It's really annoying how they make out the value crashed to pennies and now nobody knows if a bitcoin is worth anything. And they always show that plunging chart, but not what happened afterwards on other exchanges. The objective is to give the impression that the value crashed and that's it, we all wait on baited breath for the offices of Bitcoin ltd to reopen and announce whether the magical tokens will be honored by the company or not as the auditors move in and the Managing Directors are hauled before the courts.   |
|
|
|
|
PM me the problem and if I can help, pay me in bitcoin. Sound good?
|
|
|
|
|
trustless medium is trustless.
|
|
|
|
They remained un-phased because nowadays they are a satellite of the United States. To be correct whole EU is satellite of US (especially in a military sense) To be correct this is incorrect. Of course, there are many satellites of the US especially among Eastern European countries. Poland, however, is a very special case. They have the lowest orbit as a satellite of the United States among all EU member countries. Bah, this is only so because they are still on the rebound from being a satellite of the Sovjets. My only point in mentioning was that life under a communist regime beholden to the needs of Moscow was partially character forming of the Polish bitcoin market. One tends to be more unflinching and have stronger nerves in pursuit of better money if one can closely remember queuing for bread, oppressive government and hyperinflation. I could be wrong, just my theory. |
|
|
|
Maybe it's the still fresh memory of fifty years as a satellite of the Sovjet Union but the Poles remained un-phased by the bearshit-storm blowing down off the Mountain.
They remained un-phased because nowadays they are a satellite of the United States. Well... gotta be a satellite of someone.  (for now anyway, *clenches gauntleted fist*) |
|
|
|
|
The difference is Keynes emphasis on distribution and consumption of wealth, versus those that emphasize saving and investment. Keynes seems to be more interested in how income flows around the economy, even through make-work projects that everyone gets to wet their beak in. You'll probably disagree with that if you beleive that spending should not take place unless it is efficient and profitable. One could see this as a matter of paying as few people as little as possible for as much work as possible. But that may undermine the ability of people to buy the stuff you've invested in making. In the Depression the income stopped flowing, seems this affected Keynes thinking.
Krugman sounds like a dick, the bail-outs have not circulated through the economy in any way I would describe as Keynesian, welfare for the banks is all it was. Would have been more Keynesian to just hand the money directly to households. I understand that some of the money made its way to local government spending (building roads and so on) but mostly in a retarded kind of way. But covering the banks asses so they can sit on it and not lend it out into the economy isn't Keynsian in my opinion, and that's not even assuming Keynsianism is a good thing.
|
|
|
|
It's been a rough few days, but it's been nice and reassuring seeing the Poles holding steady up there near the top of bitcoincharts. Maybe it's the still fresh memory of fifty years as a satellite of the Sovjet Union but the Poles remained un-phased by the bearshit-storm blowing down off the Mountain. From now on I will be keeping an eye on the Polish exchange to get a sense of deeper sentiment, what's really going on regardless of the flocks of skittish birds taking off at every sudden movement and obscuring the longer-term view. Dunno if the nature of the Polish market tends to be longer term bitcoin savers or people actually using bitcoins for something, would be interesting to know. |
|
|
|
In my opinion, bitcoin 1.0 will fail. Yes, I may be wrong, this thread is not to debate that. This thread is for my idea for Bitcoin 2.0 which I am not ambitious enough to head myself as I want to focus on my family. I realize some of you feel bitcoin is backed. However, too many people want a currency backed by something tangible. Enter " junk silver". The junk silver I would recommend having back Bitcoin 2.0 would be pre 1932-1964 quarters and 1946-1964 dimes as they have the same metal makeup. This solves the problem of a tangible backing. In addition, this all of a sudden makes every coin shop in the world a distributed exchange which we all understand the need for. However, this idea WOULD likely require a central repository to hold the junk silver dimes and quarters UNLESS some specific ironclad deal was worked out with coin dealers. Deposit or buy a pre 1965 dime and get 1 bitcoin 2.0 from the central exchange or the coin dealer who has bitcoin. Buy or deposit a 1964 or older quarter and get 2.50 bitcoin 2.0. They can then be traded, purchased, and sold anonymously just like bitcoin 1.0. Your junk silver becomes digitized. But at any time you can withdraw it for junk silver. It will ALWAYS have value, be reasonably stable, and have distributed exchanges yet still have most of the benefits of bitcoin 1.0. I hope someone proceeds with this or a like idea. Less intelligent people are suspicious of information, and prefer matter. The reason for this is that they can hold matter and admire its shininess. Information alone tends to confuse them, they are not sure that it even really exists. What they don't realize is that matter itself, is also information. lol. |
|
|
|
The reason why it won't happen is because the difficulty level keeps going up, so every day it becomes more and more expensive to mine, thus giving the coins value through their creators.
you say this many times, but it's simply incorrect except as a complex psychological matter that, as applied to any specific context, requires empirical validation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costsyou've also claimed that difficulty cannot go down; this is incorrect too. it can and has. Economics is a complex psychological matter. Sunk costs slowly drives price, that's my belief. But the effect of difficulty on prices is overshadowed by the more rapid effect of price on difficulty. It's like how stars work, a contest between gravity and heat, gravity as the weaker force but still has its effect. |
|
|
|
"Mt.Gov"? This was written by someone with little or no prior exposure to Bitcoin. Tells me that was an assignment with marching orders as to tone and content. I agree, wikileaks 'cashing out' their bitcoins doesn't mean anything. They will continue to 'cash out' bitcoin donations because they need dollars/euros or pounds to pay for whatever their expenses are. Makes sense to me. It's like saying "Guy loses faith in dollars, exchanges some for goods and services!!!1!" |
|
|
|
In some areas, this can be useful, like in meeting needs that otherwise would not be met due to the free-rider problem, but when it extends it action beyond its primary responsibilities, it becomes a tool to exploit people by making them do what they otherwise would not want to.
I think this right here is the crux of our difference. Nothing I have read of Keynes suggests that his ideas are about extending government action beyond its primary responsibilities. My impression is that there are people who have that agenda that invoke Keynes to justify their objectives. I just don't think this fairly represents Keynes himself or his ideas, regardless of whether you agree with the guy or not. I happily admit that Keynes model of the economy does not represent a number of things in real life, there are fair grounds to disagree with him, but don't forget that models are just that, simplified maps of reality the purpose of which is to try and capture certain relationships or behavior. Keynes did a lot for macro-economics, he basically founded the study. I just think criticisms of his ideas should be more constructive and not just used as a banner by metalists, rightwingers, libertarians etc to rage and condemn 'Progressives" or "Liberals" or 'Socialists' or 'fiat' or whatever their problem is. He certainly did not consider inflation a good thing. My own belief is that both Keynes and Hayek have something to say worth thinking about, I'm not interested in the kind of stop-think demonization used by "Keynsianism!" shriekers that replaces what should be enlightening debate. |
|
|
|
What exactly is your question, I looked back and couldn't find a single question mark in your posts. As I recall it was I that asked you a question. Ask me now and I'll see what I can do, though I suspect that I won't agree with your premise.
By the way swapping out Keynes for Stalin means fuck all. If you seriously mean to imply Keynes and Stalin were basically the same, I cannot help you. I was implying that you are pissing on us by basically not answering and saying that Keynes had very good intentions. That is unknown and basically independent of the validity of his theories. I substituted ironically the name by Stalin to prove that your same words could argue that Stalin had very good intentions... You are basically not answering anything, just handwaving. And regarding my previous posts, it basically proves that the idea of slack capacity and lack of demand causing a crisis is wrong. And those are cornerstones of keynesian though. Without them you can not justify all that you are saying. But I get the impression (maybe a wrong impression) that you only know the surface of keynesianism, so you really can not answer. Answer what exactly? Look, I'm no professor of economics, but from what I do know, the Keynes-hate comes over as pretty retarded. So Keynes intentions weren't good? To my mind his ideas were a matter of practical problem solving, that's all. And his actual job at the time was a matter of post war rebuilding. So the guy considered government to have an important role in that context, big fucking deal. The concept of aggregate demand pulling everything along is a concept, it's not exactly nazi-ideology. |
|
|
|
I know what aggregate demand is.
Government is the tax-payer, merely another economic agent, it's not some alien force from space. There is an argument that a society cannot sustain itself on expansive monetary policy and I agree. But Stalin was for discretionary monetary policy, it's not the same thing as talking as if Stalin just wanted inflationary big government all the time.
Government is as big as the people need it to be to address the problems they need addressed, and if rebuilding nations is the problem you face, then leaving it to the likes of Ron Paul and his ilk just isn't going to cut it. I'm pretty sure Stalin did not envisage inflationary government for its own sake, that would be pointless. Do you realize you have not say anything? Its just a big handwaving. And you have still not answered me. What exactly is your question, I looked back and couldn't find a single question mark in your posts. As I recall it was I that asked you a question. Ask me now and I'll see what I can do, though I suspect that I won't agree with your premise. By the way swapping out Keynes for Stalin means fuck all. If you seriously mean to imply Keynes and Stalin were basically the same, I cannot help you. |
|
|
|
Most posters on this forum have no idea what "Keynesianism" is. The use of the term usually indicates the persons programming with emotional trigger words by opinion-manufacturers. Keynesianism has been the dominant economic ideology in the Western world since the 1930s, so I don't think it's wrong to allude to it in discussions. It is being challenged now by people like Ron Paul, and to some extent by the tea party that the likes of Paul Krugman so scorn, but its assumptions are still widely accepted by decision makers. Keynes idea is that demand drives the economy, I don't think that's wrong. Demand for cheap credit drove a credit bubble and feed an overheated housing market etc. I think you are misunderstanding what 'demand' means in economics. People always demand things, in the sense that we always want things, but in economics, demand means 'a desire to purchase something, and the means to purchase it'. Demand is the resources people have and want to spend to acquire another resource. Keynes' basic theory is that recessions are a result of the 'paradox of thrift', where every one is trying to save, by reducing consumption, which results in every one's income being reduced, and every one being able to save less. His theory is wrong in my opinion, but its application does some short-term good in a highly controlled economy where the national currency is the only one the market can use and credit issuance is centralized, and therefore deflation results in a lack of liquidity due to the lack of alternate currencies. What Keynes missed is that government inflation solves a problem caused by centralization of the economy, but that it promotes the very centralization that caused the problem in the first place by increasing the role of government in the economy. I know what aggregate demand is. Government is the tax-payer, merely another economic agent, it's not some alien force from space. There is an argument that a society cannot sustain itself on expansive monetary policy and I agree. But Keynes was for discretionary monetary policy, it's not the same thing as talking as if Keynes just wanted inflationary big government all the time. Government is as big as the people need it to be to address the problems they need addressed, and if rebuilding nations is the problem you face, then leaving it to the likes of Ron Paul and his ilk just isn't going to cut it. I'm pretty sure Keynes did not envisage inflationary government for its own sake, that would be pointless. I would like Ron Paul to be president though, it would be a laugh, and maybe keep the US boot off the neck of 3rd worlders for awhile, give em a chance to breathe. The US itself would probably quickly degenerate into all-out post-Katrinaesque anarchy, complete with roving bands of mercenaries and starving people, but the Middle East could really do with a break. |
|
|
|
MtGox's incompetence will cripple bitcoin for the near future. Will bitcoin recover? Who knows.
Bitcoin is fine. The tens of thousands of clients are still happily chugging away maintaining the distributed p2p block chain. MtGox is just another business that takes Bitcoins. If MtGox has problems, it is of no greater significance than if the Alpaca Sock guy were to have problems. If MtGox can't provide a liquid market between dollars and Bitcoins, then others will fill the vacuum. A month from now, we'll all look back on this and laugh. Fuckin-A. Scares the know-nots though, they'll learn however. |
|
|
|
Look, I am not obligated to your time. If you are going to dog me for begging for attention, so be it. That's what I am damn doing because I need advice.
I don't feel like living at all at the moment. If I had an accessible firearm, I would of probably blown out my brains 5 minutes ago in a game of Russian Roullette. Thoughts that are convincing me that existence is not worth playing with are around the context of part of me believing I am a parasite, that all I do is take from people and never give anything worthwhile back. I feel basically like I have contributed nothing and I always fail at doing so.
I have gotten pretty suicidal infrequently over the past few months. They've put me on these meds -- but all they do is nullify all feeling. They make existence even more pointless for me without the real pain of it all.
Just tell me this will go away over the years. I feel I am gradually going insane. I don't know what factors or cursed genetics caused this but I want to be a stable organism.
Has anyone gone through this and fixed it? Is it just a matter of accepting it?
Strop reading Rand or whatever it is you fill your head up with, but that aside remember this useful quote from the film The Legend of 1900... "Life is immense, immense!!!"You've barely scratched the surface of it, don't allow yourself to beleive it's all just selfish organisms and survival strategies, that's how clinical psychopaths see the world, they see the form but not the depth, they know the words but cannot feel the rythm. It's empty and pointless to live like that which is why clinical psychopaths often go to such extremes to squeeze meaning from the neck of life. If you had the power I'd recommend travel, seeing the world, meeting different people, getting out of the envelope of the only thing you know. Grow or die. |
|
|
|
1. Do not use mt.gox
2. Do not use mt.gox
Yes, if you are using bitcoin7.com instead, then you're probably alright. |
|
|
|
No, that's not my claim. Value is in the exchange, but saying bitcoins are created out of thin air is fucking ridiculous. They are ade out of shit-hot graphics cards, electricity and processing time, applied specifically to the purpose of creating a good form of money. The value comes from trade. The more people trade for them, the more value.
that's not true either. bitcoins are created by a predetermined function over time. the whole hashing exercise is just a way to determine their distribution (and to verify transactions) but bitcoins aren't really created by hashing power. the rate of creation stays the same, no matter how much "shit-hot graphics cards" are online. one lawn-mower could mow the whole world. A predetermined function over time whose impact on the real world is the employment of physical resources as described above. You're missing the point. Creating something out of nothing means that you are not bound to the use of any physical resources. At one time this was more the case, but by definition, the more people that decide to attribute some form of value to bitcoin, the more physical resources are required to produce them. The same amount are produced every day, but the requirements are a more or less direct physical reflection of the amount of people valuing them. The more they are valued, the more they are certainly not made out of nothing. |
|
|
|
Out of thin air? No, out of (currently) 10.574 Thash/s. You think that kind of computing power is made of faery dust unicorn-horn? Think again.
hard work to obtain something doesnt make it valueable. this guy worked hard with his lawn mower: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIaCHqxdSXc&feature=feedfand he's funny, too, which got to be worth something. No, that's not my claim. Value is in the exchange, but saying bitcoins are created out of thin air is fucking ridiculous. They are made out of shit-hot graphics cards, electricity and processing time, applied specifically to the purpose of creating a good form of money. The value comes from trade. The more people trade for them, the more value they can be traded for. I'm tired of these youtube idiots that come out with "Duhhh, I jus don't unnerstan how come somethin I can't hold and ain't shinny can be any valubal" That's just coz you're stupid. There are descent criticisms of bitcoin to be said, but not understanding anything that "ain't shinny" is not one of them. |
|
|
|
I didnt watch the video, but bitcoin has party of a ponzi scheme, namely the graph of money creation. why the rate of money creation would be the biggest at the beginning, when it was obvious there would be no demand, is beyond me. money creation should have started slowly, then picked up when wider adoption was expected for a couple of years and then decline. when other monetary systems were started they didnt distribute 10 mil each to 100 people. the money supply was increased when the currency got more widely used (for example: more countries were added to the eurozone). now I understand you can't manage this in the same way with bitcoin because there is no central authority, but the graph should have been shaped differently. The Euro works because the legacy currencies were tradable for it. There is hardly any real wealth transferred into bitcoins, mainly because you can just create bitcoins with mining. Bitcoins is like a new country inventing their own currency but without giving up their old one. They decide to trade this currency among themselves and then they try to sell it to others (for USD, for example). Wow, they can't believe it - people will actually pay them for their "invented out of thin air" currency, they're all going to be rich. This picture is not sustainable. Eventually, people refuse to pay anything for bitcoins. It has all the hallmarks of a ponzi because the only people who believe in swapping real wealth for bitcoins are those who have convinced themselves that they will get a long term return. They can get a short term return if they are quickly in and quickly out but in the long term they will lose all their money. Out of thin air? No, out of (currently) 10.574 Thash/s. You think that kind of computing power is made of faery dust and unicorn-horn? Think again. Real wealth is not bitcoin, or dollars, or euros, or even gold. All that stuff is just information, written with atoms, bits or ledgers at central banks. Real wealth is the work people will exchange using these different media. They are all claims on wealth, you can't eat gold. Money is information. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
