3.6 million dollars per day works out to ~110 million per month. By contrast, QE is creating 83,000 million dollars per month.
For the record, I don't see what the mining rate has to do with flows in and out of the exchanges.
Sorry, what is QE? Is my math right with 110 million dollars per month - that worldwide, (assuming in this example that 1bc=1000 dollars) every month bitcoins have to be bought at 110 million dollars? Seems a cracy lot. 25 bitcoins are mined every 10 minutes, and these bitcoins are sold at some point. So to hold the price stable on average 25 bitcoins have to be sold every 10 minutes with new fiat money. (?) QE is Quantitative Easing. A strange term, but basically it means inflation. The Federal Reserve is "easing" tightness in the economy by increasing the quantity of money, with the fig leaf of buying bonds. This inflates the money supply, props up the bond market, and enables about a trillion dollars a year of federal spending. Your math is right, but your assumptions almost certainly are not. 3600 new bitcoins mined per day does not in any way suggest that 3600 bitcoins are sold (for new cash) in that day. |
|
|
|
So far, this does not meet my requirements. Given that it is written in Javascript, I doubt it ever will.*
Can I infer from this that you do not believe the requirements are satisfied, specifically because it is not generic enough? Otherwise could you clarify why not? Bump because I am still waiting for kjj to clarify his statement, or for the other people who committed to the bounty (jgarzik, etc) to chime in. Oh, sorry. I thought I clarified this already. The initial release was not general enough, and also seemed unlikely to become fast enough. I've been a bit short on free time lately, so I haven't been following his progress. He's done some amazing work, and it sounded like he was working hard on the first part. Java has a reputation for being, shall we say, not quick. I'd be delighted to be wrong about this, but I have a hard time seeing it being able to run a few hundred sessions with a few thousand nodes out to several hundred thousand blocks, with an appropriate level of detail and accuracy. |
|
|
|
Hello - is this right:
25 Bitcoins are generated newly every 10 Minutes through mining.
That is 3600 Bitcoins per day.
That is 3 600 000 (3 million, sixhoundredthousand) new dollars (when 1 BC = 1000 dollars) that have to flow into Bitcoins daily (buying orders) just to keep the current price of a Bitcoin.
How does this compare to how much more dollars are created?
3.6 million dollars per day works out to ~110 million per month. By contrast, QE is creating 83,000 million dollars per month. For the record, I don't see what the mining rate has to do with flows in and out of the exchanges. |
|
|
|
Stuxnet used a Windows USB stick 0day to propagate. So it is not unheard of.
Maybe a written CD is easier if it is fully written and has no more space to write? Or a USB stick with a read-only switch?
Write protect switches are advisory. Many many years ago, some models of enterprise SCSI drives had write jumpers that physically disconnected power to the write/erase head. Everything else should be taken to mean "please don't write on me". Much safer is to use something like QR or a barcode, either on paper, or on a screen. If using QR, care should be taken that you don't ever read them with clever software. I use a scanner that simulates keystrokes. What software do you use to produce the QR code and what scanner do you use? The QRs themselves are made by PHP QR Code. They are being generated by my offline key generator, a project that hasn't been released yet. I use a Wasp WDI4500 barcode/QR reader, but I've also tested them with the Android QR app also. I also put barcodes on the pages, which I test with the wasp, and with a cheapass $10 chinese barcode reader. |
|
|
|
In practice, "Make sure" becomes "Hope". Which is why I advocate generating keys while booted from read-only media on a machine with zero storage.
But, like I said before, this is still a vast improvement in security for most users.
And how do you burn said read-only media? Oh yes using your existing online system. Yup. What's your point? |
|
|
|
Stuxnet used a Windows USB stick 0day to propagate. So it is not unheard of.
Maybe a written CD is easier if it is fully written and has no more space to write? Or a USB stick with a read-only switch?
Write protect switches are advisory. Many many years ago, some models of enterprise SCSI drives had write jumpers that physically disconnected power to the write/erase head. Everything else should be taken to mean "please don't write on me". Much safer is to use something like QR or a barcode, either on paper, or on a screen. If using QR, care should be taken that you don't ever read them with clever software. I use a scanner that simulates keystrokes. |
|
|
|
Step 9 is impractical.
If your box is owned already, what's to stop malware from stashing the keys somewhere, waiting for you to reconnect?
Step 9 ("Make sure the private keys are not saved anywhere on the computer") means not to purposefully keep such copies. If there's a virus that stores them and reads on reconnecting there's not much to do in this setup. But if the computer is clean and later gets infected, not keeping keys protects you (otherwise it's not a paper wallet). In practice, "Make sure" becomes "Hope". Which is why I advocate generating keys while booted from read-only media on a machine with zero storage. But, like I said before, this is still a vast improvement in security for most users. |
|
|
|
Dishonesty... I'm not sure you are using that word correctly. It does not mean "disagrees with me".
Many people would argue that as far as economics is concerned, "supply" is shorthand for "apparent supply", which is more or less the same thing as saying "in circulation". But this is exactly what the definitions are not being used for. They are being used to refer explicitly to increases or decreases in the quantity of money--notions that are completely irrelevant compared to the effects of money in circulation which has many more complex interactions and implications. These "easy" definitions are being used to pretend that the problems associated with deflation are not worth talking about because, lol, there is no deflation. Yeah, I'm not seeing what you are seeing. In fact, you can hardly swing a cat in this forum without hitting a dozen threads where people mention the horror of falling prices. Their claims aren't dismissed because the money supply is still expanding, they are dismissed because they are the same rote recitations that we've all read and argued a hundred times before. If you have something new to add, hopefully something of substance, please do. Plenty of us would love to hear it. I'll even make a point of clicking "show" on your ignored posts for another couple of days just to see. Your PS is silly. People use "inflation" to mean either "increase in quantity of money" or "increase of prices". The inverse terms are "deflation", "decrease in quantity of money" and "decrease of prices". If we have offended you by failing to use one of those terms sufficiently, we apologize for the oversight.
You pointed out that inflation was originally a term used to describe an increase of money in circulation. It is now used to describe a general increase in the price level. Historically, deflation as a term came about much later than inflation and always referred to a general decrease in the price level. No one of any merit has ever used it to mean specifically a decrease in the quantity of money or money in circulation. At some point, you have to give up this silly definition charade because all it does is create a microcosm of bitcoinomics that hinders any real discussion--likely the intended purpose. Intellectual dishonesty. Meh. The definition of deflation as a decrease in the money supply follows very naturally by analogy with inflation as an increase. With bitcoin, we finally have a currency where the money supply can shrink. We need a term to describe that, we picked the term that makes the most sense to us. I get it that this causes you much grief, but you really need to get over it. |
|
|
|
yeah i know, i assumed it was the other way around, but when you read the charts, no way to deny it.
just wait until this next round of asics (jan to mark) makes the rate go crazy again! next sumer we will see $5,000 easy
I'd be nervous to depend on this indicator. For one thing, it has been published, which is a death sentence for any indicator with predictive value. For another thing, in the long run, the relationship between difficulty and price will be a complex one. Nothing is ever explained by A -> B, so mining really needs multiple non-linear differential equations (think Lotka-Volterra), which are a well known source of chaos. Ignoring factor 1 for a moment, the long term break in this relationship could signal the end of the "growth from zero" phase on at least one size. I'm happy to use it to predict that the bitcoins I already have are going up in value, but I wouldn't mortgage my house to buy more bitcoins because of it. |
|
|
|
So you didn't say a word to actually substantiate your judgment beyond just claiming that I'm wrong. Surely, this is not what I expected to hear, and if you really thought that such an answer would make me think of your opinion as something reasonable or well-founded, then you chose the wrong person to debate with. That said, I suggest we leave the matter where it is now...
Heh. I never said you were wrong. I said that your argument is circular. Being circular, it does not support your conclusion. Again, I'm skeptical of claims that deflation is causing harm in Japan.
Yes, it did and is still a problem there. This is the issue under current discussion. "Deflation is causing harm in Japan." In support of your claim, you say: 2001 was the second worst year in post-war Japan with more than 19,000 companies going bankrupt whose liabilities were 10 million yen or more (an increase of 1.9 percent from the previous year and the largest number since 1984), the real situation being even worse as small business bankruptcies were not accounted for at all.
Paraphrase: "bad things are happening" In 2002 Masaura Hayami, then a Bank of Japan governor, said he expected that the Japanese economy would remain in a severe state as prices continued to fall and preventing the economy from falling into a deflationary spiral would pose a significant challenge...
Paraphrase: "some guy says that deflation is bad" These do not add up to your conclusion, except in the circular case where you've already decided that your conclusion is true. |
|
|
|
Just FYI, you are a gigantic tool. I really need to stop showing your posts, you are on ignore for a reason. Some people use the term inflation differently than you. Get over it. Just an FYI, the definition you linked to is this: "The term 'inflation' originally referred to increases in the amount of money in circulation", which is not the definition espoused in this thread--an "increase in the money supply". There is a significant difference, but people like you and the OP of the other thread fail to see the distinction whereas I have pointed this out on many occasions. Pointing out the rampant intellectual dishonesty around here may make me a tool, but at least I'm not the nail. PS - Nice how you ignored my point where deflation has never meant a decrease in quantity of money, yet it is used around here to mean such nonsense. Dishonesty... I'm not sure you are using that word correctly. It does not mean "disagrees with me". Many people would argue that as far as economics is concerned, "supply" is shorthand for "apparent supply", which is more or less the same thing as saying "in circulation". As far as markets are concerned, the dollars under your mattress, for example, do not exist, or exist only tangentially. So, the two terms are not exactly synonyms, but the overlap is such that most people will feel free to use them interchanably. If you'd like to debate the appropriateness of that imprecision, that's one thing. Calling people dishonest for failing to adopt your peculiar and precise definitions is an example of why I call you a tool. Your PS is silly. People use "inflation" to mean either "increase in quantity of money" or "increase of prices". The inverse terms are "deflation", "decrease in quantity of money" and "decrease of prices". If we have offended you by failing to use one of those terms sufficiently, we apologize for the oversight. |
|
|
|
Could someone guide me how to attach a chart here on the forum? Not sure if I am missing something. Thanks!
The forum does not do hosting. Find a place to put your image, and then use the "Insert Image" button above the text box. That will give you two tags that bracket your URL. |
|
|
|
...words...words...you aren't missing much...
Just FYI, you are a gigantic tool. I really need to stop showing your posts, you are on ignore for a reason. Some people use the term inflation differently than you. Get over it. |
|
|
|
If bitcoin were to hit its 21st million bitcoin, what do you think its price would be?
Would Litecoin be the same price as bitcoin at the time?
share your opinion.
If the we ever hit 21 million bitcoins, everyone will abandon ship, because that means that the system is broken. It won't hit in our lifetime but in the distant future, why not? The short version is that under 64 bit integer math, the sum of the subsidy function caps out at 20,999,999.9769 BTC. Slightly higher if we expand the width of the value field. In real math, the sum of the sequence (50/2 0)+(50/2 1)+(50/2 i)+... as i goes from 0 to infinity is 100. In integer math, we lose a bit to truncation. The exact amount lost depends on the scaling factor. The initial subsidy was (in binary) 0001 0010 1010 0000 0101 1111 0010 0000 0000. Every 210,000 blocks, it shifts right by one place. When a zero shifts off, it is exactly the same as division by 2. When a one shifts off, it is a little extra. So, hitting 21 million means that something is horribly broken, and everyone runs away. |
|
|
|
If bitcoin were to hit its 21st million bitcoin, what do you think its price would be?
Would Litecoin be the same price as bitcoin at the time?
share your opinion.
If the we ever hit 21 million bitcoins, everyone will abandon ship, because that means that the system is broken. |
|
|
|
wow nice find, i guess city councils have more independence. On a state level i doubt this would be possible.
The issue is really more about the size of the employer. A small employer usually does a lot of the payroll process manually. Once you get to a certain size, you are pretty much stuck doing it the way the payroll software wants it done. The fun part is that at the large end, there is a lot of consolidation. ADP, for example, does payroll for millions. If they offered a bitcoin paycheck... |
|
|
|
This is circular. The Bank of Japan asserts that deflation is bad and must be stopped, so they print money. Their statements and actions do not constitute an argument in favor of their claim. They had a lost decade between 1990 and 2001, then they started intervention. Now they've had a second lost decade, and are looking at a third. The claim is, of course, that they didn't meddle enough the first time.
If you wouldn't make it so... well, then it wouldn't. I didn't actually get what you meant by saying that their statements and actions did not constitute an argument in favor of their claim... What should they actually do? Please expand more on this. I think it is fair now to ask for a thorough explanation from you. Just shaking your head wouldn't do .. If I call you a criminal and then wrestle you to the ground for a citizen's arrest, a third party wouldn't take my words (the accusation) or actions (wrestling) as proof that you are actually a criminal. In the same way, just because a central banker says that deflation is bad, and then prints money to fight it, you shouldn't take him at his word. He may sincerely believe that deflation is bad, and he may be willing and able to act on his belief, but none of that suggests that his belief is correct. I don't know the solution for Japan. I've never claimed to. But, I have a pretty good idea of what doesn't work. If a doctor told you that you were sick because your humors were out of balance, and that draining some blood would cure you, and it instead made you sicker, would you believe him when he tells you that you didn't drain enough? How about if every patient he treated died? Doctors of the pre-scientific era at least had the advantage that some of their patients got better despite their efforts. |
|
|
|
It seem more likely to me that deflation, assuming there really is any, is a symptom.
Assuming the sky is blue, no shit. Inflation and deflation aren't spontaneous, they are results of changes in the money supply and/or the velocity of money. Money supply increases due to Keynesian economics employed by governments is not equal to some bad word known as "inflation", it is a cause of inflation--a cause that has very intended side effects which we all know and love [/sarcasm]. Conflating Keynesian economics with money supply increases is mostly a red herring, as there is nothing that says there can't be a decentralized currency employing some method of money supply increases which would, no doubt, act magnificently different from government/bank manipulation of the money supply. It is therefore not an honest line of argument to compare bitcoin to government money. An inflationary, decentralized cryptocurrency can be just as Austrian as bitcoin, and then all of your pro-deflation arguments based on a lack of meddling hold little water. Deflation does not equal Austrian and inflation does not equal Keynesian--these are gross oversimplifications. The current discussion is in the context of bitcoin's limited supply being bad. When the subsidy stops, bitcoin supply growth will turn very slightly negative. The current, and often repeated, claim is that when inflation stops and turns negative, we go into a death spiral, and bitcoin will fail for that reason. I see no real reason to come to that conclusion, and I'm refuting those claims. I have no particular desire to get into a discussion about whether inflation is the money printing itself, or the money that is printed. But don't let me stop you... For example of what I'm arguing against: Again, I'm skeptical of claims that deflation is causing harm in Japan. It seem more likely to me that deflation, assuming there really is any, is a symptom.
Yes, it did and is still a problem there. 2001 was the second worst year in post-war Japan with more than 19,000 companies going bankrupt whose liabilities were 10 million yen or more (an increase of 1.9 percent from the previous year and the largest number since 1984), the real situation being even worse as small business bankruptcies were not accounted for at all. In 2002 Masaura Hayami, then a Bank of Japan governor, said he expected that the Japanese economy would remain in a severe state as prices continued to fall and preventing the economy from falling into a deflationary spiral would pose a significant challenge... If deflation didn't cause harm and was not at the root of Japan's problems, then what was the cause and why then the government and Bank of Japan took to an expansionary monetary policy in the first place? As with anything, you can always claim deflation is only a symptom and there are some underlying causes hidden somewhere beneath, but does it actually makes things better or render them more clear? This is circular. The Bank of Japan asserts that deflation is bad and must be stopped, so they print money. Their statements and actions do not constitute an argument in favor of their claim. They had a lost decade between 1990 and 2001, then they started intervention. Now they've had a second lost decade, and are looking at a third. The claim is, of course, that they didn't meddle enough the first time. Modern economic theory is that all problems are caused by a lack of meddling. If the people that know better than you can't or don't meddle in the markets, we have a crash. And when we have a crash anyway, the problem is always that they didn't meddle enough.
|
|
|
|
|
Currently, the markets are trying to figure out if bitcoin is a fad or a paradigm change. That uncertainty is huge compared to any effect that lost coins may have.
|
|
|
|
Modern economic theory is that all problems are caused by a lack of meddling. If the people that know better than you can't or don't meddle in the markets, we have a crash. And when we have a crash anyway, the problem is always that they didn't meddle enough.[/size]
Isn't this exactly what Keynesianism is all about? I always thought that theories based on Keynesian economics advocate government monetary and fiscal programs aimed at increasing employment and stimulating business activity, that is, active meddling into economic problems by the state... Or did I get something wrong from your post? Yes. Modern economic theory is Keynesian. It can get confusing sometimes, because the textbooks just say "Economics", and not "Keynesian Economics". A shame really, because Keynes himself isn't so bad compared to those that formed the school around his name. Governments love Keynesianism, because governments love to meddle, and Kenyesianism says that meddling is good. So, with that in mind, I'd like you to think very carefully about your position. Are you aware of any deflationary episode anywhere in the world at any time during all of recorded history? One that didn't follow closely on the heels of a period of meddling of the sort that Austrians say causes the the effects you are basing your arguments on?
One of the most recent examples is Japan. I don't think we can speak in this case about the kind of "meddling" which Austrians say can forebode or provoke negative effects on the economy. There was a large price bubble in stocks and real estate there in the 1980s, which topped in 1989 and popped in the early 1990s. They say that for almost ten years after 1990, Japan had been caught in a deflationary spiral. It brought about high levels of bankruptcy and low consumer demand, which, in turn, put further downward pressure on prices. The Bank of Japan was slow to react and embarked on a quantitative easing only in 2001... Japan is an odd culture, and the Japanese people have a gigantic demographic problem that has been building since the war. Again, I'm skeptical of claims that deflation is causing harm in Japan. It seem more likely to me that deflation, assuming there really is any, is a symptom. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
