That is a great link. It looked like he was 10 for 10 in 2013 - WRONG that is. Bodes well for bitcoin in 2014! He must be a great contrarian indicator now. |
|
|
|
Byron Wien Announces Predictions for Ten Surprises for 2014
....
In 2½ years the price of a Bitcoin has increased from $25 to $975. The supply of Bitcoins is fixed at 21 million with 11.5 million in circulation. Bitcoins lack gold’s position as a store of value over time. During the year Bitcoin’s acceptance collapses as investors realize that it cannot be used as collateral in financial transactions and its principal utility is for illegal business dealings where anonymity is important. http://www.blackstone.com/news-views/press-releases/details/byron-wien-announces-predictions-for-ten-surprises-for-2014Just for the records, let's see what happens this year. And he is back in August in terms of number of bitcoins in circulation - it is above 12 million now. When you can't even the details like that right, how can we expect anything else to be accurate! |
|
|
|
Deposits were made illegal. Exchanges are legal as the government wants its citizens to convert all their BTC into yuan. China should be selling now. Why are they buying?
If you live in an authoritarian country and are worried about having the value of your currency inflated away or if you want to have assets available if you need to flee the socialists/communists/fascists/authoritarians you would be buying bitcoins or if you could buy hard assets overseas, then those too. Bitcoin gives the Chinese a safe-haven from the depredations of the authoritarians in their government and lets them have options when the Yuan is devalued, or when there is strife from too many controls etc. This doesn't apply to just China, btw, but anywhere people want to protect themselves from people who who want to take the fruits of their labor by force. ;-) |
|
|
|
Not even. Some years back the economy in my country was (allegedly, didn't follow credible sources back then) doing great, everyone had more money but some people had more extra money than others and THIS UPSET PEOPLE. It's not poverty, that's just where things become most obvious, it's greed and envy. It's never enough.
A society works well with ethics, values, and social responsibility. Capitalism is not honestly and ethically, it's amoral and promotes greed. However capitalism is born in a Christian ethic, and with that eroding, we now only have self-interest (property without responsibility). I agree about ethics, values, and social responsibility, but an economic system is (as you seemed to say) amoral and agnostic. It works better when people are honest, but it doesn't impose it except through contracts and reputation. Capitalism about freedom. The true test for people is if they support freedom or they support force. Capitalism (not crony-capitalism) is voluntary. Everyone trades with everyone else for what each considers mutual benefit. Socialism, communism, all kinds of authoritarianisms require you to be forced into their mold. There is no way out. You can have a socialist commune in a free country, but not the reverse. That should tell you all you need to know about the differences and about the motives of those who are advocating force. |
|
|
|
Why does wealth need to be distributed?
An-caps versus An-socs. Go go go. An-cap: Leave me alone. An-soc: F-you. Give us your shit. Or we'll shoot you. Never a productive argument. It always ends the same. Wealth distribution isn't the problem - the problem is poverty. Lol. Perfect encapsulation of the argument. It always ends in threatened violence as a last resort. The only thing I'd add is: A-C: freedom will help everyone out of poverty A-S: F-you. It is about my envy and my greed for your stuff |
|
|
|
Making this thread sticky didn't achieve the intended result.
Making kiba a moderator (for a while) didn't achieve the intended result.
Maybe an SMF mod that rejects new threads whose title does not match the format?
Even when people know the format they don't care. |
|
|
|
Maybe he is from different time zone than you. Maybe try using a dictionary so that you make sure you understand the meaning of the words you're reading and writing? I use it quite often couse english is not my native language. What is wrong with his date format so? The Sticky in all CAPS at the top of the Press forum explains: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=246823.0YYYY-MM-DD SITE - HEADLINE :-) |
|
|
|
Just an update for those following:
Indeed, it may be back to the drawing board.
I had first discovered something by looking at the first few blocks that were created. Rather than tediously going through many variables on many blocks, I wrote code to do it automatically. That code came up with what appeared to be a statistical anomaly that seemed to confirm my original finding. Further testing today, however, makes it look like there was a flaw in my logic with the code I wrote.
However, the original anomaly I found is still there, and I need to do some testing with that to see if it is an issue or not. Since I was only looking at the first few blocks, it could be completely irrelevant at this point.
Did it have something to do with the probability distribution of the blocks mined by Satoshi which were the first few (among others) of the blocks created? If so, take a look here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=286883.0 |
|
|
|
...
Assume I have 10 bitcoins today. Ten years from now I go to spend them and have the 2% annual "fee" taken. I can only spend 8 bitcoins. I have lost twenty percent of the bitcoins I owned. That is a loss of value. If, as you stated, bitcoin is only a currency the exchange rate is irrelevant.
...
Wrong! If the price of let's say a car in Bitcoins today is 10 BTC and the price of a comparable class car in ten years is 8 BTC you haven't lost any value. You have lost a nominal amount of 2 BTC, but have at the same time retained the full value of your assets in BTC. I am not sure where you learned math, but if I have $1000 today and in 10 years, you take $200 as a fee and I have $800, I have lost $200 in value. I have lost 2% per year (not compounded). Same for bitcoin. Saying that is "Wrong!" is at such odds with math that you clearly need to review it. I started with 10, you took 2, I ended up with 8. That is a loss. Where I come from 2 BTC is not "nominal". Right now it is nearly $2000. Hardly a nominal amount. Also, there is no guarantee that it will appreciate so you can't say, but in fiat terms you are still ahead. Finally you assume that I intend to cash my bitcoin out for an inflating currency to buy a car. Why would you assume that someone wouldn't just sell me a car for BTC? Here is my final thought on this since you are having serious problems having a civil discussion: if you don't like Bitcoin, go to freicoin or fork bitcoin with a rule that will steal 1-2% of their bitcions each year. Or start an alt-coin. If you think this is a brilliant idea that will save bitcoin from itself, put up your time where your mouth is. Instead of arguing here, fork bitcoin and see if you can get people to follow you. You should have no problem since this is such a wonderful idea. |
|
|
|
...
This would be a hard fork and you would likely get very few people to switch to something that guarantees they will lose a certain amount of value each year. ...
As for people losing money within the system I'm proposing; either you are deliberately oversimplifying or you just don't understand economics. Given the fixed final amount of Bitcoins on one side and the ever growing world economy, Bitcoin is bound to be at least slightly gaining value, prices of goods in Bitcoins are bound to be going down and exchange rates to other currencies are bound to constantly rise. If the yearly fee rate would be smaller or equal to the appreciation rate, nobody would lose their money. Assume I have 10 bitcoins today. Ten years from now I go to spend them and have the 2% annual "fee" taken. I can only spend 8 bitcoins. I have lost twenty percent of the bitcoins I owned. That is a loss of value. If, as you stated, bitcoin is only a currency the exchange rate is irrelevant. Anyway, I'll be interested in seeing how this alt-coin turns out. I dare say that most people will look at the calculation above and do it the same way and stick with the real bitcoin, not this proposed fork. Good luck forcing the majority of the network to do so if they disagree with a fee that erodes the number of bitcoins they own over time like inflation does whether or not the fiat value increases or not. |
|
|
|
For example, by "wallstreet" i mean:
Banks, Hedge Fund, Pensions Fund, All kind of investment firms etc...
Lets say that these companies have around i dont know 1 Trillion dollars worth of investments (the money they want to invest somewhere (like stocks, housing, gold, commodities, etc.) (the 1 trillion number is just my number, i dont know the actual number)
They would made up their mind to invest 5% of their wealth into bitcoin (thats 50 Bilion dollars), and would expect (i dont know) a 100% appreciation of their investment in a year (because BTC had such a nice ride the past years), so they would expect to have around 100 Bilion dollars worth of BTC after a year of their initial investment.
Lets say the current BTC price is 833, the market cap is 10 000 000 000 (10 bilions dolars), there are 12 000 000 existing BTCs (that makes 10 bilions divide 12 milion coins = cca 833 dolars per coin). If 50 Bilion dolars would enter the market ( the markep cap would be 60 bilion dolars), thus driving the price of 1 BTC to 5 000 USD. And Wallstreet would like to double their investment in a year (receive additional 100% from their investment, making that 100 Bilion dollars)... So the bitcoin market cap would have to reach 110 Bilions market cap before Wallstreet would consider that it met it goal (and consider i dont know, staying or slowly cashing out)... So 110 Bilions BTC market cap would mean cca 9 200 USD per 1 BTC...
The additional 50 Bilion USD (the profit wallestreat wants to make) would have to come from other sources, like normal companies, or the regular people... Is this possible?
This was just and example, but you get the point... did anybody did this analysis (predictions) before me with REAL numbers? Is is possible for wallstreat as a whole "entity" to get "seriously" interested in BTC?
That isn't how it works in general. If $50 Billion entered the market, the market cap would probably be nearly 10 times as much - $500 Billion - because their buying in would increase the price so much. The way to remember it is that prices are set at the margin, eg by those who are buying and selling and most bitcoin wouldn't be sold so the demand would be immense. Putting $10 billion in would probably be enough to give us a $50-100 Billion market cap. |
|
|
|
|
You're from the future, and want to let us know the price of BTC in 2045?
|
|
|
|
|
If you look on here you will see many people coming in saying "I have found a flaw, but can't give you details" and it turns out that they didn't understand something, so everyone is very skeptical when someone comes in and won't give out any details.
PM someone with development experience on here with the details - in exacting detail showing where in the code their is a problem, in the math, or in the design. If it is a vulnerability, you'll hear back quite quickly if you have actually provided enough details and if there is a problem.
The link above shows how quickly the code can be changed if needed, so the answer to the question is, YES.
|
|
|
|
-Bailins apply for ammount ONLY (?) above 100 000 EUR (the smaller ones are insured).
...
whats your take on this?
In Cyprus they initially planned it in everyone, until there was outrage. I dare say in Cyprus there are very few people keeping over 100k Euros in any one bank now. Likewise if I were in a country and started hearing about bank issues, I would immediately get below the limit. Then what? Most people do that because they aren't dumb and that means that everyone ends up paying since there is not enough money above the limit to steal, I mean confiscate, I mean, some word that means steal, bit sounds better. :-) Thats a great post, some posts are good because i cant figure everything (regrettably) myself :-(. I didnt realize that majority of the people will move their funds in one bank account under 100 K euro, so above that limit, there wont be anything to confiscate... On the other hand dont underestimate the stupidity of people :-), on the other hand again, when you have over 100 K i euro, theres a reasonable chance, you are not stupid :-). So do you guys think that they will go for money even under the 100 K euro? Well in that case i think that they would confiscate it all in one turn (to prevent the run on other banks , that are in a bad shape now, but still ok, but might fail in horizont of few months). I agree - there would probably be plenty of people who (a) didn't figure it out, (b) were out of the country, (c) stupid or uninformed, or something else who wouldn't move their accounts under the 100k limit, but in the US in 2008, there were articles in the media about getting your balance under the FDIC limit. So even if only 50% of the people did it, it would devastate their plans for funding and I bet there would be way more than that. The guaranteed deposits are only guaranteed until they decide they have no other choice and then they are no longer guaranteed. Will they go after the people under 100K Euro? If they feel that they need the money and have no other way, then yes. Will it happen? I don't know, I don't think anyone does, but the IMF/Central Banks etc float ideas for a reason and if they can't print (inflate) their way out of the problems, then they'll use "other means". The US has the ability to print and might think that will solve all their problems, but many countries don't and that is for a good reason - it is irresponsible and immoral to foist your debts off on future generations. |
|
|
|
Also, how would the 10 % wealth tax played out?
- Is it for the entire (western) world? Or just USA? Just the real in debt problem countries, only eurozone (EU countries which pay with euro), only EU etc.?
- What do you think would be the timeframe? Would it be a short period (like 1.1.2015 theres an announcment that all people with nerth wealth will have to pay 10% until 31,1,2015 (only in a month), or will it be a londer period (pay your share of wealth tax, you have one year to do so)...? Because when theres a short time period you might not pay it (the tax) because you wotn get the cash so quickly. When theres a logn time period, you might try to cheat the tax somehow...
So what do you think, how would it play out?
Bail-ins: banks close Friday, surprise bail-ins announced Friday night, banks reopen late the following week and your balance is only 80% of what it was before. Wealth tax: banks/markets close Friday. Surprise Wealth tax announced based on closing prices that day and are due within 60-90 days (or at the end of the quarter) with the 10% taken right from your account that weekend. Will it happen soon? Probably not, but these trial balloons are used for some time before it does so they can see what they can get away with and get people accustomed to the idea and terms - "oh that old idea, we've been hearing about it for 3 years now, so it must be something we need to do." |
|
|
|
-Bailins apply for ammount ONLY (?) above 100 000 EUR (the smaller ones are insured).
...
whats your take on this?
In Cyprus they initially planned it in everyone, until there was outrage. I dare say in Cyprus there are very few people keeping over 100k Euros in any one bank now. Likewise if I were in a country and started hearing about bank issues, I would immediately get below the limit. Then what? Most people do that because they aren't dumb and that means that everyone ends up paying since there is not enough money above the limit to steal, I mean confiscate, I mean, some word that means steal, bit sounds better. :-) |
|
|
|
Again, I'm not advocating inflation. I'm proposing a variable transaction fee to compensate for negative effects of inherent deflation.
All major currencies are far more stable than Bitcoin. Bitcoin prices swing over 10% each and every trading day, when was the last time USD did that?
This would be a hard fork and you would likely get very few people to switch to something that guarantees they will lose a certain amount of value each year. However, you are certainly welcome to fork bitcoin with the changes you propose and then you can see how many people agree that this is what is holding bitcoin back. Instead of trying to convince us here, just grab the code, make the changes (it seems pretty simple to add code to calculate the fee as you propose based on coin age), announce that as of a certain date, FeeCoin will start, using the bitcoin blockchain as of that date (or make an alt and start over). If this is really what will hold bitcoin back in the future, it should be easy to get a critical mass of users of bitcoin to switch to your fork. You'll be the bitcoin savior. If a majority switch, it might even adopt the name Bitcoin 2.0. The real way to find out if it is a good idea or not is to put it out there for people to use and see what people choose freely. My opinion is that people won't choose to use something where they are guaranteed to lose value. People here won't be able to determine that by talking. ;-) Anyway, just because someone calls something that acts just like inflation - eating away the value of savings each year - something else doesn't change its nature. You assume several things too: first that bitcoin is and will remain deflationary when it has an expanding monetary base and second that a currency with an eventual stable number of units will be deflationary. The nature and value of bitcoin do not depend on the exchange value for fiat currencies. If you read more about bitcoin, you will see that it is more than a currency, providing value (like land as someone said above) and that the exchanges are merely an entry point for non-miners. Changing the bitcoin protocol to do something to promote exchange stability is outside of the bitcoin idea since that would inherently cause inflation in bitcoin due to the inflationary nature of all fiat currencies when controlled by a central bank. E.g. if you want to essentially try to peg bitcoin to the Euro or Dollar, you will be importing their inflation and that is a bad idea. :-) |
|
|
|
I want China in because it will fight U.S, tas long as the ultimate conspiracy that all the world's powers will unite against Bitcoin just because it's Bitcoin doesn't become a reality, the more rivalries we have in here, the better it's for the whole ecosystem.
It's called decentralization, and Bitcoin allows you to benefit from it regardless of your morality, belief, and entrenched interest, if you choose to play by its rules.
Exactly. The more players and competition the better. A benefit of having China's (and India's) stance on bitcoin is that it shows the world China's true colors and those that follow them will show their's too. |
|
|
|
|
Forcing the freedom/free speech issue with the FEC and Feds in General is a good thing. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
