Dr. Zhang mentioned that the PSU may overheat, my solution for the heat problem is adding two exhaust fans and mount the modules far away from PSU  |
|
|
|
|
Most of the economy theories are just a joke, utilized by banks. Swedish central bank even invented a nobel price for those theory that they think will benefit them
A good start is to describe why today's debt based monetary system is flawed
|
|
|
|
51% attack won't affect existing coins, it will just make people hoard more and spend less  |
|
|
|
|
I had a feeling this is the same old wallstreet tricks to shake the exchange price through a lawsuit so that some one can buy some cheap coins
|
|
|
|
When a commercial bank give me a loan of $900, he must have that money at his account at the first place, and the reason that he can lend me that $900 is because he already have $100 deposited at central bank (10% reserve requirement) Actually, the bank just needs to meet its average reserve requirement over time. It only needs to have the $900 when someone else cashes the check, presuming it is not at the same bank. To simplify the matter, suppose that there is only one commercial bank in the country. That $900 I spent will become someone else's deposite at this bank, and his deposite will again be loaned out, but then the commercial bank need to have another $90 reserve at central bank and can only loan out $810, this is typical FRB So, this bank only has $1000 to start with, but over time, it will create lots of accounting activities through loan and deposite. In the end there could be lots of people having a total desposites of $10000 at bank, but if more than 10% of them go to bank ask for withdraw, the bank went broke, since the total money in the system at any moment will never exceed $1000 |
|
|
|
ONLY central bank have the right to create money, commercial banks can not create money, they can only loan out part of their existing money
That's what you hear, but the truth is different. When a bank makes you a loan, they just add a number to your checking account balance. They also make a new account (your loan) and subtract a bigger number from that, so according to their books, they are even better off than before. They don't have to run out and get more bits from someone. When you spend part of that loan, you write checks against that new balance. To the extent that your checks go to other banks, their account with the regional fed is decreased, which may put them in a tricky situation with the auditors, causing them to borrow to keep their reserves up. This loan is, of course, backed by the asset they are holding, namely your promise to pay them. I don't think that is the case. If commercial banks can create loans as wish, then central bank's open market operation will have no effect at all. The OMO's purpose is to increase or reduce the amount of money that commercial banks can loan out, in such a way to adjust the credit money available for business. If commercial banks can create money by themselves as wish, this whole operation will have no effect When a commercial bank give me a loan of $900, he must have that money at his account at the first place, and the reason that he can lend me that $900 is because he already have $100 deposited at central bank (10% reserve requirement) Don't be fooled by bank's accounting tricks |
|
|
|
|
Great site!
I'm willing to contribute, but I still don't have a clear overview of bitcoin economy. Basically I think bitcoin is suitable to function as a store of value (currently there is no similar product as powerful as bitcoin), but it has to be visualized like gold to get wider acceptance, especially woman
As a medium of exchange, it is a mixed bag, unstable price, limited exchange, consumer not able to do a charge back, etc...
|
|
|
|
So more USD does not mean more wealth. All real wealth comes down to productivity.
If USD present some value, more USD means more value. A store of value is wealth, it has nothing to do with productivity. In California gold rush, more gold did not cause inflation, it created the whole west coast economy, because in people's consensus, gold is value, and that consensus seldom changes Actually there are many such kind of consensus when it comes to pricing. I think a consensus greatly affect the supply and demand, it is the driven power behind people's buying and selling decision A decent PC always cost 1-2K during the latest 15 years, it's not that PC can not become cheaper or more expensive, it is just a consensus that PC should be around this price range, so if the seller price the PC too high, they might not get good sale, and they don't want to price it too low either, unless engaged in a price war Another example is fiat money. Before 1971, it was backed by gold, and after 1971, it was backed by nothing, but the purchasing power still holds relatively stable after 1971, of course there were inflation, but the value of fiat money did not drop to zero due to the consensus had not changed If I'm a commercial bank and I know FED will tighten when inflation is high, then I will not lend money to those projects which might push up the CPI, by doing this I can get more interest free money from FED, this is just simple reasoning, and I know even if I lend lots of money out, the consensus of money's value won't change for a long time I think one general consensus about bitcoin is that the value of bitcoin should always rise due to fixed supply, but how fast it will rise? 100% per year or 1000% per year? There are no good answer yet. If majority of people had reached a consensus, then they will buy or sell based on this consensus. Currently the consensus might has somthing to do with difficulty In mining, there is a consensus of 3 month ROI, it almost formed a culture now in bitcoin mining hardware investment, so all the mining product pricing is more or less following this guide line |
|
|
|
|
I had an impression that everthing else's value can be decided by a market price expressed with the currency, but currency's value is only decided by consensus
For example, although 4x more money have been printed since 2008, and GDP growed at a very slow pace, the price of everything stayed relatively stable, because the consensus of USD's value has not changed, so "more USD = more wealth", not "more USD = lower USD value"
And once that consensus has been reached, without a fundamental change in the system, the value of the currency will not change
Same for bitcoin, I think its value should be decided by some kind of consensus, not supply and demand. It's arguable how to establish this consensus though
|
|
|
|
It's created out of nothing by the FED, loaned to the government, who gives it back to the FED, where it is then used as "reserves" by commercial banks. Commercial banks then attempt to create, out of nothing, 10 times this amount in the form of interest bearing debt to regular people and businesses. Somebody tell me if i didn't get this exactly right. It is a rotted zombie of a monetary system.
Actually, lots of people get the order of events wrong with private lending. Banks loan whenever they find a creditworthy borrower, and the money comes out of thin air at that point. After the loan is made, if the bank's reserves are insufficient, they borrow from the fed. This is a pull process initiated by the bank, not a push process initiated by the fed. Congressional spending is a different story. When congress spends, the fed creates money out of thin air and loans it to the fed. The actual mechanisms involved are a bit more complicated. You have a checking account with your local bank, your local bank has a checking account with the regional fed branch. If congress writes a check to you, you present it to your bank, and the bank increases your account balance. Your bank then presents it to the fed, which then increases your bank's account balance. (In ordinary check clearing, the regional fed would decrement some other bank's account balance, making a zero sum.) ONLY central bank have the right to create money, commercial banks can not create money, they can only loan out part of their existing money |
|
|
|
|
This video is a good presentation, but its description of money creation is incorrect: Commercial banks do not have any right to create money, they can only sell assets to central bank in exchange for money, they can not loan out money more than they already have
The money creation only happened at central Bank, and there is no FRB at central bank
|
|
|
|
The Worgl experiment never lasted long enough to be a good test case. Just like when the Fed inflates the currency there is often a temporary boost to the economy, it actually does long term harm to the system; and the same probably would have been true in the Worgl case if it had run long enough.
Let people freely decide what they want to use, and let the market sort it out. That's the only fair way, and the only logical way. Go ahead and try using stuff like freicoin if you want, but I am going to stay as far away from that as I can because I personally want my money to work for me, not for someone's twisted idea of "the good of society".
At a small town scale, it might work very well, people will spend all their earned depreciating money quickly, thus create lots of spending. But in a larger economy, people will have the possibility to save in other form, this will push up the price of potential saving medium like gold/silver/bitcoin while the real effect of stimulate spending becomes less, especially when living condition is already at a decent level |
|
|
|
(100) One Hundred Units - 16 (16.2%) So you might be able to sell 1600 units at least  |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is politically neutral, in this case the Palestine government will support it There is a famous word: What our enemy against, we will support; What our enemy support, we will against |
|
|
|
the well known economic cancers of "Monetary Inflation" which are caused by:
- adding inflationary pressures by increasing rates of usury on the money supply and thus causing price rises upon everything to pay for it.
- by properly expanding the money supply to serve more workforce members who could no longer be competitive nor productive enough (due to exporting manufacturing and the means of production to slave labour gulags and erasing import tariffs against them) to return the balance of trade wealth (that the fruits of their labours should have represented) back to the economy.
- debasing or devaluing the values of a given Labour Exchange Currency by quantitative counterfeiting in a vain effort to pay off old debts,
- by expanding the money supply to bail out reserve banksterers who purchased the corrupt political policies of free trade, but wouldn't cover their own losses that were actually the direct result of them.
Please explain how is that "expanding the money supply" done in practical For example, you are Ben Bernanke, and now is 1st of May, you are going to purchase 85 billion dollars worth of government bonds and Agent MBS, where is that money come from? |
|
|
|
Dr. Zhang has not been on forum for almost one month, maybe he's sick due to too hard working  |
|
|
|
Who says that you can't? There was a really nice experiment in austria about money which looses its worth quickly the longer you hoard! The experiment was called miracle of wörgl or the wörgl experiment! What was the result? Unemployment began to sink drastically! The country got rhich! Not the government, nor the banks, but PEOPLE got HAPPY! But this experiment has been stopped from a bank! HAHAHA!  What a miracle, guess why! So my point is, if you can generate a system with a currency which loses its worth the longer you have it, people will automaticly use the money instead of hoarding and DAMAGING the economic system The qualityloss system is NOT touched by any human manipulation! It must be a natural phenomenom! NOR the worth does not sink ABOSOLUTELY, its only on the behavior of the hoarder himself, by using money the money gets its usual worth! Interesting, I read some articles about wörgl experiment, it seems that was exactly what FED is doing right now, provide inflative money to stimulate spending, but the result is totally different There could be many reasons, but I think the biggest difference is: At the beginning of the wörgl experiment, the mayor had 40,000 schilling to start with (he only need to prevent these money to be hoarded by people after he spend them), but now government have nothing to start with, even worse, they have to cut spending Where was that 40,000 schilling came from? Through saving |
|
|
|
So I'm in the middle of setting up shop online, I have one store running and gearing up to begin marketing, two more on the way. I'm not doing it to become rich, for me it's an experiment. How hard or easy is it to be in business using only BTC? And what problems would I encounter on the path to setting up shop? I'm having a great deal of fun working through the process, and here's my thought for the night:
There are a lot of intangible goods on the market for 99 cents US. Give or take, let's talk about one dollar or one Euro spends. eBooks and MP3s are the two I'm focussing on, but it could be mobile apps or DLC or anything low cost. Lots of things are being sold, right now, for a dollar or less. Now, I'm drawn to BTC as a "fee-less" transaction, but in truth if I'm going to be in business I will probably need a payment gateway, and they are going to take fees from me. Fair enough. So I offer a direct method as well, it takes a little longer to get your files but it's completely free.
Except it isn't. For a Good Time (TM), please add a miner's fee.
At some point, 0.0005 BTC was an insignificant amount of money. Now? It's 7% of a 99 cent sale. Seven percent.
It turns a 99 cent buy into a $1.07 buy.
Let's say BTC gets to $250. 0.0005 BTC is now over 10% added on to the price.
Let's say BTC gets to $1,000. I think it will. 0.0005 is now 50 cents. On a dollar spend, the customer would have to kick in another 50 cents.
So, I'm interested to hear from folks on exactly how this is supposed to be sustained as a reasonable fee? There may be a part of the spec I'm missing, but to my mind, a fixed fee amount (as opposed to a percentage) is going to be unsustainable except for larger purchases. None of this is going to stop me from doing what I'm doing - I'm having too much fun - but if I were seriously in business to make money, I would be getting very scared about offering virtual goods for under 0.05 right about now.
has anyone else thought about this, or do I have some part of the math wrong? I'm curious to hear from the community as to the impact of this fee over the next two or three years on the price of intangibles, or, for that matter, cup cakes.
Yes, I think the fixed fee will benefit large transactions and discourage small transactions, but maybe this is by design to discourage spam transactions, you better post this topic in the "Development & Technical Discussion" board |
|
|
|
So much bullshit in one thread!
First: Growth was and is and will be never infinite! It was never, it is not and it won't never! But some people try to look like that growth is infinite.
The only reason Gold/Silver and so on (rare metals) are not a good idea atm are those stupid Speculators, who try to manipulate prices by hoarding! We don't have 3,4,5 or 6 people, we have whole stupid goverments with tons of gold/rare metalls manipulating the price! I mean 80/90% of gold hoarders are not private consumers lol!
Hoarding is an enemy of an economic system!
NO system with hoarding does function properly (tell me one) and this is why any kind of investment fails and will fail! Gold WAS stable but after allowing any kind of usury, speculation even gold/silver were attacked so they got unstable.
ANYONE remeber the tragedy with the silver speculation and about the story about a bank who manipulated it that hard? It was ONLY silver, but this is proof enough for any inteligent guy to see that nothing is stable as long as manipulation from usury, speculation, daytrading, short sell is possible!
The only kind of investment is investment for your life and not for your economy! [House, Energy ressource(earth,water,solarenergie), etc.]
Therefore people would not use money or any kind of currency to hoard, but instead any other ressource which does not break/stop/nerv the economic system! The money must flow, like a river , and hoarding or some kind of stupid bank stops the flow and this creates a cause for a currency beeing unstable!
Money was NOT made to be hoarded but to be used for changing! For trade, so goods can be assigned to another identity! With hoarding you break all the good rules of an economic system ,thats it!
You can't force people to NOT hoard, there is a demand for saving due to safety concern. Of course, people will be less likely to hoard a currency that is losing value constantly, that is the design principle behind today's inflative fiat money system But, did fiat money really solve the hoarding problem? No, after financial crisis, people all started to hoard money so that even FED printed 4x more money, they all get hoarded, even with 0 interest So, to have a stable economy, you must first fullfil the demand for hoarding, if everyone had enough saving, the spending will be much more stable |
|
|
|
Its one big time ponzi pyramid scheme and it is genius.
I think you mean fiat money |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
