face value instead of paper dollars (i.e. taxes total being equal coins face value total), you effectively end up paying more than you would pay if you previously sold your coins at their market price and paid the original tax plus the tax due to the commodity value of your coins. How can you possibly be charged for tax evasion if you end up paying more than needed? I'm not talking here about accepting payments in gold coins, then reporting face value as income |
|
|
|
Yes subjective. Both types of value is subjective. That is why everyone should decide what they want for themselves in the market, and what they are willing to sacrifice to achieve it. If you already have some of that what you want, that will change your values, also your total situation, and not least, your personal preferences. If you like fresh vegetables, you might want to trade some of your time in a job, to somebody who wants the work done, in stead of growing the vegetables yourself. Nobody has the knowledge, nor the right, to decide for others. This is why voluntary action is best: more freedom (by definition), and more wealth for everybody.
If so, do you agree that we could say that gold value is backed by its inherent objective properties through an individual's subjective valuation of them? If you don't like the word "backed" used here, what is, in your opinion, the best term describing the sustenance of value by objective properties? Backed is a broad word, but in the realm of money it means that there is some entity that is willing and able to exchange the backed money for a specified amount of something else. So gold is unbacked. I prefer to use direct use value. That value is not dependent of what others think (well if you want it, because others think it is pretty, but not yourself, that is in the fringe). Also in the realm of money, intrinsic value is the same as value for direct use, but that word has the same definition problem, because it is used for other things. By the way, I can not think of anything that have absolutely no direct use value, absolutely in the mathematical sense, after someone has selected it and brought it to the market. Gold is unbacked, bitcoin is unbacked. In history there has been gold-backed banknotes. We have Casascius coins, but that is really the bitcoins itself hidden inside the coin. I think it is inevitable that bitcoin-backed notes will appear in the market, and I welcome it. Bitcoin would be excellent for backing. If it remains for an individual to decide what property should be considered as valuable (subjective valuation), therefore any subjective value would necessarily be direct use value (as you said before in respect to gold prettiness). If so, then, say, bitcoin security should by logical necessity be considered as direct use value too since there are many people who value bitcoin security high, right? No, all value is subjective, but some things have an exchange value component in addition to use value, and some things have only exchange value (fiat and bitcoin). As I said, most things have at least a miniscule use value, for bitcoin (I am talking of the actual bitcoins) that could be the bragging value that the first miners might see in their otherwise valueless coins. The system itself, not the actual coins but the totality of the system, the invention, the miners, the fact that the system can transform the society, is of course extremely valueable, but it is difficult to decide exactly how much. You could try to say that the bitcoin system is more valuable than the gold money system, or the fiat system, or some other system, like the internet or the sea transport system or the judicial system or the police force. But we are concerned with what is the value of one dollar, one ounce of gold or one bitcoin. That is the units of the money systems. I can't accept your reasoning as convincing. We started with some abstract property of gold being purely subjective (i.e. prettiness to the eye) which you called its direct use, and now you turn to saying that we are concerned with what is the value of one dollar, one ounce of gold or one bitcoin. Then you say that the system itself, not the actual coins, is extremely valuable, but can't I say absolutely the same about gold, i.e. gold "system" being highly valuable for its properties, not actual coins? And now you implicitly suppose (not pronouncing it since it would sound too false) that security, anonymity and whatnot of actual bitcoins can't be direct use value for their owners. I am using you logic here, and nothing beyond it, and you suddenly stop using it in respect to bitcoins... How come really? |
|
|
|
Yes subjective. Both types of value is subjective. That is why everyone should decide what they want for themselves in the market, and what they are willing to sacrifice to achieve it. If you already have some of that what you want, that will change your values, also your total situation, and not least, your personal preferences. If you like fresh vegetables, you might want to trade some of your time in a job, to somebody who wants the work done, in stead of growing the vegetables yourself. Nobody has the knowledge, nor the right, to decide for others. This is why voluntary action is best: more freedom (by definition), and more wealth for everybody.
If so, do you agree that we could say that gold value is backed by its inherent objective properties through an individual's subjective valuation of them? If you don't like the word "backed" used here, what is, in your opinion, the best term describing the sustenance of value by objective properties? Backed is a broad word, but in the realm of money it means that there is some entity that is willing and able to exchange the backed money for a specified amount of something else. So gold is unbacked. I prefer to use direct use value. That value is not dependent of what others think (well if you want it, because others think it is pretty, but not yourself, that is in the fringe). Also in the realm of money, intrinsic value is the same as value for direct use, but that word has the same definition problem, because it is used for other things. By the way, I can not think of anything that have absolutely no direct use value, absolutely in the mathematical sense, after someone has selected it and brought it to the market. Gold is unbacked, bitcoin is unbacked. In history there has been gold-backed banknotes. We have Casascius coins, but that is really the bitcoins itself hidden inside the coin. I think it is inevitable that bitcoin-backed notes will appear in the market, and I welcome it. Bitcoin would be excellent for backing. If it remains for an individual to decide what property should be considered as valuable (subjective valuation), therefore any subjective value would necessarily be direct use value (as you said before in respect to gold prettiness). If so, then, say, bitcoin security should by logical necessity be considered as direct use value too since there are many people who value bitcoin security high, right? |
|
|
|
I just experienced a glitch. I rolled 11000 and after 5 seconds or so it jumped to 7800. I am sure it wasn't a browser freeze or something similar.
It's due to the server load atm caused by some malicious bots that I'm trying to stop. A number over 10,000 isn't possible. Once upon a time, I rolled Zero. Should I be paid some bonus or it doesn't count? |
|
|
|
Надо отдельную баню для новичков сделать
Куда уж дальше? И так в предбаннике топчемся..Может, эта.. спинку потрёте? Там можно каждый час бесплатно чуть-чуть заработать биткоинов, и с небольшой вероятностью (1/10000) выиграть 0.2+ биткоина зараз. Хотя мне ещё так не повезло... |
|
|
|
Blimey I don't think I've ever started a thread that's gone on as long as this one. Makes me feel right chuffed!
Very interesting and informative responses from many people. I will try to scrutinise and dissect each post as time permits. The general vibe I've got:
'Backing' is a nebulous everyday term with no well-defined meaning in any science, economics or otherwise.
If you have to give it meaning, two common ones are
1) X is backed by Y, where Y is a tangible substance e.g. gold, if it can be exchanged for a given quantity of Y and Y is generally considered to have value.
2) X is backed by Y, where Y is an intangible property such as scarcity or ability to pay taxes in it, if that property gives it value.
If you substitute intangible property with any property which is considered useful by an individual, then the first notion will effectively be a subset of the second... |
|
|
|
The original point you made was that bitcoin would have to be worth 1,000,000 each for this to happen
I basically replied "no it will be able to happen far before that"
I feel like the discussion just spiraled out of control from there
Which part of my post made you think so? In fact, I was saying that if bitcoins were worth 1,000,000 dollars each as extrapolated from the price paid for one Satoshi, this wouldn't imply that all bitcoins would actually have such purchasing power... |
|
|
|
But this is entirely subjective, isn't it? If you can prove that, say, gold density is equal to some figure (or pull out from your pocket a two thousand year old coin), but you can't impose the opinion that gold is nice looking on anyone because it is strictly for them to decide on that matter. They may not share this view and therefore gold will not have so much value on account of that, right?
Yes subjective. Both types of value is subjective. That is why everyone should decide what they want for themselves in the market, and what they are willing to sacrifice to achieve it. If you already have some of that what you want, that will change your values, also your total situation, and not least, your personal preferences. If you like fresh vegetables, you might want to trade some of your time in a job, to somebody who wants the work done, in stead of growing the vegetables yourself. Nobody has the knowledge, nor the right, to decide for others. This is why voluntary action is best: more freedom (by definition), and more wealth for everybody. If so, do you agree that we could say that gold value is backed by its inherent objective properties through an individual's subjective valuation of them? If you don't like the word "backed" used here, what is, in your opinion, the best term describing the sustenance of value by objective properties? |
|
|
|
I know what double spending issue is, but could you please expand more on what it means in this case? I have my own payment pending since December 12, but previously all my payments didn't have any issues at all (though it took some time to be confirmed)... |
|
|
|
How many people are really really wanting to do this?
If bitcoin goes to one million? I'd dump a few into it, at least. Less than that and it's not really realistic. The only thing not being realistic is you If they were 1 million each it would only take like 2000 bitcoins to do this Plus create a standing army Price is not wealth, and wealth is not money. If you were able to buy (or sell) one Satoshi at an exchange rate of one million dollars per bitcoin, this wouldn't automatically imply that you could actually buy something worth a billion dollars with a thousand bitcoins... Your not even arguing the point any more Are you trying to prove that bitcoins can't be spent everywhere in the world yet? Great we all know that Are you trying to prove that bubbles exist? Awesome I'm talking about creating a nation of bitcoiners Oh, excuse me! I thought you were going to spend just 2000 bitcoins for that plus create a standing army... On a serious note though, do you really think that if bitcoin exchange rate somehow hit a million dollars per BTC, you would actually be able to buy anything valuable with 2,000 of them? If you sell 1 Satoshi to your friend for 1 million dollars per BTC, will it change anything? |
|
|
|
How many people are really really wanting to do this?
If bitcoin goes to one million? I'd dump a few into it, at least. Less than that and it's not really realistic. The only thing not being realistic is you If they were 1 million each it would only take like 2000 bitcoins to do this Plus create a standing army Price is not wealth, and wealth is not money. If you were able to buy (or sell) one Satoshi at an exchange rate of one million dollars per bitcoin, this wouldn't automatically imply that you could actually buy something worth a billion dollars with a thousand bitcoins... |
|
|
|
Почему активность не растет? Постов 40 с начала декабря уже откатал, а в рейтинге всего 14.
Потому что рейтинг вычисляется по хитрой формуле, где используются не только количество постов, но также и время пребывания на форуме в неделях (которое вроде бы умножается на 7 *2 = 14), и затем из этих двух чисел меньшее и будет рейтингом... |
|
|
|
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-15/perfect-storm-coming-gold"At a price of $1,250, gold mining companies can no longer make a profit. Recent studies show their all in cash cost anywhere from $1,400 to as high as $1,700. Liquid fuels, human energy, and new exploration are costly in the mining process, so it is unlikely these costs can be cut to accommodate the low gold price." Goldbugs' hype I have another, more reliable source. In 2012 marginal costs of gold were equal to $1,104 while the average cost of production was at 673$ per troy ounce. In the third quarter of 2013 average cost was $654, highest in South Africa ($928 per ounce), and lowest in Indonesia ($414 per ounce), Russia ($515 per ounce) and China ($549 per ounce)... This is something people don't really understand and it is one way that gold (or any commodity) naturally balances supply and demand. In the "will bitcoin always be a bubble thread" it got me thinking that an altcoin could attempt to replicate this behavior by allowing miners to mine more coins at a higher cost to simulate the effect of marginal production. No, with gold it doesn't work the same way as with any other commodity, since gold is not consumed like most other commodities. Only tiny portion of gold was lost through history. Add to this ~2,500 metric tons of gold mined every year plus the volume of virtual gold in the financial markets, and you will see that the matters with gold pricing become very complicated beside just assuming the newly mined gold balancing the demand for it... The same holds true for bitcoin, though to a lesser extent... |
|
|
|
если контора банковский перевод в битки за 12ч переводит то это очень хорошо в принципе
я с банками в принципе не могу работать
Если у кого серьёзные суммы (сотни тысяч рублей и выше), то банковские переводы - это однозначный выбор. А эти товарищи как раз с такими суммами и работают (минимальный платёж от 5000 рублей), у них резервы сейчас миллион двести тысяч... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
