wow dropbox accounts are getting so cheap, I paid 2 BTC for my 18GB account just 6 months ago.
Absolutely, however our margins are razor thin at 0.25 BTC this is not the normal price! Once our extra stock is sold the price is going back up to 0.5 BTC. Still much cheaper than what they use to be  Then again, 6 months ago, BTC was only worth $4.70, so 2 BTC then = 0.78 BTC now. |
|
|
|
Interesting argument, I'll have to take that into consideration. I'm no economist by any means, but it just makes sense to me that the optimal economy would be one in which the money supply does not affect the decision to spend or save (or take on debt).
But would an economy in which the money supply dynamics are fully defined and well known with perfect information for all participants affect someone's willingness to invest negatively? Wouldn't the known money supply dynamic just become the backdrop on which people still evaluate whether they can put capital and labor together to yield more than the sum of those costs? Sure, savings would grow purchasing power over time, but investing would bring in profits that also grow purchasing power over time... Doesn't this even out? It seems to me that the key is perfect money supply information. People are exceptionally conditioned to a generally inflating (at variable rates) money supply right now, so if we get brief periods of deflation (or deflation expectations), of course people hoard because they know the supply is just going to inflate again soon. But again, if the supply dynamics are perfectly well known to everyone, it should just come back to sound business decisions without any of the macro-forecasting shenanigans that pervert investment incentives. Bitcoin is the first feasible monetary system ever proposed that credibly offers perfect information to all participants. That changes (purifies) the calculus quite a bit. Let's continue with the maths then. Say I am looking at a potential investment in a company that has a 95% chance of succeeding, and if it does succeed, it'll grow my investment at an average rate of 7% per year, but if it doesn't succeed, then I lose everything. I might value that investment as a potential 2% growth on my money. Now, say that I know that prices are dropping at a rate of 3% per year (purchasing price increasing, due to deflation in the monetary supply). Why would I invest in said business with my money to make 2% per year, when I could just keep the money in my pocket and make a certain 3% per year? I can know everything about the specifics of the money supply, but that wouldn't change the fact that 3% > 2%, and thus saving instead of investing is the wiser business decision. The question I cannot answer is whether the expected 7% return would have been greater in the inflationary economy vs in the deflationary economy. If that is the case, then perhaps my argument would be nullified. HuH? A business making 2% a year is fine, because that would be 2% a year in a currency that is appreciating in value 3% a year. I invest 100 BTC and I make 2 BTC the first year. Let's say the interest doesn't compound so I make 2 BTC again the next year. That 2 BTC will be worth 3% more than the 2 BTC I made the year before. I don't see the problem. That's only true if the company itself is also growing its productivity at a rate of 3%/year. For example, assume the company sells 10,000 widgets in year 1 at 1 BTC each, thus generating 10,000 BTC in revenues, and assume my payout of that is 2 BTC. The next year, assume that the same company sells the same 10,000 widgets in year 2, but this time, because the purchasing power of BTC went up, buyers are only willing to pay 0.97 BTC per widget (i.e., 3% less than they did the year before, due to the 3% rise in purchasing power). Now, the company only generates 9,700 BTC in revenues, and my payout is reduced to 1.94 BTC. If the company sold 10,300 widgets (an increase of 3%), then they could "keep up" with the deflation and still meet the requisite 10,000 BTC in revenues. Of course, this is a very simplistic example with many factors left out, but it should give you an idea of what I mean... |
|
|
|
Issue #2 and #3 arrived in WI, USA today.
First US report! Yay! |
|
|
|
Interesting argument, I'll have to take that into consideration. I'm no economist by any means, but it just makes sense to me that the optimal economy would be one in which the money supply does not affect the decision to spend or save (or take on debt).
But would an economy in which the money supply dynamics are fully defined and well known with perfect information for all participants affect someone's willingness to invest negatively? Wouldn't the known money supply dynamic just become the backdrop on which people still evaluate whether they can put capital and labor together to yield more than the sum of those costs? Sure, savings would grow purchasing power over time, but investing would bring in profits that also grow purchasing power over time... Doesn't this even out? It seems to me that the key is perfect money supply information. People are exceptionally conditioned to a generally inflating (at variable rates) money supply right now, so if we get brief periods of deflation (or deflation expectations), of course people hoard because they know the supply is just going to inflate again soon. But again, if the supply dynamics are perfectly well known to everyone, it should just come back to sound business decisions without any of the macro-forecasting shenanigans that pervert investment incentives. Bitcoin is the first feasible monetary system ever proposed that credibly offers perfect information to all participants. That changes (purifies) the calculus quite a bit. Let's continue with the maths then. Say I am looking at a potential investment in a company that has a 95% chance of succeeding, and if it does succeed, it'll grow my investment at an average rate of 7% per year, but if it doesn't succeed, then I lose everything. I might value that investment as a potential 2% growth on my money. Now, say that I know that prices are dropping at a rate of 3% per year (purchasing price increasing, due to deflation in the monetary supply). Why would I invest in said business with my money to make 2% per year, when I could just keep the money in my pocket and make a certain 3% per year? I can know everything about the specifics of the money supply, but that wouldn't change the fact that 3% > 2%, and thus saving instead of investing is the wiser business decision. The question I cannot answer is whether the expected 7% return would have been greater in the inflationary economy vs in the deflationary economy. If that is the case, then perhaps my argument would be nullified. |
|
|
|
Inflation encourages overspending and too much debt. Deflation encourages saving and too little debt.
One encourages saving, or the abstinence of consumption. The other encourages spending, or the abstinence of capital formation. If you believe that wealth and prosperity result from consumption, you will hate Bitcoin. If, on the other hand, you believe that wealth and prosperity result from production, you will love Bitcoin. Many will argue, "but you can't have production without consumption" and this is nonsense. I can go produce things without there being a buyer. Yet, I cannot consume things without there being a seller. Consumption is the effect - the result of - production, though unfortunately we live in a world in which people have come to believe the opposite. Interesting argument, I'll have to take that into consideration. I'm no economist by any means, but it just makes sense to me that the optimal economy would be one in which the money supply does not affect the decision to spend or save (or take on debt). |
|
|
|
It means that loans will be rare in a Bitcoin economy. Growth will come from savings (capital formation).
Instead of being able to borrow money to buy a car and a flatscreen TV you'll need to save the money first.
Why would loans be rare? All you do is adjust the interest rate for the expected amount of deflation. Yes, but keep in mind, the interest rate on a loan can't go lower than 0% (and really, why would anyone want to give out 0% loans anyway?), but if deflation beyond 6% hits, most people are going to stop taking out loans to buy houses. If deflation beyond 10% hits, people probably aren't going to take out loans for cars. If deflation beyond 20% hits, people are probably going to avoid taking out any sort of loans altogether. However, I don't see this as a bad thing... people borrow too much money, and it is, in large part, due to inflation being present in the money we use. Inflation encourages overspending and too much debt. Deflation encourages saving and too little debt. Maybe it is time we bring deflation into our lives and see what happens? |
|
|
|
|
I had similar thoughts when I initially learned about Bitcoin. Deflation is going to kill the economy, etc etc. But then, some people pointed out to me, perhaps inflation is artificially inflating the economy by encouraging bad investments and increasing debt-based ventures?
To me, the ideal currency would have a supply that inflates exactly according to GDP growth. Thus, it would neither inflate nor deflate pricing, and wouldn't over-encourage bad investments or too much saving. There's no perfect way to achieve such a system though. Bitcoin is interesting too, and would only result in effective deflation equal to the increase in GDP growth + deflation due to lost coins.
*shrug*
It definitely discourages investments, but it certainly won't stop investments entirely. People will just start weighing the opportunity cost of holding BTC vs other investments.
|
|
|
|
Someone has to request him to get the scammer tag... Request it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=83.0I completely agree with you all... he's been scamming people for a LONG time too. His advertising service hardly ever pays out to anyway. |
|
|
|
Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, ISPs and website operators cannot be held liable for defamation for publishing statements that are were posted by someone else.
Does this mean that website operators do not have to remove defamatory statements even if they know it is defamatory? I believe that's correct according to Zeran v. America Online, Inc. 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) "[L]awsuits seeking to hold a service liable for its exercise of a publisher's traditional editorial functions – such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content – are barred. The purpose of this statutory immunity is not difficult to discern. Congress recognized the threat that tort-based lawsuits pose to freedom of speech in the new and burgeoning Internet medium. Section 230 was enacted, in part, to maintain the robust nature of Internet communication." This case is still good law, and the United States Supreme Court denied cert to hear the case. But doing what is legal, isn't necessarily doing what is "right". So I still would advise clearly defamatory statements to be taken down, but it is not something a website operator should fear will lead to lawsuits. Sure, that makes sense. I just had a case on a rating site of mine (not bitcoin feedback) where the business owner threatened to sue me if I didn't remove particular statements about her business. I did some quick research, and told her why I could not be sued over it, and that shut her up, but I wanted to be sure I was in the right about that! EDIT: And to be clear, it was a "he said, she said" sort of thing... no way for me to know if it was false or defamatory or not. I felt like it was prudent to keep the feedback posted, and offered the business owner the opportunity to respond to the accusations. |
|
|
|
Need to move to the US  Wait hang on ..... I think not  working exchanges should be pretty high on the to-do list On whose priority list? |
|
|
|
Hi All,
Does any one know when does BFL stop taking per-orders, any approximate date?
I am trying to gather funds by next month to place per-order for few BFL Jalapeno's. Would like to have Idea about cut off time for per-orders.
Ashitank
I don't think there will ever be a point when they stop taking orders. It'll be either a pre-order, a back-order, or an order. When you have funds, you'll be able to do one of the three. Yes I understand that, but My question relates to expiry of Pr-orders of Jalapeno in sense change from per-order to normal order will change cost of unit from 149$ to --> $? , so wanted place per-order before price changes from that of per-order price to normal order increased price. Hmmm... this is the first I've heard of the price changing after pre-orders are up. Where did you read/hear about the price changing after preorders are done? |
|
|
|
London conference, uk hasn't even got a functioning exchange, I'm tying to trade using bitcoins and cant even sell them. I must be missing something, not quite cutting edge more blunt spoon  You are missing something: Bitcoin is still VERY young. |
|
|
|
It maybe a non-issue - at least I guess there's no equivalent of import VAT to pay in the US. Hopefully there's no duty to pay, and all is well. Still, I will complete the post office customs form honestly on my returned Single - I'm certainly not going to risk it being seized due to an incorrect declaration.
I'd just rather get this resolved before it arises. If my trade-in package gets stuck in US Customs with a fee needing to be paid to release it, I'd like to know that BFL were set up and ready for me to just send them some coins to cover the fee, if necessary, rather than risk long delays or (worse) having the package destroyed or returned.
roy
It could get stuck in customs, and their could be a fee, but there's no standard case for either - I've never had a package for something I bought internationally get stuck in customs, and I've never paid any sort of fee either. |
|
|
|
Hi All,
Does any one know when does BFL stop taking per-orders, any approximate date?
I am trying to gather funds by next month to place per-order for few BFL Jalapeno's. Would like to have Idea about cut off time for per-orders.
Ashitank
I don't think there will ever be a point when they stop taking orders. It'll be either a pre-order, a back-order, or an order. When you have funds, you'll be able to do one of the three. |
|
|
|
okay yes Mr. Vanish I'm bringing it up to try to debate the merits of intellectual property rights which seem to be very relevant to this site
I was planning on uploading for sale my music to this site
Oh, the irony... |
|
|
|
all digital music is virtually free anyway
find some other item to claim intellectual property thats not free. theres no physical item when you're selling the music just an organization of bits that can be infinitely copied over and over again. It can really only be sold into use once before it's available for anyone potentially
copy and paste is not stealing
It is if I didn't authorize you to copy and paste, and it was my file to begin with. i could have paid for the file or someone else that did who allowed me to  But if I didn't authorize them to do that when they downloaded it from me, how is that ok? did they sign a written contract? i think not give a bum $5 and force them to only buy solid food with it A copyright notice included with the materials implies contract to not violate said copyright. By downloading/purchasing the materials, yes, they consented to the terms of said copyright contract. |
|
|
|
all digital music is virtually free anyway
find some other item to claim intellectual property thats not free. theres no physical item when you're selling the music just an organization of bits that can be infinitely copied over and over again. It can really only be sold into use once before it's available for anyone potentially
copy and paste is not stealing
It is if I didn't authorize you to copy and paste, and it was my file to begin with. i could have paid for the file or someone else that did who allowed me to But if I didn't authorize them to do that when they downloaded it from me, how is that ok? |
|
|
|
No it probably wouldn't be free, who determines how much "free" you get versus me? there will most definitely still be currency. In current society, robots(automated machines) already produce significant portion of wealth, why not start now? you think the switch would happen suddenly?
Ah I'm getting confused. This subject is really tough, honestly. No irony here. On one hand I told you that there is no point to start now, since robot do not currently do all the work. On the other hand I'm going to tell you that it's already started. Robot do indeed do a lot of work, and some people do receive money doing nothing thanks to that. I do. I own shares and I get money by doing nothing. So the system you are advocating has already begun. The key point, imho, is whether or not robots create not just wealth, but also copies of themselves as well. In that case, everybody can own robots, and there is no point having a system of shares that would be unevenly distributed. But then again in that case price of things would really be almost zero. Because everybody could create whatever he needs when he needs it. So there would be no point in buying something. Hence a price of zero for everything. Honestly I'm not sure anyone here gets how complicated this is. You're missing out on one very important point: Resources are not infinite. Sure, robots could conceivably be built that could create anything. But the materials to build those robots have to come from somewhere. You might say that the materials to build those robots come from mines operated by robots, but those mines can't last forever. Land is a finite resource. Land cannot be free. Gold cannot be free, as it is a finite resource. Etc, etc. Basically, nothing can be free, as nothing is an infinite resource. |
|
|
|
[02:15:49] <pirateat40> Threats are taken seriously by myself and my attorney. A few of you will find out how serious I mean.
Sad thing is, its becoming illegal to trash talk on the net in the States (online bullying bills). He may have the law on his side on this part.
Well, not just that, but any threat on a person's life or property can be taken very seriously, online or not. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
