I think those of you, guys, who deem themselves as anarchists are terribly misusing the term...  Considering what you say here (small isolated settlements, ostracism, communal efforts and all that nonsense) I would rather call you hippies...  Or maybe an anarchist is just an age-worn hippie? Not all anarchists are hippies, but I'm not so sure the reverse is true. For the most part, anarchist support decentralization to it's logical extreme within a social context. What about laws or you just happen to think there will be no need for them and ostracism would do better instead? It seems that those who identify themselves as anarchists can not even come to a unified opinion on anything between themselves... Is this a true nature of Anarchism? |
|
|
|
Stunna, you had allowed tweaks this time in sig, I tried something different, is it acceptable for my ongoing sig job or I should change it ASAP?
I don't know if it is acceptable, but your current signature looks really frightening! This is just my opinion, others may apparently think different... |
|
|
|
Wrong. Transaction volume is up, significantly.
So my working theory is because bitcoin is inelastic, the value is rising so fast that the deflationary effect hits some tipping point, offsetting Gresham's Law. There could be some "point" where people don't mind spending the stronger currency, because it takes so much less of it to purchase the desired good or service.
All this has a very simple explanation without ever offsetting Gresham's Law. In fact, it actually confirms this law. Let's assume for a moment that Gresham's Law is infallible and fully applicable in this case. Really, if the principle behind it has been known since Ancient Greece, then why should it fail right now? Simply put, Gresham's Law says that one money is better than another. If that's true, this would inevitably mean that people still think dollars (or whatever) are better than bitcoins because they prefer to pay in Bitcoin while withholding their dollars, no other way around. Why would they? Deep inside they don't believe Bitcoin will be a success in the long term and are just trying to make use of an opportunity that Bitcoin high price gives them... And everything is in strict accordance with Gresham's Law |
|
|
|
If I call you a criminal and then wrestle you to the ground for a citizen's arrest, a third party wouldn't take my words (the accusation) or actions (wrestling) as proof that you are actually a criminal.
In the same way, just because a central banker says that deflation is bad, and then prints money to fight it, you shouldn't take him at his word. He may sincerely believe that deflation is bad, and he may be willing and able to act on his belief, but none of that suggests that his belief is correct.
I don't know the solution for Japan. I've never claimed to. But, I have a pretty good idea of what doesn't work.
If a doctor told you that you were sick because your humors were out of balance, and that draining some blood would cure you, and it instead made you sicker, would you believe him when he tells you that you didn't drain enough? How about if every patient he treated died? Doctors of the pre-scientific era at least had the advantage that some of their patients got better despite their efforts.
So you didn't say a word to actually substantiate your judgment beyond just claiming that I'm wrong. Surely, this is not what I expected to hear, and if you really thought that such an answer would make me think of your opinion as something reasonable or well-founded, then you chose the wrong person to debate with. That said, I suggest we leave the matter where it is now... |
|
|
|
These "papers" allegedly backed up by Bitcoin will in fact leave behind them only inflation, even despite Bitcoin intrinsic deflationary nature Therefore, your theory is that Bitcoin "will fail" because derivatives will be speculated and loose value? I suppose such speculation could have some negative effect on Bitcoin. It would be similar to speculation of sub-prime mortgages derivatives having negative effect on housing market. However, it did not cause the market to completely fail. Rather, it led to correction in value, which is a good thing. P.S. Not to be offensive, but trying to help - your writing is close to impossible to comprehend. Recommendation: try building simpler sentences. No, you seem to get it wrong too. I'm not saying that it will lose value itself. Like gold it can actually gain even more value with time, though this is very questionable. First and before all, Bitcoin will fail as a means of exchange, or as an asset backing up some other means of exchange. That's what its proponents are ultimately aiming Bitcoin at. They say that Bitcoin will be able to substitute fiat currencies in the end. I think they are wrong and they can be proven wrong strictly through economical causes even if we assumed such an opportunity... The housing market did not fail completely because real estate has, yeah, real application behind it |
|
|
|
Why would governments and banks see it as a threat if they could just capitalize on it?
Not all government officials are interested in capitalizing on things (or capitalism, for that matter). In fact, people who want to capitalize on things tend to stay away from government. It doesn't pay very well. Banks, on the other hand. Yeah, they'll come around. It might take them a while, though. Taxes as such are already a way government capitalizes on profits made by other people. So the government officials don't have to think up or contrive techniques to get there, if you meant this. And banks wouldn't have to either, because they already have everything they would ever need. I don't think this will take long, provided it becomes profitable in the first place... |
|
|
|
I'd say not yet. And when/if gold does "fail", it'll probably be due to a virtual currency. Maybe even Bitcoin.
If Bitcoin becomes electronic, highly divisible gold which can be transferred over the Internet, Bitcoin will have succeeded.
Bitcoin has been electronic right from the start You're talking here of Bitcoin vs gold as a store of value, and as you might have already guessed from my post above (I'm trying to keep the thread neat and tidy), that was not the point I tried to convey. In fact, it might replace gold to a degree, though that still remains to be seen, but you should keep in mind that paper gold (futures and other derivatives) are also highly divisible and, in a sense, "transferable" over the Internet. And, if I'm not mistaken, you can just buy some physical gold without actually having to transport it anywhere. So gold and Bitcoin are on a par here... |
|
|
|
So, this time instead of gold we will have Bitcoin (which will be hoarded as per Gresham's law) and all kinds of "paper" derivatives inevitably entering the circulation as a means of exchange. These "papers" allegedly backed up by Bitcoin will in fact leave behind them only inflation, even despite Bitcoin intrinsic deflationary nature...
And welcome back to fiat!
You say instead of gold we will have Bitcoin. Has gold failed? Yes, it has failed as a currency, and later as an asset backing up a currency. The said doesn't mean that its price dropped as it actually has increased over time with the dollar constantly depreciating. Gold surely didn't fail as a store of value. Personally, I would go for a tighter definition of currency that assigns more significance to it as a means of exchange before anything else... |
|
|
|
The takeaway from that should be that when BTC captures even more of the value that is currently held in other commodities, such as gold, that BTC will continue to increase in value. Which are easier to store & transport...bitcoins or gold bars & coins? Which are easier to use for commerce directly? Bitcoin only has a tiny fraction of the total value held in other commodities, and has the capability of becoming far more useful. So, of the two, an oz of gold seems rather overpriced to me now and a bitcoin seems like an astounding bargain even at current prices.
Though technically I have no objection to what you just said (less bitcoins per capita driving prices up and all that), but I still have a kind of anxiety, or rather uneasy consideration, which is not emotional in nature (I don't have that much to lose and already profited handsomely), that Bitcoin should soon crash into the ground even if people are trying to withhold it. I would call that Bitcoin singularity (the end of this) when a constantly increasing price comes along with an ever increasing volatility and yet lower volume is causing still more extreme changes of price. A feeling that something is terribly wrong with Bitcoin... |
|
|
|
он либо лошара либо полнейшая лошара. это ж каким дауном надо быть, чтоб выкинуть на свалку 7500 коинов при стоимости 100уе за штуку  ? Ну это нам так рассказали, может и не было вовсе никакого диска, как и 7500 биткоинов на нём. Кто теперь проверит? А мужик, молодец, прославился на весь мир, учитесь! |
|
|
|
А Галилея так и вовсе сожгли на костре.  Истина дороже кармы, знаете ли. Галилея никто не сжигал, он тихо умер своей смертью в весьма почтенном возрасте. Сожгли Джордано Бруно, и то по совсем другим причинам, а не по тем, про которые в школе рассказывали (какие-то свои внутрицерковые тёрки, он был священником). Но видать даже про Галилео на уроках рассказывали далеко не всем... Я надеюсь, ты сам всё понял |
|
|
|
The problem is that there are two definitions of inflation/deflation which are used by different people. There is monetary inflation, measured by the total amount of money in the economy, and there is price inflation, measured by the change of price of everything. Usually if you have monetary inflation you will also have price inflation, but it does not always happen that way. Bitcoins are an example of monetary inflation (25 new bitcoins are added every 10 minutes), but at the same time we have price deflation.
I'd rather go for appreciating/depreciating currency instead of deflationary/inflationary currency, which is what most people actually mean. This would be much more intuitive for an average Joe and easier to explain without losing the accuracy of the notion behind it. So we wipe out the possible misunderstanding caused by different definitions of inflation/deflation you rightly refer to (and probably would give rise to new terminological tensions)... |
|
|
|
... Будучи сам немного переводчиком, кхе-кхе, ...
Да вы теперь не только "тонкий знаток родного языка", но и языка Шекспира тоже? О Господи, вот уж воистину бывают же люди с абсолютно необоснованным самомнением... Если тебе по теме больше нечего сказать, умолкни и отвяжись... Я непосредственно про тебя и про твою личность ни слова здесь никому не сказал. Если у тебя имеются ко мне какие-то личные вопросы или претензии - можешь написать мне непосредственно. Там и поговорим, ферштейн? |
|
|
|
...хотя пишу я на двух языках
Ну, что тут сказать - сам себя не похвалишь... тешьте и дальше свое самолюбие, не буду вас разочаровывать. Это был тонкий намёк, если вы не поняли... Ну типа я не первый год замужем (это выражение такое, сразу предупреждаю) и все отсылки на "слышал не понаслышке" идут в прекрасное далёко... |
|
|
|
Если бы вы действительно хотели установить истину, вы бы давно её уже установили, а не ссылались бы на неуместные, нелепые правила и не прикрывались бы дешёвым передёргиванием доводов своих оппонентов...
А вам любые правила, с которыми вы не согласны, кажутся "неуместными"? Я, собственно, против тех "правил" как таковых ничего не имею. Я только против того, чтобы их приплетали не к месту, да и, строго говоря, никакие это не правила, а скорее пособие или рекомендации переводчику (максимум). Вы уж извините, но правила русского языка я себе несколько иначе представляю (самый простой вариант, "жи-ши пиши через и"). Хотя чего я здесь распинаюсь - думаю, всё достаточно подробно и понятно изложено в соответствующих учебниках, словарях и справочниках... |
|
|
|
It will fail if it doesn't get accepted by millions of shops. Any currency accepted as a legal payment method could and should survive. Right now it's nothing more than an investment. People trade btc's for real money instead of psychical products. Bitcoin is a product right now, no currency. And one of the biggest problems (if not the biggest) are govenrments and banks who see bitcoins as a serious threat. The chances are realy small that they will accept Bitcoin.
At first I thought almost the same. Now I've changed my mind. As long as Bitcoin is not directly competing with national currencies as it doesn't compete now, it is just one among many other financial products out there. Why would governments and banks see it as a threat if they could just capitalize on it? Governments through taxes (and whatnot), banks through Bitcoin derivatives paying some interest on it (in a fiat currency indeed). And what should change in Bitcoin that would make it into a means of exchange (i.e. a currency) if people are just hoarding it right now? |
|
|
|
мыслю что 2й вариант
А на основании какого из этих правил, позвольте спросить, вы пришли к такому выводу? Для мыслящих людей, которые способны сделать собственные выводы, а не вестись на дешевый троллинг, вот краткое изложение правил русского языка, имеющих прямое отношение к данной горячей дискуссии:
1. Для тех, кто с английским знаком «не понаслышке»: в оригинале звучит именно дифтонг [ɔɪ], то есть «ой» - «биткойн», никакого мифического «биткоИна» там и близко нет.
Да уж, крутое "правило" русского языка скрывается за номером 1 в Откровении от Bitnovosti, что тут можно ещё добавить? Будучи сам немного переводчиком, кхе-кхе, всегда старался максимально избегать взаимного влияния двух языков (всякие там слова-ловушки, если кто понимает)... Как говорится, хуже дурака может быть только дурак с инициативой... |
|
|
|
ростелеком - там отдельно как-то с кодом сотового надо платить
так как ростелекомов на яндексе уйма
Ну да, во многих регионах коды разные, т.к. они скупили много самостоятельных операторов. Для каждого придется костылить? Я, конечно, не знаю как там в Яндекс-деньгах всё устроено относительно Ростелекома, но, я например, из интернет-банка плачу по номеру лицевого счёта и предполагаю, что он (лицевой счёт) никак не подвязан к конкретному региону. Когда звонишь в их службу поддержки, достаточно лишь его продиктовать без указания региона... |
|
|
|
Утешайте себя, милейший - вы-то наверняка надеялись на "разгромный" результат, но как всегда облажались. А насчет голосования клонами - с вас-то станется. А вот я, в отличии от вас, твердо убежден, что истина не устанавливается по воле большинства. Иначе, плоская Земля давно бы уже прочно стояла на четырех черепахах в центре вселенной, ага.
Пока больше похоже на то, что скорее вы себя тешите надеждой, что я как-то обманулся в своих ожиданиях. Более чем двукратный перевес меня вполне устраивает, если что. Если бы вы действительно хотели установить истину, вы бы давно её уже установили, а не ссылались бы на неуместные, нелепые правила и не прикрывались бы дешёвым передёргиванием доводов своих оппонентов... И да, я проголосовал один раз и у меня одна учётная запись на данном сайте (хотя пишу я на двух языках) |
|
|
|
With the central bank often bailing troubled banks out (not considering whether it's good in the long term on the economy scale). And in many countries money in the deposits of individuals is often insured to some extent too. Obviously, the situation is much better now than it was in the 19th century...
The central bank means the multiple smaller bank runs and depressions of the 19th century (1800s) will be delayed into one HUMONGOUS apocalyptic TBTF failure coming before 2024 and lasting through 2033. I've already noticed somewhere that you don't quite understand what FRB actually means. For an economy as whole this is a zero sum game because for every loan given out by a bank there is a deposit put into the bank (or somewhere in the system). Fractional in FRB means that a bank retains only a portion of deposits as reserves, but this in no case means that the bank can issue more loans than it has in deposits. Strictly speaking, it can actually issue more loans than it has in its customers' deposits, but it will have to close the gap as soon as possible (within the same day, if I'm not mistaken). A bank can fail only if it has a bank-run or its debtors default (or both) whereas it is not able to revoke loans or get help from outside, but this couldn't fail the whole system for the central bank which would just offset financial assets and liabilities, socializing the likely net loss through inflation... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
