Switzerland has struggled to keep the CHF rate reasonable to stop their export base being hollowed out by a cheap euro. They have even threatened to print as many francs as it takes to do it. The problem is that the few countries which try to run a sound monetary system are undermined by all the others who are in competitive devaluation. Unless world trade collapses the currency wars reduce all states to a beggar-thy-neighbour policy.
Please, that's mercantilist reasoning. It was debunked a couple centuries ago. Swiss were doing very well with the strong CHF. Their purchasing power was rising yearly. Now, to temporarily protect a small sector of their society (exporters), they will impoverish their entire society and all those who hold CHF! That's pure nonsense. Why everybody should have their purchasing power decreased in order to save a less efficient sector of their society? And btw, many exporters also benefit from a strong purchasing power, as they also import some inputs to their business. It's a struggle to interpret this SNB view differently: " any appreciation of the Swiss franc would compromise price stability and have serious consequences for the Swiss economy." http://www.euroinvestor.com/news/2013/03/21/snb-will-defend-eur-chf-floor-for-foreseeable-future-official/12259460 |
|
|
|
Switzerland has struggled to keep the CHF rate reasonable to stop their export base being hollowed out by a cheap euro. They have even threatened to print as many francs as it takes to do it. The problem is that the few countries which try to run a sound monetary system are undermined by all the others who are in competitive devaluation. Unless world trade collapses the currency wars reduce all states to a beggar-thy-neighbour policy. |
|
|
|
The site shows a whole bunch of crazy spam transactions (e.g. tens of kilobytes, 1e-8 outputs only, no fees) which will never actually be confirmed, won't even be relayed, wouldn't be constructed by any unmodified software, and are probably a lame wristed DOS attack attempt. ... so the sheer count just isn't interesting.
Ah. Thanks for that info. Not seen anything like that number before. |
|
|
|
There is a joke going around in Greece these days. It goes: thank god communism didn't come to take our money, capitalism did!!!  Those people a clueless. They are in trouble exactly because of their communistic/socialistic practices. Like Margaret Thatcher said: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money", that's exactly what happened to them. Yes. Apparently the Greek railway company (govt owned of course) has an annual payroll cost equal to its entire annual earnings. Even if it could operate at zero cost it could still not make a profit after deducting payroll. This isn't just obscenely bankrupt, but insanely so. Poor Cyprus lost billions into that money vortex called Greece. |
|
|
|
A what price does the 'market cap' hit $2 Billion based on the number of BTC in circulation ?
$181.81 |
|
|
|
All the people who cry bubble should just stay out.
The only people who can have "bubble fears" are those who are fully invested and think they need to sell some BTC. That is a perfectly reasonable economic decision. Any amount of hand-wringing by people without BTC is just background static.
Actually they are serving a useful purpose, vocalising the depth of the "wall of worry" that is out there  All those not invested and screaming bubble shut up as soon as they buy some, when those noises stop will be when we are getting close to the top of this particularly epic wall. Great point. I didn't think of that. |
|
|
|
Blockchain.info is reporting this at 1am Monday UTC...  edit: $56,000 in fees to be mined as well?!?! |
|
|
|
|
Europe and America yet to get started this week!
Is that untouched "wall" at $170 of just 780 BTC the smallest wall ever at a multiple of $10?
|
|
|
|
|
All the people who cry bubble should just stay out.
The only people who can have "bubble fears" are those who are fully invested and think they need to sell some BTC. That is a perfectly reasonable economic decision. Any amount of hand-wringing by people without BTC is just background static.
|
|
|
|
All the effort and time spent discussing this issue... imagine if it was actually used productively.
I know people are tired of the 20+ threads on block size and thousands of posts in them, but this exhaustive debate is very good. The minutiae of every point of view is being thrashed out in the open, smart ideas and not so smart ideas are put forward and critiqued. What is the alternative? Important decisions taken behind closed doors. Isn't that the default model of existing CBs? I think that this debate has been productive because a lot of information has been shared between people who care about Bitcoin and want to contribute to help it become successful. |
|
|
|
I recognize the pattern, I just can't wrap my head around the timing.
Exactly. Where is the fiat coming from on a Sunday? If the fiat can't move then it must be the BTC moving... Could it be that the bitcoin asks are being raised, in anticipation of a big move up next week? Perhaps the newbies didn't go "all-in" straight away?
People were hoping to see the price dropping in the w/e to buy cheap before the monday crash, now they realize that they had all the same plan? Yes. That's it. They couldn't wait for the fantasy dip to 110 any longer, and went in before the rush next week. |
|
|
|
I recognize the pattern, I just can't wrap my head around the timing.
Exactly. Where is the fiat coming from on a Sunday? If the fiat can't move then it must be the BTC moving... Could it be that the bitcoin asks are being raised, in anticipation of a big move up next week? |
|
|
|
A meta-news item  Record number and a significant milestone  |
|
|
|
Just curious, ¿why people play a game that CAN'T be beaten?
Because humans can decide to be no better than this:  |
|
|
|
Wtf? What is going on? Did I mis $5 bitcoins or something?
Yes. I had that dream too, but just as I was about to buy a load of bitcoins at $5, the Bernank opened the floodgates and my wheelbarrow of paper rectangles wasn't enough anymore... |
|
|
|
Anyone near Midtown West NY care to buy a drink at EVR with BTC and let us know how a face-to-face instant transaction of this type goes? "On Sunday, EVR nightclub in New York will start accepting Bitcoins for drinks and food. “We have to train all the waitresses,” says Charlie Shrem, a partner at the club. Shrem is also CEO of BitInstant, a company that facilitates the retail purchase of Bitcoins at over 700,000 locations throughout the U.S. and co-chairman of The Bitcoin Foundation, which aims to standardize, protect and promote Bitcoin."http://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-can-you-buy-with-bitcoins-2013-04-06Location: http://www.yelp.co.uk/biz/evr-new-yorkSite: http://evrnyc.com/ |
|
|
|
|
What a great article. Jeffrey Tucker is a writer who can clearly see the big picture. A nice one for the collection.
|
|
|
|
This argument doesn't work, you're working backwards from the premise that miners need to maintain their current income to be profitable.
The argument is attempting to determine when the fees market becomes functional. There is an argument that this is worrying about nothing because the block reward will maintain the network for many years without significant fees. Based upon the high fx rate this argument looks better by the day! Trying to force fees to match the block reward might be a task for the next decade, and counterproductive today. The risk remains from dead puppy transaction sources which would need to be throttled directly somehow, as the fees market won't do it. |
|
|
|
Satoshi also intended the subsidy-free, fee-only future to support bitcoin. He did not describe fancy assurance contracts and infinite block sizes; he cleared indicated that fees would be driven in part by competition for space in the next block.
(side-stepping justusranvier's points, right now, but accepting the above statement) So what block size, realistically, allows a fees-market to function? It can be approximated fairly easily if we assume that it happens once the fee revenue per block matches or exceeds the block reward. We have another 3.5 years at 25 BTC, so this needs to be the starting point. How many transactions fit in a block? It varies because they have a variable number of inputs and outputs. Using blockchain.info terminology an average of 600 transactions populate an average 250KB block, so 2,400 will fit in a 1MB block. Perhaps most are "vanilla" Bitcoin transactions having a few inputs and one output. What is a sensible fee for a vanilla transaction in the market-place? I had considered for a while that it is closer to the BTC equivalent of 5c than 0.5c or 50c. So 2,400 transactions will accrue $120 in fees. With the Bitcoin fx rate at $150 then the block reward is $3,750, which is (a rounded) 30MB block size before the fees market functions properly. A few weeks ago this was 10MB. Perhaps by the end of the year it will be anywhere between 10 and 100MB. These are quite large blocks so perhaps a realistic fee would be more like 20c per transaction, reducing the required block size to the range 2.5MB to 25MB. The market will find the optimum if it is given a chance. Under no scenario will a 1MB limit give a chance for the fees market to become established, unless transaction fees are forced up to average $1.50, or we wait 11 years until the block reward is 6.25 BTC, or the fx rate collapses back to something like $5 per BTC. None are desirable options. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
