Building artificial floating islands can be a risky business. What we'll do if something like this happens:
Looks like photoshop, though I know that it is not...  |
|
|
|
No one* means that when they ask what backs bitcoin. Generally, when someone asks "What backs bitcoin?" they really mean "I'm under the mistaken impression that the dollar is redeemable for something. What is bitcoin redeemable for?". Go read some of the dozens of threads on that topic if you don't believe it.
* I'm using "no one" approximately here, since you are an obvious counterexample.
I think the question which this thread is titled with says the opposite. It is surely not along the lines what you redeem for bitcoins (or anything for that matter). As I said before, I don't think that the OP came here to hear (no pun) what he obviously already knows about backing as being what you might get if you could redeem dollars or bitcoins... |
|
|
|
When your argument is "X because X" or "X because Y because X", you've formed a circle. The evidence is that you ended up in the same place you started.
This is not my argument. I never said anything of the kind. It seems that it is you who is clinging to circular reasoning here... |
|
|
|
"Если будет большой спрос на виртуальную валюту, то не исключено, что Сбербанк будет двигаться в этом направлении" — сообщил глава банка Герман Греф журналистам. В теории возможна эмиссия виртуальной валюты. "У нас есть "Яндекс.Деньги, пока это не эмитируемая валюта, это первый шаг в эту сторону. Мы не спешим с этим. Сама технология нехитрая, надо посмотреть весь коммерческий смысл и привлекательность для клиентов", — размышляет Греф — "Мир уже не остановить, он пошел в этом направлении, и я думаю, что те грандиозные эксперименты, которые проходят с Bitcoin, должны закончиться один-два раза крахом с тем, чтобы было выработано глобальное регулирование", сообщают РИА Новости. http://roem.ru/2013/12/15/grefonbitcoin87525/p/s Для России биткон совершено не страшен, всё равно во главе стоит Viza и мастеркарт!!! |
|
|
|
Ага, сейчас... Производитель не может поставить произвольную цену, он должен выставить такую цену, по которой у него его (товар) купят. А в условиях дефляции (т.е. общего снижения цен, по определению), он вынужден снижать цену и часто продавать по себестоимости (а то и в убыток), просто чтобы избавиться от товарных запасов (поскольку хранение также стоит денег) и выручить хоть что-то...
Так делать довольно глупо ,всеми силами лучше думать "Как продать по цене которая хоть немного выгодна" (ИМХО) А если бы у бабушки был дедушка... Вы не можете продать товар дороже, чем у вас его купят. А если его никто не покупает по предлагаемой вами цене, то вам придётся продавать его по той цене, по которой его готовы купить (независимо от того выгодна она или нет), поскольку он либо испортится (в случае скоропортящихся продуктов) и его придётся выкинуть (что тоже может стоить денежку), либо его хранение будет стоить вам денег как в прямом смысле (складские расходы), так и опосредованно (через зарплату которую вам придётся выплачивать обязательно к 10-му числу, налоги обязательно к 20-му, ну и так далее)... |
|
|
|
Adaptability is not human nature, it is a trait of all living beings. Human nature is hierarchical because humans are social beings, i.e. tending to organize into hierarchical societies. And yes, it is programmed into us before we are born...  House cats are true anarchists!  No, that's not human nature that is hierarchical (patriarchical). This is the nature of the citizen, but a citizen is not a human. A citizen is a collectivist. A human lived in a stateless non-patriarchal community, for several hundred thousand years. The last 10'000 years only were the epoche of the citizen, the hierarchist, the collectivist, the idiot. I always thought that collectivism was another word for social nature of humans, individualism being the opposite. If the ancient man hadn't been a collectivist, he would soon have been eaten by predators. I think it is exactly due to collectivism in the first place that we managed to survive as a specie during those wild times... |
|
|
|
Goldbug detected?
Update: When I read Mises, I at first thought about Midas. Sorry for that...
Not goldbug in fact. Many libertarians have problems with the fact that bitcoin does not have direct use value, they think that bitcoin can not be money excactly due to this. Mises stated the regression theorem to prove that money has to have direct use value. Appearantly, the gliding conversion from gold to gold backed paper money, to devalued gold backed money, to unbacked fiat money, can support fiat as money, but bitcoin not. There was no gliding conversion from fiat to bitcoin. Anyway, Mises could be wrong on that point, but he is still a hero. Bitcoin obvously has value, the value is just as real as gold, steel, copper, rice or potatoes. The proof is that you can exchange bitcoin for any of those. Makes me a not-goldbug. If bitcoin does actually have value, couldn't we trace the reasons or roots as to why it has value? If value means an individual's assessment of usefulness (that's what economic theory tells us), could we as well track down bitcoin's properties that contribute to its usefulness and then tell between them which are inherent to it (i.e. without which it will no longer be bitcoin as we know it) and which are just attached to it? |
|
|
|
А вы подсказали отличную идею. Опрос такой надо прямо ФСБ и начинать, на них в конце концов тоже лежит обязанность обеспечения экономической и финансовой безопасности страны.
Упс... Хорошо, что не втихаря её протолкнуть попытались, а сюда сперва выложили. Теперь буду иметь в виду, что когда меня будут спрашивать незнакомые люди с неприметной внешностью о том, не слышал ли я чего про биткоин, нужно делать удивлённое лицо и изображать всем своим видом полное непонимание... |
|
|
|
The OP stated a question, and I supplied an answer. Sometimes the world is uncomplicated.
If you did not like the answer, you are of course free to supply your own. To me, your ranting sounds like newspeak, popular among politicians and propagandists like the Fed. I prefer to keep my words stable, backed by history, redeemable from the old heros like Mises.
Goldbug detected? Update: When I read Mises, I at first thought about Midas. Sorry for that... |
|
|
|
From this, it is obvious that the dollar, or any other modern fiat, is not backed, and not redeemable. We would not care, as long as the supply is limited in the same way as gold, but in case of fiat, the supply is of course not limited.
The bitcoin is not redeemable or backed, but the supply is totally unelastic.
Bitcoin and fiat are both unbacked, the difference is the supply.
This doesn't reply the question why dollars (or anything for that matter) have value. When people ask what is backing dollar (bitcoin), by backing they usually mean what gives it value... The question was Re: "Backing" - what does this actually MEAN? Another question is the one you state. The answer is whatever you, me and anyone else values, i.e what you want. It is in the mind of the participants. This will be revealed in the market, where everyone trades what he have with what he wants, according to his own valuations. I think we are well past all those times when backing meant nothing else but just something that you redeem your dollar for. I don't think that the OP didn't know that answer himself when he started this thread, but probably wanted to get beyond just that simple but rather superficial answer... |
|
|
|
Your argument is that something is "backed" by it's properties. Philosophers care greatly about the distinction between a thing and the properties of the thing, but for the most part, ordinary people do not. Most of us see "X is backed by X" to be of the same essence as "X is backed by the properties of X", and we recognize that we've been led around in a circle.
All your "refutation" boils down to saying that I am wrong because my reasoning is circular, but you don't give neither factual evidence nor logical argument why it is circular. Since you tried to level down my understanding of backing with "value by trading" (which is wrong), I can beforehand tell that it is your reasoning (whatever it might be) which is false... |
|
|
|
Things have value because people want them. Why they want them is not important to the notion of value. This is a very difficult concept for many people to understand, including you. They (you) cannot accept that value doesn't have to "come from" anything, so they (you) scramble to invent post hoc rationalizations and torture the common language until it fits their biases. If carried too far, as you have done, you end up with a pointless definition.
You are trying to rephrase what subjective theory of value tells us, but since you don't understand it properly well and have only nodding acquaintance with it as it appears to be, you can't see that what I say directly follows from this theory. Value comes from usefulness (or utility), i.e. the ability of things to help people reach their ends, but this core usefulness (which is what people mean by backing) cannot simply exist beyond some inherent properties of things... Why people want something may not be important to the notion of value (actually, you are wrong here too), but to people it IS |
|
|
|
In the case of a commodity backed currency the guarantee rests upon the value of another commodity, it won't ever be less valuable then a set quantity of said commodity, but obviously the underlying commodity could still collapse. Which is why a BASKET of commodities has always been the "gold" standard in measuring and determining constant "value". And as long as you can exchange your fiat dollars for goods denominated in dollars, they are backed up by the whole US economy and part of the world's... |
|
|
|
Какая разница, какая аналогия. Насколько мне известно, у нас в стране нет тем, которые запрещено поднимать в опросах. Есть темы, запрещенные к пропаганде, но биткоин к ним не относится, поэтому вряд ли ФСБ это будет интересно.
Это вы будете в другом месте рассказывать. Им это вряд ли, конечно, будет особо интересно, а вот для отчётности о проделанной работе и реакции на обращения граждан вполне может подойти. Напомнить, как в трезвяк раньше людей по улицам забирали? |
|
|
|
From this, it is obvious that the dollar, or any other modern fiat, is not backed, and not redeemable. We would not care, as long as the supply is limited in the same way as gold, but in case of fiat, the supply is of course not limited.
The bitcoin is not redeemable or backed, but the supply is totally unelastic.
Bitcoin and fiat are both unbacked, the difference is the supply.
This doesn't reply the question why dollars (or anything for that matter) have value. When people ask what is backing dollar (bitcoin), by backing they usually mean what gives it value... |
|
|
|
Ох..неть можно. Вчера на айфон установил прогу коин репорт называется. В ней онлайн можно видеть все движения биткоинов и лайткоинов, дэк это ж без матов не выразить, за минуту наблюдений прошли транзакции даже по полтора лимона долларов. Вот это движняки.....  что-то не верится мне ваши рассказы скрин покажите На blockchain.info всё тоже самое можно и самому посмотреть (только не в долларах, а в биткоинах), и не надо при этом никаких прог устанавливать или покупать. Только что с того, что чужие деньги увидишь, своих от этого всё равно больше не станет... |
|
|
|
As already pointed out, you made up your own ad hoc definition, and I pointed out that it forms a perfect pointless circle. Water has inherent properties that make it useful, so by your definition, "Water is backed by the value of water because water is useful." Feel free to stuff "inherent" in there wherever you feel it will do the most good, if it offends you that I left it out. It still forms a circle, and it still applies to literally everything in the world, making it pointless.
I see that you went wild trying to confuse matters instead of giving a reasonable argument against my stance (if you have any in the first place). Water value is backed (read provided) by its usefulness to people due to its properties which satisfy a need (thirst). If water wasn't necessary for survival it would lose a good deal of its value. Seawater is not valued (as high) since it can't satisfy that need. Backing is not value, backing is an aggregate of inherent qualities that provide value... Try reading? I refuted your circular claims about usefulness, plus the parallel claim of trade, which are circular in exactly the same way. I don't see any refutation. There are properties in things some of which are useful while others are useless. What is circular here? |
|
|
|
So I guess I misused the term "legal tender".
I should have said "a legal tender".
Can I go back out and play now?
The usage of the indefinite article wouldn't help you much here. It would render the whole message more abstract but wouldn't break the link with specific jurisdiction with which the term is semantically tied. So I think it is not correct to use the term as a substitute for foreign currency ("foreign legal tender" looks like an oxymoron to me) ... |
|
|
|
I think you were (misusing the term "legal tender"), since you claimed that on legal tender income taxes are due.
OK. What about my corrected phrasing? Is this still misusing the term "legal tender"? "For capital gains on a legal tender, ordinary income taxes are due (unless a certain valid election has been made beforehand)." Personally, I wouldn't use such phrasing since it is confusing (and this is exactly what you are trying to do right now). In this context "a legal tender" would still implicitly refer to a legal tender under specific jurisdiction where you pay those taxes, say, dollars for taxes paid on income in the USA. The correct phrasing would be along the lines "for capital gains on a foreign currency, ordinary income taxes are due"... |
|
|
|
Yes, since there are many legal systems and jurisdictions in the world, there are many legal tenders as well. But this in no case implies that a currency considered as legal tender in one jurisdiction will be considered as such in another (meaning that you can't pay US taxes with the EU legal tender, i.e. euros)...
I'm curious if you didn't actually see this or just were trying to confuse matters?
I wasn't trying to confuse matters. You protested that I was misusing the term "legal tender". It seems that you're now willing to accept that I wasn't in fact misusing it at all. If so, great. I think you were (misusing the term "legal tender"), since you claimed that on legal tender income taxes are due. So you have to admit that either you were wrong on the premise that there are capital gains on legal tender (which you consider as a type of income taxes) or you were misusing the term "legal tender" in this context... Your pick? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
