1] Cost of production models are used widely in valuing commodities such as oil, ore, agricultural products, etc. This is not a new thing in terms of economic theory. Cost of production models in competitive markets can explain things like today's oil price collapse, for example. So the "hypothesis" of cost of production in commodities is not a new one, and it has been supported theoretically and empirically many times over. If you don't believe that bitcoin is a produced commodity in nature, then that is another debate entirely. Cost of production doesn't ever affect supply and demand. Supply in the case of bitcoin is fixed so there cannot be an accommodation in the rate of production, but instead it is expressed through changes in mining difficulty.
Cost of production affects the supply in the commodity examples you gave above, and that is why it affects the prices of those commodities. On the other hand, it does not affect the supply of bitcoins and I'm glad that you agree that it therefore does not affect the price. |
|
|
|
Well there are many arguments for keeping the supply = gdp, which i wont discuss here, but it just more efficient that way. Of course in bitcoin we can't do that so we can only play with the decimals.
Sorry, I was thinking that you meant supply = nominal GDP (which obviously won't work) instead of supply = real GDP. |
|
|
|
Interesting graph, but I don't think it is clear what your point is unless it is that cost of mining affects price of bitcoin. If that is the case, I don't see where you support it.
Yes I am a firm believer that bitcoin value is based on cost of production. The problem was before ASICs came along the model didn't work. This graph and the accompanying explanation describes why that might be. Which assumptions do you believe are unsubstantiated or false? In short, you do not explain how production cost affects supply and/or demand (which is necessary in order to affect the price). Furthermore, your hypothesis is that production cost affects price, and you use a model based on that hypothesis to support the hypothesis. That's called begging the question. |
|
|
|
Interesting graph, but I don't think it is clear what your point is unless it is that cost of mining affects price of bitcoin. If that is the case, I don't see where you support it. That paper makes too many assumptions and unsupported claims to be credible. Green areas exist when technological change is outpacing network growth. When they line up, the "supply and demand" is in equilibrium..
...
Not "supply and demand", but marginal cost and marginal product -- like you wrote earlier. Besides supply and demand are never in "equilibrium". |
|
|
|
If 1 bitcoin will be 100 trillion $ in the distant future, then 1 satoshi will be like 10.000$ or something like that. Then if you are for example a pizza company, are you going to charge 10.000$ (current dollar) for 1 pizza , that would be 1 satoshi. It seems insane.
So either bitcoin will be better divided, add like 5-6 more decimals to it, or the 21 million is not enough to encompass the ever growing wealth of the planet.
Money printing is not always bad, but overprinting it is. The money supply must be equal to the GDP
If Bitcoin replaced all the currency in the world, it would be worth less than $1 million per BTC. If the economy (and the value of a bitcoin) grows at 3% per year, then it will take more than 600 years for 1 BTC to go from $1 million to $100 trillion. Anyway, I don't think that anyone disagrees that more decimal places may be needed at some point, but from what I've heard adding decimal places is easy. Finally, there is no good reason for the money supply to be equal to GDP. It might be good to maintain the money supply at some fraction of GDP, but there is no way to determine what that fraction should be. |
|
|
|
|
The article isn't clear. Is it saying that people can put arbitrary data into the block chain, or is it saying that somebody can corrupt my copy of the block chain? I don't see how either of those makes Bitcoin vulnerable, since the first is a feature and the second affects only me.
|
|
|
|
...
Investors who want to apply, please make a deposit to ....
Think about it. If everyone invests by sending to the same address, then how would they know who sent how much? |
|
|
|
...
Furthermore, the value would remain high only as long as the bitcoins are not spent. If countries bought bitcoins every year, the price would certainly go up -- until they decided to spend them, and then it would fall by just as much.
this is true only if all country decide to spend them at the same time, the probability of this is very low, so while some might spend them the other will keep buying, mantaining the price at the same level at least, with small correction toward rising If countries buy bitcoins that they can't spend, then they are effectively burning them in order to subsidize other bitcoin holders. also "There is no benefit to Bitcoin from an increasing value", not really agree with this, with a better value bitcoin can maintain a better purchasing power, this allow who have a low btc amount to buy more things(helping poor in this wayW
Don't forget that if the price goes up, then it also costs more to obtain them. That doesn't help poor people. Anyway, in proposing that countries buy and hold bitcoins simply to increase the price, you are asking for people to subsidize you and other bitcoin holders. Is that what you really want? A subsidy? The real value of Bitcoin is in its ability to improve the lives of the people that use it and not the people that hold it. If you are doing nothing but holding bitcoins and hoping for the value to rise so that you can cash out, then you are helping nobody. |
|
|
|
I propose a purchasing agreement, which mandates every state in the World to buy a certain amount of Bitcoin every year. The amount will be coupled to the country's respective GDP and could be something along the lines of 0.001%-0.01% of it. The states have to hold on to their purchased coins for a given amount of time until they can invest them again.
What kind of benefit are you expecting from this? Isn't it obvious? Bitcoin would profit greatly from this. The adoption and value would skyrocket. It would immediately gain legitimacy around the world. Also, the smaller countries could benefit from the Bitcoin price skyrocketing. There is no benefit to Bitcoin from an increasing value. Whether a bitcoin is worth $100 or $100,000, it still functions exactly the same. Furthermore, the value would remain high only as long as the bitcoins are not spent. If countries bought bitcoins every year, the price would certainly go up -- until they decided to spend them, and then it would fall by just as much. In order for the price to rise permanently, the countries would have to never spend them, and then they receive no benefit from holding them. What you are really proposing is for countries to destroy bitcoins in order to subsidize you and other holders of bitcoins. Countries buying bitcoins will have no effect on the adoption of bitcoins. Have you heard of Special Drawing Rights? It is a form of currency that countries buy and hold. I don't see any adoption of SDRs as a result of countries buying them. Finally, smaller countries would only benefit because the larger countries are subsidizing them. |
|
|
|
|
FYI, Bitcoin is also "financial pollution" because it also is not backed by anything.
|
|
|
|
This treatment applies to all barter transactions (in New Jersey) and is not specific to Bitcoin. Since bitcoin is considered a property, a transaction using Bitcoin is considered a barter transaction and both parties must pay sales tax. In a barter transaction, as in any sale, sales or use tax is due from each party based on the value of the property or services given in trade if what is received in exchange is subject to sales tax.
When a customer uses convertible virtual currency to pay for property the sale is treated as a barter transaction. As a result, if a seller uses convertible virtual currency as consideration for goods or services, sales tax is due based on the amount allowed in exchange for the virtual currency. If the customer that provides convertible virtual currency in the trade receives property that is subject to tax, the customer owes tax based on the market value of the virtual currency at the time of the transaction, converted to U.S. dollars.
|
|
|
|
I propose a purchasing agreement, which mandates every state in the World to buy a certain amount of Bitcoin every year. The amount will be coupled to the country's respective GDP and could be something along the lines of 0.001%-0.01% of it. The states have to hold on to their purchased coins for a given amount of time until they can invest them again.
What kind of benefit are you expecting from this? |
|
|
|
Two simple concepts are all that are needed to prevent those problems: - Back up up your wallet/seed.
- A Bitcoin address is not an account number. It is a one-time payment code.
|
|
|
|
|
It is hard to say what will happen if you buy CLAM and hold it. I think it mostly depends on what happens to Just-Dice. I consider investment in any alt-coin to be extremely risky. Some people profit, but most people lose.
If you buy CLAM and you gamble it, then eventually you will lose it all. Strictly speaking, that wouldn't be risky because you know exactly what is going to happen.
|
|
|
|
...
Paper wallet:
Plug Mycelium Entropy into printer USB port.
Print paper wallet.
FTFY Creating a paper wallet can be completely immune to hacking. |
|
|
|
|
He could easily prove that the 5000 BTC exists by signing a statement using the private keys of the addresses containing the BTC.
|
|
|
|
The intention is for blocks to be full so that transactions bid for space with transaction fees.
Intention or is this just your opinion? Perhaps "intention" was the wrong word. The "benefit that was realized early on" of having a fixed block size is to support transaction fees. It makes sense to me. Here is a discussion from 2011: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6284.0 |
|
|
|
BurtW's indictment was filed on 2014 oct 07 in the US District Court for Colorado. On the same day, at least three other cryptocurrency related cases were filed in that same court, with the same special agent Arran McWhirter, with the same prosecuting attorney of Michele Korver, all offenses listed as occurring in Boulder County:
14-cr-00398 USA v Burton Wagner
18 USC 1960
Count 1: Operation of Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business
14-cr-00399 USA v Sean Swanson
18 USC 1960
Count 1: Operation of Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business
14-cr-00400 USA v Michael Seiler
18 USC 1956 (a)(3)(B) and (C)
18 USC 1960
Count 1: Money Laundering
Count 2: Operation of Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business
14-cr-00401 USA v Katherine Noland and Thomas Noland
18 USC 1956 (a)(3)(B) and (C)
18 USC 1960
18 USC 2
Count 1: Money Laundering (Katherine)
Count 2: Operation of Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business (Katherine and Thomas)
Very frustrating. I just went through all 4 cases' docket reports in PACER, and for all of them, the complaints are still sealed and even the plea agreements are sealed. So I have no idea what's going on other than it was obviously a connected series of busts and sounds like it may have been black-market related. Is that normal? What are they protecting/hiding? |
|
|
|
is for blocks to be full so that transactions bid for space with transaction fees.
Ultimately, transaction fees alone will pay for the security. If nobody pays transaction fees (because they don't have to), then there will be no incentives to mine and and 51% attack will be possible. Someone might actually think this through to conclusion one of these days and stop spouting the same tired old nonsense. When the time finally comes that there's no more block rewards and the network has to survive on fees alone, it will need to have far more users than we're currently capable of supporting. More users = more fees. It's not rocket science. The fees generated by the current number of users would be entirely insufficient even to be considered an incentive at all, let alone a good incentive. The userbase must increase as the block reward diminishes. If the intention is to have a slow network where your transaction may not get included in the next block even when paying a fee, there will be even less incentive to mine when people switch to another coin that does confirm their transactions in good time. If anything, full blocks will result in a smaller userbase and less fees to support the network. I just can't take people seriously when they say full blocks will somehow add security. Please stop. Simply increasing the user base is not sufficient. As the subsidy diminishes, if there is no restriction on the number of transactions in a block, then a miner will include any transaction with a fee* because excluding a transaction paying a fee will lower their profit. That means that the fee that people pay will drop to 1 satoshi because there is little incentive to pay more. Even if every block contains a million transactions, then with a 1 satoshi fee it is only worth $2.50 (at current rates) to mine. Furthermore, Bitcoin's "slowness" may be a problem for certain types of transactions, but it is not a problem for all types. It is not necessary for everybody to adopt bitcoin for everything. Any widespread adoption whether mainstream or niche will result in a user base that it much larger than today's. Bitcoin doesn't have to be the only currency in order for it to succeed. Finally, full blocks increase mining revenue, which makes it more expensive to launch a 51% attack. That is why full blocks increase security. You may disagree, but calling that "nonsense" only highlights your ignorance and your arrogance. * There may be a lower bound to transaction fees because the marginal cost to process a transaction may be more than 1 satoshi. |
|
|
|
Yes, it is what I noticed too. Bitcoin wealth is quite centralized unfortunately. Not as much as in real world but well, differences are still overwhelming. I am also just another poor idealistic bitcoin user with just dus in his wallet...
The idea of "bitcoin wealth" is absurd. There is no corresponding idea of "dollar wealth" or "euro wealth". Is it a problem that Albanian lek wealth is centralized? Does it bother you that nearly 100% of the 340 billion leks are held by less than 0.04% of the population? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
