Haha yes I did  |
|
|
|
I think it's a GREAT segue tool, as long as it is followed by that immediate, "The only thing similar about the two is the word COIN." BAM... real discussion about Bitcoin ensues... |
|
|
|
this also means that it is not linear in logarythmic scale, why i dont believe in thefiniteidea's chart.
Compared to your's, I don't either It'll work in the short term, that's about it. Polynomial expansion is way more accurate, especially when you line it up properly- why I threw ya a +1 |
|
|
|
FINALLY! A THREAD LIKE THIS!  I AM SO HAPPY! $50+ by October IMO +1 for cloons, dacoinminster charts |
|
|
|
This was probably the most important quote from that whole session.
The implications of JUST what that thought means for Bitcoin is huge...
Why is it important? You can't gamble with it, purchase drugs with it, purchase cars with it, etc. NOT Amazon coins!!! lol It's important FOR BITCOINS! I made edits to emphasize, sorry about that!  |
|
|
|
|
"We've looked at this [Bitcoin] before here on HuffPost Live,
but it's relevant now that Amazon is getting into this game as well."
- HuffingtonPost commentator
This was probably the most important quote from that whole session.
The implications of JUST what that means for Bitcoin is huge...
Amazon, Facebook, they all see the potential, everyone is trying to get into the game... Bitcoin beats them all.
|
|
|
|
|
I listen to WNYC/NPR, 101.5, and various other talk shows on my way to work every morning, and this was the most pathetic story I've ever heard on NPR.
They're actually, usually pretty good about doing their research IMO, but even for me this was a new low.
"For now, I still have 0.8 bitcoin in my account. That is, assuming it's not raided by the feds."
SERIOUSLY??!!
|
|
|
|
I love the fact that Pizza and Bitcoin have such strong bonds. Mainly because I love both very much. |
|
|
|
Bit of bubble it seems.. should be at about $18 right now according to this long term trend... $50 later in November  If this follows, 2014 will be INSANE   |
|
|
|
twolifeinexile and thefiniteidea : I think you are missing his point. If Bitcoin's purchasing power goes up, you should expect to see a drop in the share price of Satoshi dice coupled with a drop in revenues in BTC. It is possible that you would suffer a loss on your investment in BTC terms. This should be further amplified as more competitors to SD come on board, whereas there does not yet appear to be any worthy competitor to BTC mainly because there isn't any real flaw in it and anything lacking can be built atop of Bitcoin as services(eg Facebook/email integration/etc..) and thus furthering the gap between BTC and any newcomer.
Not if Satoshi Dice is listed in BTC. If Satoshi Dice is listed in BTC, its price would go up or down based on its own merit, as most of the costs/revenues are in BTC. Just because the purchasing power of BTC goes up doesn't automatically mean less people will gamble ;P It just means that when they do, they risk more in terms of STC, but they are still risking the same BTC. So BTC's purchasing power wouldn't be a factor when buying/selling stock denominated in BTC. BTC's purchasing power would only be a factor when buying/selling STC (or stock denominated in STC as you would have to convert to STC). |
|
|
|
Since we're both very excited about this, and to restrain our words from moving too far from the point, I think we should address one issue at a time. I will start with a definition of inflation that I agree with: in·fla·tion Noun - The action of inflating something or the condition of being inflated (This is the definition not related to economics)
- A general increase in prices and fall in the purchasing value of money (This definition is related to economics)
My interpretation from the above definition related to economics: 1. Price Inflation refers to the "general increase in prices" part of that definition 2. Money Supply Inflation refers to the "fall in the purchasing value of money" part of that definition Therefore, I can not agree that inflation "means the same thing as increase", as it conflicts with the " fall in the purchasing value of money" part of that definition. Note: this is not an argument of what the "general increase in prices" or "fall in the purchasing value of money" means. We can get to that once your interpretation of the word inflation is understood. |
|
|
|
example: (using imaginary currency whose value fluctuates negligibly 'stablecoin' or STC)
100 shares of satoshidice available for sale for 10 stablecoins.
at t=0, 1 stablecoin = 1 btc
satoshidice shares yield 20% ROI yearly
bitcoins appreciate 10% yearly
scenario 1:
seeing the good investment opportunity, you purchase 100 shares for 10 BTC at t=0 (remember that the BTCSTC rate is 1 at t=0)
at t=1 yr, you sell those shares for a net profit of equivalent value to 2 stablecoins (20% of 10 btc at t=0).
Assuming you only had 10 coins and you stayed with BTC for investing at the beginning of the year: Net profit at 1 year is actually 3.2 stablecoins when you consider the BTC apprecation of 10% at the end of the year. however, in scenario 2:
instead of purchasing shares with BTC, you purchase them with STC and keep your 10 BTC.
at t=1 yr, you sell the shares, and you also sell the BTC for a net profit of:
2 stablecoins (from above) + (1 [btc at t=0] = 1 STC) = the equivalent value of 3 STC
Assuming you only had 10 coins and you converted to STC for investing at the beginning of the year: Your STC have been invested wisely at 20% ROI yielding you 2 extra STC in 1 yr, they would not have had the luxury of Bitcoin appreciation though... The difference ends up being 2 STC when not investing in BTC, and 3.2 STC when investing in the BTC denominated stock. So if you're going to buy stock, buy stock listed in BTC, not STC. If you can't, but you know exactly what your ROI is going to be, like in this scenario, go ahead and convert because 20% is better than 10% Regardless, your best gains are going to be from buying stock denominated in BTC... So I suppose you could say hoarding BTC can be useless if you have something worthwhile to invest in... Maybe that's what all these hoarders are waiting for? |
|
|
|
Ok so BTC has increased almost 100% in the past month, so, where's the correction?
it's impossible for The Internet to keep going up growing without a correction.  Now that was a "damn correction" |
|
|
|
Here come the Keynesians... MoneySupply-Inflation is when the value of Bitcoin decreases when the total supply of Bitcoin increases. In our current state, this is at a generation rate of 25 BTC every 10 minutes. After just bashing the "keynesian" definition of inflation, you segue right into your own piss-poor definition. Money supply inflation is when the total money supply increases. No more, no less. It does not necessarily mean a change in the value, because if the money supply increases at the exact same rate as the increase in demand, there is no change in value. Money Supply Inflation refers to the devaluation of a currency due to the increase of the Money supply. Whereas, an increase in the Money Supply is exactly that, "when the total money supply increases". The former is an effect of the latter, and I wasn't referring to the latter. Now to consequently address the demand argument... In any real economy, there is no guarantee that demand exists (maybe in the keynesian paradise, but that's about it). However, there is a guarantee that the Money Supply will increase. Money Supply Inflation (or inflation due to an increase in the money supply) exists regardless of demand, contributing to the devaluation of the currency. Demand simply helps to stabilize or increase the value and price. Sure, they can offset when they're equal, but that doesn't mean inflation due to an increase in the Money Supply doesn't exist. So I will argue that Money Supply Inflation does mean a change in the value. MoneySupply-Deflation will essentially never occur. It is when the value of Bitcoin increases when the total supply of Bitcoin decreases. This may happen, say, when someone loses their private key and all the BTC associated with it are lost. First you say it will never occur, then you say well it could and does happen. Keyword "essentially". It happens, sure, but on a scale so small that it's negligible. The details here aren't a huge issue, I'll edit that to be more specific. Though, I think most other people get it...  That being said, there is a SET DECREASE in the generation rate of BTC, so you have sort of a "deflationary effect" in the value, as long as more exchange occurs for BTC at a rate which is faster than that set generation rate. The set decrease in the generation rate would be called "money supply disinflation" if you want to, god forbid, use another modern economics term. And exchanging money for services at a faster rate than the generation rate has no deflationary effect, only the demand for currency itself affects its value. If the velocity of money increases to account for increasing exchange, there need not be any change in value. That statement was regarding the exchange of FX for BTC ie demand for BTC that is greater, not faster. That one can be clarified, as well. When all 21 million coins are produced, the MoneySupply will be neutral, and the value will continue to increase (prices will decrease, consequently), as long as people continue to exchange in BTC. Again, exchanging does not increase value, demand for more currency will. You're right, demand can increase the value of a currency... but someone has to have a supply for that demand... and god forbid the two got together to have an "exchange" * gasp*! They would have unknowingly increased the value of both items!  So yes exchanging does increase value, and it doesn't have to be between currencies. When the first pizza was bought with 10,000 Bitcoins, they had (maybe unknowingly) set a value of Bitcoins at around $10/10,000 BTC, or 10,000BTC/pizza. This would go on for a while until the value is where we are today. Sure, I could edit some things to be more specific. Though, I have a feeling that won't satisfy your issues with the first argument...  |
|
|
|
Jumping INNN!!!! |
|
|
|
Yeah but that is quite long. I think you can leave out the valuation in fiat or USD part, when you say monetary base everybody understand what you're talking about. Only when writing a scientific paper you could go for the full name.
I think the 'in USD' is essential, otherwise I would think you were talking about 11M BTC. Exactly. or 186,929,000 EUR or etc... Why not just Money Supply.
Money Supply = Monetary Base * Money Multiplier
Since BTC lacks any significant fractional reserve the money multiplier is 1. Having M0 and nothing else seems "excessive" like making categories for category sake.
"Oh so the Bitcoin M(0) is xxxx USD, what about the total money supply?" "Yeah that is the same number".
In the proper context, I'm sure if you said Market Cap, Bitcoin Money Supply in USD, or Bitcoin Money Supply, or just Money Supply people would know what you meant. I've used it many times before, myself. Being specific would be another thing. I think M0 in USD is the most simple, with the least amount of words/letters, yet most effective and specific way of saying it. Those who don't know what M0 means could be taught something new. Would take a couple seconds to do, no biggie. I think the point of this is to try and promote the use of something like that. Getting away from Market Cap as it's confusing and not very specific. imho |
|
|
|
In Bitcoin, M0 (Monetary base) would be the 21,000,000 BTC, or currently 10,759,850 BTC, right?
Market Capitalilzation is M0*FX Exchange Rate so it's a little different.
If anything, just to change the name to perhaps Net Market Value, or just 'Net Value In (FX)' would be better?
I dunno, Market Cap In (FX) is fine to me too...
Indeed, the M0 (Monetary base) in BTC is the 10,759,850 To be more precise. It is the monetary base equivalent in USD which is mis-named. So "BTC Monetary Base (M0) in USD" makes most sense for describing the $250 million value. Market cap is for stocks and shares. I like your 'M0 in USD' term... That works for me!  |
|
|
|
Since the minting of new coins is on a fixed schedule, would it make sense to count them all when doing a total valuation?
In a similar way to how if you were estimating the value of all the oil in the world, you would include proven reserves (ie reserves that are reasonably certain of being recoverable under current economic and political conditions)?
Or if only 50% of a company's shares are outstanding (the other 50% being treasury shares, ie owned by the company), the valuation of the company would be share price * total number of shares, not share price * number of outstanding shares?
If this approach is used, bitcoin's total value has exceeded the half billion USD point.
Even oil may be worthless in 30 years. Say from the discovery of a better energy source. Not saying it will be, just saying there's no way of knowing. Those oil reserves exist regardless of whether people need them. We could theoretically get to them if we needed to. Can't say the same for Bitcoins... we have to wait for them... And who knows if we'll still need them when all 21 million are created? Maybe they wont be worth anything then... Maybe they'll be worth TRILLIONS. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
