If an asset is expected to rise, people will hoard it given the choice. It's only human to aim for realizing the gains of your most productive assets.
If you convert all of your currency into bitcoin, hunger will force you to spend them, no? precisely. while the OP notes that: ...if a merchant accepts both Bitcoin and Fiat currency people will always prefer to pay with fiat currency simply because the equivalent bitcoin is seen to be more valuable. ...he neglects that which has the most impact on that calculation: what can one afford? in my line - rare books - this is a common question, with a simple answer. if one buys a group of rare books - from an estate, for example - one is left with the question of how to sell them, and there are really only two choices. 1. sell the very best books first - they will sell more quickly and for more money. you will get your investment back sooner, pay your bills, and take your profit from the crappy books afterwards. the problem here is that you are depending on profits from merchandise of lesser quality - it frequently doesn't work out that way, and you're stuck with crap. or, 2. sell the crappy books first. it'll take longer, and you'll have to find some way to eat and pay the rent until they sell - but when you're done with those you'll have the very best stuff to sell, which should give you your profits in larger sums (always good). the drawback here is the vagaries of the market; books tend to fluctuate in value, as most luxuries do. so the answer here is the same: what can you afford? Postulate: as the economy of the world deteriorates, Bitcoin will do better as a medium of exchange and become less of a value store or speculative medium. |
|
|
|
Hi,
A prisoner's dilema is a construct in game theory where there are 2 isolated prisoners and both are given the idea that if they testify against the other, they can get away. the dilemma is to cooperate with the other prisoner or to defect against him.
If neither testifies(defects), that is the best outcome for both of them(both cooperate) - there is no evidence. they both go free.
If one testifies (defects) and the other doesn't (cooperates), then the defector gets the good deal and walks free. The cooperator goes to prison.
If both testify, both go to jail.
The stable equilibrium is the one where both defect. (least value to all)
I feel spending bitcoins with merchants today is an example of the prisoner's dilemma. Those who are more well versed with economics and game theory, please correct me if I'm wrong.
If everyone spent coins (both cooperate) that is the best thing for everyone. The economy grows by more merchants entering, seeing the money spent and bitcoin gains prestige as an alternate currency.
If you spend coins, you're spending money that can earn you more of the same tomorrow. But you are cooperating and not defecting.
The people hoarding coins on the other hand are doing the equivalent of defecting by not spending, hoping for some other chump to pay up for the merchant, while their coin gains in value.
If everyone hoards, there is no currency to speak of.
Is this analogy correct? Where are the assumptions wrong?
these aren't prisoners they are defendants/suspects prisoners are already tried and convicted thank you for your grammatical input. you're wrong. actually, a prisoner is anyone who is imprisoned - the reason for or status of that imprisonment is irrelevant. that would include convicts (those who have been convicted), suspects (held by the authorities 'pending charges'), and defendants in those cases where bail has not been granted or is not available. and the Prisoner's Dilemma is a pretty standard thing, with well-known precepts, if you were (apparently?) unaware of that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma |
|
|
|
This site has gone away, apparently.
no great loss. who would trust any money to an entity on the internet who won't even give a straight answer to the question: "what country are you registered in?" not i. and re-reading the thread, i still don't know for sure. waste of electrons... |
|
|
|
I could've sworn the dotcom bubble burst in 2000...
it did. i have a spare room papered in stock options to prove it. nice rant though... |
|
|
|
I expected Dr Rodney McKay to explain how it worked.
i didn't. i expect that information would fall under the heading of 'competitive advantage'. i don't think they're going to be open sourcing this project... |
|
|
|
|
very good news indeed.
i'm not so sure what it has to do with a large blockchain - but... 30 miles, and without a shannon limit?
sounds like we have an answer to those who can turn off the internet. this makes low-density, wireless mesh networking possible.
how quaint that the name of the company should be 'reardon'...
|
|
|
|
unfortunately, they are usually worried about money on behalf of the financial community, and their wealthiest donors. i don't see that as ideal.
the dems, of course, want to control the pie - rather than splitting it up for their masters (spare me schumer - a rogue operator). also not ideal.
i suspect that targeting specific politicians could be the way to go - there are plenty of rather odd alliances forged in the heat of battle. for example: ron paul and barney frank co-sponsoring the legalization of weed...
consider how amazingly successful the take-over of san francisco by the gay community has been. my hat is off to them. not my cup of tea, but a most encouraging political success story.
Which is why I said Libertarians. You might be able to convince a paulite by comparing it to electronic gold. I think I've seen somewhere Ron Paul brushed BTC off, though. i understand. and i do believe that if someone sat ron paul down for a few hours and ran it all by him, he might change his mind. on a national level though, i don't think that would matter. as i said (almost), politics is the art of the possible. |
|
|
|
Libertarian.
they won't win anything major. not for several elections, if ever. and the tiny numbers in the Bitcoin community are meaningless, when looking at the possibilities of national influence. no offense - but let's stick to the art of the possible... Well, if you must stick to the official red/blue us/them narrative, The republicans are usually the ones worried about money. that's true. unfortunately, they are usually worried about money on behalf of the financial community, and their wealthiest donors. i don't see that as ideal. the dems, of course, want to control the pie - rather than splitting it up for their masters (spare me schumer - a rogue operator). also not ideal. i suspect that targeting specific politicians could be the way to go - there are plenty of rather odd alliances forged in the heat of battle. for example: ron paul and barney frank co-sponsoring the legalization of weed... consider how amazingly successful the take-over of san francisco by the gay community has been. my hat is off to them. not my cup of tea, but a most encouraging political success story. |
|
|
|
Libertarian.
they won't win anything major. not for several elections, if ever. and the tiny numbers in the Bitcoin community are meaningless, when looking at the possibilities of national influence. no offense - but let's stick to the art of the possible... |
|
|
|
good place for a question i raised on a different thread: hey! has anybody figured out how to polarize the political community in re Bitcoin? it'll happen pretty soon, so we should probably think about that. which political side of the aisle would be the most advantageous to pursue? the left or the right?
thoughts? me, i'm very political - but party-less. voted for reagan twice; and on the first wednesday of november 2012, i will have voted for our current president twice. i wouldn't even consider voting on a single issue - and if i did, Bitcoin wouldn't be it. but still... the way things get done in this part of reality is to pick a side and go with it. seems to work as well as any other totally dysfunctional aspect of the US political system. so... which side? |
|
|
|
note the alibaba specs on the above link: SP Unit: 960 stream processors, one would assume? Product Positioning: the low-end entry huh? Chip Type: AMD-ATI Radeon HD 5970 yeah. i buy that... this is crap put out for naifs. vladimir is right - i think there's better ways to get ripped off... |
|
|
|
wonderful! bitcoin is kudzu my compliments to your heart. |
|
|
|
"The hacker was able to create 2 million counterfeit BTC by manipulating the company's trading database ..."
In my opinion from an technical point of view this article claims no false facts and is correct.
The question for me is if it realy was happen in this way. But that makes me not calling the author an "idiot".
So he takes the time to get the facts right and not be libel, but none the less uses the word counterfeit as the article headline. Nice hack job. you're right - nice hack job. but you're wrong - there's no libel (slander, actually). nobody has legal standing where Bitcoin are concerned. it isn't a currency; so you haven't been injured. there is no company which owns the Bitcoin name... etc. nobody's been libeled. nobody's been hurt. we're kinda screwed where the media is concerned. they can say whatever they like. Actually, you are completely wrong. This could very well be slander. Changing a database to say someone has 2million bitcoins versus "creating 2 million via block chain" are COMPLETELY different. If the author did not do his research that is his fault. Anyone has legal standing to sue. One simply has to prove 1) They were injured 2) Causation. I definitely think it has merit. It doesn't really matter if BTC is a currency or not. It's property, it has value. If the slander(purposeful or not) lowers the value of our property, that's an injury. As a recap, they can say whatever they want as long as no one challenges them. perhaps i am wrong. it would depend on how a court determined the central question of what - if any - value Bitcoin have. i don't know how that would play out - do you? i'll tell you what though - it wouldn't be decided on the merits. i have to think that politics (which always devolves into money: i.e., what does the financial community [i.e.2., those who own the political process] want) would be the deciding factor. hey! has anybody figured out how to polarize the political community in re Bitcoin? it'll happen pretty soon, so we should probably think about that. which political side of the aisle would be the most advantageous to pursue? the left or the right? thoughts? |
|
|
|
"The hacker was able to create 2 million counterfeit BTC by manipulating the company's trading database ..."
In my opinion from an technical point of view this article claims no false facts and is correct.
The question for me is if it realy was happen in this way. But that makes me not calling the author an "idiot".
So he takes the time to get the facts right and not be libel, but none the less uses the word counterfeit as the article headline. Nice hack job. you're right - nice hack job. but you're wrong - there's no libel (slander, actually). nobody has legal standing where Bitcoin are concerned. it isn't a currency; so you haven't been injured. there is no company which owns the Bitcoin name... etc. nobody's been libeled. nobody's been hurt. we're kinda screwed where the media is concerned. they can say whatever they like. |
|
|
|
Why don't you do some real research about the current costs of solar before coming here.
Solar costs are far higher than the grid when you amortize it over any suitable time frame.
not really. even in the north central part of the US, amortization of last-gen +2 solar cell setup is only about 12 years. and the difference in the cost of power is less than a penny. the trick is living somewhere where the power companies buy back (or are required to buy back) the power you generate. |
|
|
|
|
well, well.
mr. paul (the author of that pathetic article) appears to have uncovered the only disadvantage to Bitcoin that i've run across, to date. as a purely decentralized currency - without an owning entity or any responsible party - there's nobody to sue the bastards.
they can say whatever they like about Bitcoin, and there's no existing mechanism (legally, that would be no injured party) to fight with.
"counterfeit" my ass.
|
|
|
|
i'm not really certain how nvidia cards work - although i do use debian testing - but i am pretty sure that any ATI program is not going to work. the ATI SDK is only for ATI/AMD cards. i'd recommend you give hashkill a shot, here: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=6819.0it's simple to use, works with ATI and nvidia, and doesn't require much in the way of hardware-specific software. look through the thread - but the destructions are in the first post. |
|
|
|
If that is the case, this was starting to happening before the hack. The week before the hack the price deathly level at $20 for a few days. Completely flat. If this is happening, I think you overestimate the spread. I think they are bouncing us between $16.75 and $17. I believe someone big is cashing out at the $17 level, and picking up and coins he can at around $16.75. Then again our google trends are in a lull, http://www.google.com/trends?q=bitcoin&ctab=0&geo=all&date=ytd&sort=0This has been highly correlative with price, see my post from a few weeks ago, the current lull does put us right at $17: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=17318.0I think the price will start moving up when our trend improves. As soon as bitcoin starts getting some noise in more mainstream places the price is going places. yes - i agree. unfortunately, bad news sells - and we seem to have gotten Bitcoin into a more secure place where there is much less of that bad news. some kind of noise about how Facebook Credits are a huge ripoff compared to Bitcoin... that might be good. * sigh * everything on the 'net always goes back to google - and they are shortly to be the competition. tougher... |
|
|
|
And BTW there are irreversible transaction methods in Paypal
For instance when I charge for a service, my client can't reverse transaction, he can open a dispute then I must prove I delivered the service for which I collected.
There is mass-pay option which can't be reversed easily and beauty of it it doesn't lay burden of 3% fee on receiver, it costs $1 to the sender.
A lot of ignorance and hidden agendas is coming from those who simply scream paypal sucks. and also disability to comprehend to what they agree when signing up to their service.
I'm sure there are horror stories and I don't dismiss some of them may be true, but there are 3 sides of story in any such case.
interesting. there's new stuff all the time. i've never sold services, so i was unaware of that. how recent is the mass-pay option? although i guess that wouldn't do me much good either - the point of rare books (or collectibles of most kinds) is that there really aren't mass quantities of them readily available. but really - i have no hidden agenda where paypal or ebay are concerned. they have simply proven, over and over again, to be evil - extremely counter-productive with a strong anti-seller bias, if you prefer - for me and people like me. i imagine they're quite useful for folks who sell occasionally, and whose goods are lower priced. but i'm just not going to be using their services to sell thousand dollar books any more - one can only afford to lose so many of those to thieves taking advantage of a rigged game. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
