|
Use Cinfu.com. I registered a domain with them using Bitcoin. Was super fast and easy I was happy with their service.
|
|
|
|
|
I've got 20 silver bullion coins, would love to sell them this weekend at the NYC Bitcoin Conference. Please PM me if you'd like to buy them (I'll won't accept FRN's)
|
|
|
|
Also, by running it, you're benefiting the network as a whole, by adding another "node" which processes and relays transaction.
I thought miners did this Sorry, I shouldn't have used the word "processes." Miners process transactions in the new block. Nodes simply relay new blocks to each other. Miners are doing the auditing and verification... nodes are distributing the results of that work. I think I got this right  |
|
|
|
|
By running it, the only advantage to you is that your blockchain stays updated. If you hadn't opened it in a couple weeks, then it might take a while to catch back up, delaying your payments, etc.
Also, by running it, you're benefiting the network as a whole, by adding another "node" which processes and relays transaction.
|
|
|
|
This site https://get-bitcoin.com/ offers Bitcoins for MoneyPak, and I think MoneyPak can be purchased at places like Walmart. Haven't tried it, but would be anonymous, no? |
|
|
|
|
I've been using this site for a few months and have been extremely impressed. That said, it's still not intended to be used for significant amounts of money. Don't store your savings there.
|
|
|
|
|
I'll send you $100 at Christmas for those coins right now.
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing is 100% incorruptible. Bitcoin may have a serious vulnerability... but thousands of extremely smart people have been trying to find such a thing and have been so far unable to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
So you're saying the price needs to fall to get rid of "short term greedy people" because if they remain then they may cause prices to fall?
Do you see how, perhaps, this "problem" fixes itself?
|
|
|
|
|
OP- Get off your high horse.
Vendors who offer the same goods as other retails are not selling volume in the gazillions. Large retailers can sell at razor thin margins, and I find it amazing you would compare a start-up to NewEgg? Of course small operations will cost more. They allow Bitcoin payments, however, and that is their competitive advantage. Over time, you'll see prices come down and larger retailers take over with Bitcoin.
"Price gouging" is a ridiculous concept. If the price is too high, don't buy it. If you think it's so super easy to sell at lower costs, then start a store yourself!
|
|
|
|
Good discussion Miscreanity! I entirely agree that inflation shouldn't be used simply to keep prices steady and that things should float freely. However, it is still desirable to maintain price stability in order for an economy to function efficiently.
These two sentences contradict each other. On one hand you say inflation shouldn't be used to keep prices steady. On the other hand you're saying it's desireble to keep prices steady by continually inflating the currency. Your first sentence is correct, second is false. Wild fluctuations will cause difficulty in price discovery, thus increasing problems in projecting the viability of business productivity.
Agreed, but Bitcoin will not cause wild fluctuations in the long term, will it? It's decreasing rate of inflation is steady and predictable, and there will be no drastic increase nor decrease in money supply, thus price discovery should also occur on a relatively smooth curve. Both Bitcoin and Altcoin would be perfectly predictable and smooth - neither having an advantage in this regard. If the economy slows and/or contracts, the existing Altcoins would gradually become worth less. As the economy grows, demand for a common currency increases, so the supply must become available - it must inflate. This keeps the Altcoin value relatively stable and range-bound (elastic). It balances out Bitcoin's nature.
Now this is a very problematic statement =) Your claim is that Altcoin will tend to -match- the rate of economic growth, and thus would keep prices stable. But how can you predict the rate of economic growth? You cannot. If the economy grows faster than you're expecting, Altcoin will resemble Bitcoin in that prices for money will rise. The supposed ills which you see in Bitcoin's slower rate of inflation would be similar in Altocoin's faster rate of inflation. Similarly, if the economy grows slower than you expect, the price for both monies will fall, but Altcoin's price will fall faster. In other words, any argument that Altcoin is superior because it maintains steady inflation rests on the assumption that the economy maintains a steady growth of precisely that amount as well. If not, then Altcoin is susceptible to the same issues of price changes as Bitcoin, just leveraged differently. Being a deflationary currency, Bitcoin will become worth more as the economy grows, leading to accumulation - it then becomes a Giffen good. This increase in hoarding reduces currency available for the economy to function, which is a major factor in the bust that occurs after a boom unless there is a means of translating the value difference between the store of value acting as a foundation, and the product or service desired. That's where Altcoin fits. Change the word "hoarding" to the word "saving" and you'll see why your statement is silly. An increase in savings rates is not a major factor in an economic bust. People save to the extent that future consumption is worth more than what they could consume in the present. When people save, market prices must fall only until those goods become attractive again, and subsequently people will spend. The "deflationary spiral" is a myth... savings is a self-correcting process. One need only look at the electronics market to see this in action. We all know the computer will cost half the price next year, yet how many of us are reading this on 20 year old computers? We buy electronics all the time, knowing full well that prices will fall. ---- tl;dr - "deflation" is not a problem. It's a boogeyman. Prices always tend to correct and re-allocate behavior toward efficiency. It's okay for prices of goods to fall, and prices of money to rise. |
|
|
|
If a money supply remains constant while the economy grows, eventually the money supply becomes inadequate to facilitate trade throughout the entire economy. Consequences vary, but all are disruptive.
False. So long as there are enough divisible units to cover the small transactions, it matters not how much money is in a system. Bitcoin is infinitely divisible, and a world in which a car costs one trillionth of a bitcoin is no different functionally than a world in which it costs 1,000 bitcoin. Prices adjust to the money supply, and there is no reason to tamper with it or inflate it merely to hold prices constant. |
|
|
|
If one currency has been widely adopted, then the money supply must follow the increase in total amount of traded goods/services in the whole economy, so a constant increase in money supply is required to maintain price stability
But what if this currency has not been widely adopted (like bitcoin) or maybe never will be? Then I think defaltion nature tends to keep it's economy scale limited, not the other way around (economy scale getting bigger and the currency get more valuable)
As far as my understanding goes, that's accurate. If the economy and currency are growing at the same pace, prices remain stable and everyone goes about with business as usual. Inflation should not be desired for the mere purpose of keeping prices flat. Prices are important things, they signal where investment ought to occur. Holding any price flat, whether general goods or money, etc. is not only unnecessary but is likely to cause market distortions. All prices ought to float freely against each other... causing the supply of money to increase in order to flatten prices is merely another fallacy of central planning and ought to be avoided. The fact remains that if two bitcoin-type currencies exist, and Bitcoin proper has zero inflation and the Altcoin has X inflation, then over time the former will retain value in advance of the latter. This will cause the former to be preferred, unless the latter possesses some benefit which overcompensates for this issue. I don't see Altcoin having any substantial benefit over Bitcoin, but I do see it having many negatives. Those who want perpetual monetary inflation "as long as it's predictable" can go right ahead |
|
|
|
If the government wanted to destroy bitcoin what they could do is do business with bitcoins and every bitcoin they got, just send to one wallet file and either destroy it or never use it. This would cause deflation till there were very few bitcoins left. With the current amount of bitcoins they could go on an exchange and buy them all up pretty easy.
This would not work and would cost the government a lot of money... so maybe they'll try it =) It doesn't work because Bitcoins are infinitely divisible. Short term they're divisible to 8 decimal places, but long term more decimal places can be added. The ramifications of this are quite remarkable really... for if the gov bought 20 million coins and destroyed them, there would still be 1,000,000 x 1,000,000,000 currency units available (assuming all coins have been mined). Then, two more decimal places can be added and there would be more units than the system started with! Now, most people get very turned off by that, believing it to be inflation. However, it does not have the adverse effects of "money printing," because the unit values are instantly reflected among all holders of the Bitcoins. When the Gov prints money, your bank account doesn't increase in proportion, thus you've been robbed. When Bitcoins are added through new decimal places, every client reflects this, as do prices, and thus no significant adverse or immoral effect is caused. So if the Government started buying coins to destroy them, it would send the value sky high, and there would always and forever be enough units of the currency to enable trade. In the same way, it doesn't matter how many people lose their own coins (it's only bad for those people, not for the economy or other holders of the remaining coins). |
|
|
|
There is no such thing as "overvalued".
The whole notion is based on the weird idea
that bitcoin has some sort of "intrinsic value".
Nothing has "intrinsic value". All there is is
supply and demand. That dictates the price,
that's all there is to it.
Price is not the same thing as value. Something can indeed be overvalued, or undervalued, by the market or by any individual within the market. This does not mean things have "intrinsic" value, but it does mean they have value - and it's different than price. For example, if I discovered that there was a critical flaw in the Bitcoin code - one that would certainly ruin the entire protocol - then I could reasonable assume that the market price of $11 was "overvalued." Or, say that in two years time the Bitcoin will have replaced half of the world's currencies. In such case, it is vastly undervalued right now. There is not "intrinsic value" in things, but there is very certainly "value" per se. The marketplace is always trying to perceive this value correctly, and from that a price is derived. Prices tend to move toward the value of something, but can be way off. And personally, I think Bitcoin is unbelievably undervalued |
|
|
|
Ah that would be interesting to hear his opinion on this |
|
|
|
|
There have been periods of a couple hours before where no block was solved. It's just variance in the random ability of the network to solve the hash.
|
|
|
|
Also a few million is very little of a unit to have in circulation, any relatively small movement on an international scale can have a massive impact on price.
Actually there are 21,000,000 x 1,000,000,000. Think about it  |
|
|
|
|
I voted less than 10%, but the caveat is that I do spend some on goods/services.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
