Very good question.
Maybe the idea was not to scare people with exp(-t) curves?
But, yes discontinuities are quite worrisome.
It could have been more frequent smaller reductions if it had to be stepwise though. I'm excited to see what happens and I don't think it'll be a problem. But it seems unnecessarily eventlike. I think it'll be price up in anticipation and about 2 hard difficulty reductions after the drop then leveling off at about 75% of old difficulty and resuming a rise from there. |
|
|
|
But why would fees get that low? Wouldn't the market kick in? As I see it, as fees diminish and miners stop mining, transactions take longer and longer. This incentivises people making transactions to pay a higher transaction fee, which in turn incentivises miners to start/resume mining.
Dunno, but I can't see why transaction needs and security needs should be linked. They have to be. Security is just the difficulty of sending a transaction to multiple people. What you are paying for is literally the work that is going to be dumped on top of your transaction. |
|
|
|
I would say any term is better than supreme property rights. I haven't the slightest idea how that differs from regular property rights.
Do you have a property right in your car/truck/motorcycle/boat (assuming USA)? Of course you do. Is it a supreme property right? Absolutely not (IMO). If you had a supreme (maybe superior is better word) property right in those items you would not be paying a registration fee. Superior/supreme/sovereign property rights owes no due to another. This is likely to be debatable, but in California (I'm pretty sure all other states also) look at the title of a vehicle you believe to "own" (the pink slip) and see if you have the possession of title to your vehicle. I am pretty sure you don't have possession of title to your vehicle and if you don't you don't own it. It makes no difference whether you are paying for it to a loan company or whether it is completely paid off, I believe you still don't own it. I have only known of a small handful of folks who actually own their vehicle and possess title. That is the difference I was meaning when I referred to supreme property rights. I don't think we can have a productive conversation about this. If I buy something from someone there is no paper that restricts or undoes this in any way. It's fiction. I don't need a paper to own a car any more than I need a paper to own my shoes or my teeth. There was ownership long before paper. If I have a car and someone, anyone comes to me and says "Buy this sticker or I'll take your car" they are stealing the price of the sticker on threat of stealing the car on threat of hurting me. None of that reduces my original claim on the car. It's just me being stolen from. |
|
|
|
|
A smart trader will realize the depreciation before the actual drop and bet on it in advance. A smarter trader will do it earlier. Many of us are so smart that we will bet it all on Bitcoin and none on Timecoin from the first block.
But again please try it and we can lay it to rest with the experiment.
|
|
|
|
If I carve a little wooden toy top and trade it to you for something is it really your top?
But I made it!
I don't know...is it my top? Shouldn't we ask the question of where did the wood to carve the top come from? And where did the something I traded you come from? It is my belief that if we both have supreme property rights to our respective items that yes it indeed would be my top and my something I traded to you would be yours. What did we trade with our employer for FRNs? Our labor/skill? Do we have supreme property rights in our labor/skill? Where did our employer get those FRNs and what did he/she/they trade to get them? Did he/she/they have supreme property rights in what they traded? When I refer to supreme property rights I mean that there is no other person/entity that has a right or interest attached to it. There is no person/entity that you need to ask to do what you wish with that property. There are many things that we all consider to have supreme property rights of such as our laptop, hair brush, microwave, etc....but do we really? There is a better term than supreme property rights, it is slipping my mind at the moment. I won't argue that we do or we don't ultimately own supremely the things we purchase with FRNs or via the FR system. I do encourage the thought and contemplation of such however. Research, education and understanding never hurts anyone.  It seems disingenuous to start out talking about theft and then later question property. Obviously there is no conversation to be had about theft between people who don't agree that someone own their labor and what they produce. I would say any term is better than supreme property rights. I haven't the slightest idea how that differs from regular property rights. |
|
|
|
|
I haven't been paid my cashout of .44 yet. Looks like it's manual, you going to automate?
|
|
|
|
|
It got pretty slow on me between moves. I think it should be near instant so you might want to check that. I like the idea, I'd play some with better payouts. I see it says "level 1" I assume that means you'll have different boards. Narrower and wider and different pay structures?
|
|
|
|
Of course, if the exchange does not work, price does not work (change..)
Overall, the current situation of the exchanges including MtGox as the biggest, is far from working properly.
This can be one fundamental reason why BTC prices may go down significantly. Confidence into the exchanges must be high to attract new funds from investors.
Confidence is shaken now with all the DDOS.
Secondly, the withdrawal limit of 1000$ per day is a joke for investors. No serious investor will put hundreds of thousands of funds into an exchange if he can not take out funds within hours (max 1-3 days) to shift asset allocation quickly.
(This is no blame to people operating the exchanges. They are great entrepreneurs, do this often for free and doing a great job, but this is not enough, given the fact that 11,000 new coins are generated daily, 77,000 weekly, 335,000 monthly = 1.2 million $ at current BTC/USD rate)
I agree, these limits will cause a major drop on liquidity, and a decline in prices. (in addition to the already-insane bubble!  ) Jeez, it's annoying and I don't like that he cares about interpretations of the elders scribbles, but it's not going to effect the market at all. You send and email you get your money fast. It's easy. |
|
|
|
I think this is why many studied (but honest) economists have reservations about using commodities as a basis for a currency. If you have a benevolent central bank, if someone were to try and corner the market for a currency, the central bank can simply buy up assets (with newly printed currency) to maintain the price stability of the currency...when that someone later realizes the folly they're engaged in and begins to divest dollars, the central bank can sell assets and soak up the excess currency to again maintain price stability. But of course, this requires a central authority. The challenge is how to achieve similar stability without a central authority.
That really makes me wonder if it were possible to code a "bitcoin central bank" within the bitcoin protocol itself. This logic would respond to price data already freely visible in the block chain and make corresponding adjustments to the bitcoin total supply. I dunno if this is really a good idea in the end but it's interesting to think of it none the less. What are you talking about? There is no price data in the block chain. Sorry I should've made myself a bit more clear. I did not mean price data as in what bitcoins are valued at but price data in the sense of information about how monetary velocity, the size of transactions, etc - data that can be used to gauge what the currency is doing. It's not good to use that info for serious things like that. I can add major tx on the cheap. And even outside of tricks, how do you tell 'legit' economic activity from move my savings to a new wallet? |
|
|
|
I find there is a big problem with bitcoin as it is not able to be traded in person.
Please tell me that I am wrong and show me the solutions.
Thank you.
I'm meeting a person in Starbucks tomorrow. I'll let you know how mission impossible goes. |
|
|
|
I believe he is absolutely correct. But not for the reason he and you debated.
Do explain? I'd like to hear your reasoning. If you are in the USA (and most other countries), whose money is it when you work for an employer and receive FRNs or the equivalent checkbook money in exchange for your labor? Most people believe it is their money. But literally, I mean LITERALLY whose money is it? Who literally owns the money and who has supreme property rights in that money? If you do not own the money yourself don't you feel it is right and just to pay a tax or rental fee for use of someone else's property? If I carve a little wooden toy top and trade it to you for something is it really your top? But I made it! |
|
|
|
Look at the Liberty Dollar guy.
He got it in the pooper from the feds.
Arguably that was a trademark/intellectual property issue since he used the term" dollar". That touches on a different point. Intellectual property and trademark laws are violations of free speech too. |
|
|
|
Look at the Liberty Dollar guy.
He got it in the pooper from the feds.
Obviously what they did to him is criminal, but he couldn't use the argument that he was only passing information. Anyway, I don't think it matters much. I'd almost rather they make it illegal so that people who don't care end up richer in the new society. I think Bitcoin overcomes any law. Enforcement requires a completely totalitarian regime, I don't think it'll happen. |
|
|
|
I think it's a mistake to conflate reputation with how many people agree with what you said here on the forums. I see a lot of minuses being handed out already, and I'd hate to have people think these numbers have anything to do with how trustworthy a person is as a trade partner.
True. Yeah, this actually makes me think it's a bad idea or at least not worth it. I don't think most will neg people for disagreeing, but only for doing it in obtuse or hostile ways. Well, if that is true then maybe people will try harder to avoid losing trade rep. I dunno if it's a good proxy or 'fair', but maybe it improves incentives. I guess I'll withhold judgement for a while. |
|
|
|
Theymos (moderator) says you need a post count of 250 to applaud or smite someone,
I'm not fan of those "posts limit" (because some people post few and insightful messages when people like me post a lot of small and useless messages). But I agree that, at least, it draws a barrier which is definitely needed. Better than nothing I guess. Yeah, I'm not sure of how better to do it. Perhaps if everyone only got a certain number per month: 10 plus and 5 minus they can use each month. By limiting the supply you will increase the "price" of the ratings then and people will be a lot more cautious in doling them out. Of course, then we might see the rise of a meta-bitcoin currency where people buy and sell ratings. I think it will be an imperfect system any way you look at it, but at least 250 posts isn't too unreasonable to reach if you've been a part of the forum for a while. Even if aren't a loquacious poster. It needs some limit for sure. Or else we'll find out who is most liked by the people who most like to give out ratings. I think it would be good to charge .1 positive rating for every rating you give out. Or even make the price go up with each rating given and drop over time. Gimme a minute and I'll think of something even more complicated |
|
|
|
You know Bitcoin, which is very interesting, we did a whole show on Bitcoin at Security Now.
I think, really, because you can generate these Bitcoins on your Mac or any computer with spare cycles.
And then there is a a market for Bitcoin in cash.
And the only reason I could think of why that would be is because that's a great way to launder money, you know.
My response to Leo would be: Let's face it, the criteria (necessary and sufficient condition) of good money is ease of "laundering them". Design a perfect money system, design a perfect "money laundering" system. Their properties would converge. The establishment by fighting "money laundering" is essentially fighting sound money. +1 |
|
|
|
|
This is cool. I didn't open the thread before because I thought it was going to be about chain letters, lol.
|
|
|
|
Hoarding: The evil your neighbor does. Saving: The virtue that you preform. |
|
|
|
1. Once there is essentially no more BitCoin creation then BitCoins could be slightly deflationary, particularly in an expanding economy.
Yes
2. Since BitCoin is now a world currency, and a non increasing one there will certainly be a large market in BitCoin lending. People will lend out BitCoins, at interest.
Yes
3. Deflation generally discourages lending. People think "Why lend my money out and risk it not being repaid, when I can just sit on it and wait for it to gain value?".
People who make loans already ask themselves this question. Is the risk worth it is not a different type of question when you are looking at 100 units of value turning to 90 if you do nothing and getting 110 if you lend and 100 turning to 110 if you do nothing and getting 130 if you lend. You always have to balance risk and reward according to your preferences and knowledge.
4. This essentially means that instead of lending BitCoins for investment, people are hoarding BitCoins for speculation. Hoarding coins (temporarily) takes those coins out of the functioning economy. This effectively reduces the money supply.
I don't know the difference between hoarding and saving, but yes, every coin is always saved by someone. I kind of see what you mean by reducing the money supply, but that's not a helpful way to think about this. Is there a difference at a global level whether I am still saving a coin or if my hooker is saving it now? All coins are always being saved by someone.
5. A reduction in the money supply leads to a further reduction in prices.
Savings doesn't reduce the supply. And reduced prices are good for everyone who uses things anyway.
6. Now we have a positive feedback. More deflation further encourages hoarding, which leads to more deflation, more hoarding and so on.
I don't know about you, but me and most people spend more when we get richer, not less. There is no spiral. If you expect coins to go up in value faster than everything else it is true that you will store all excess value in them, but it is not true that you won't consume anything because you think they will go up in value.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
