The money in circulation today ($USA) is 1,18 trillion dolars [...] the projected theoretical value is 1,18 trillions of $ /21 Million Bitcoins= $56,190.47 per bitcoin. How about the us debt + the rest of the world currencies? We're talking about circulation (aka: the $ that can buy gramms of gold). Debt is not in circulation (or it may as well is - who knows  ) About the only thing that is in circulation is debt, as even cash is debt. Someone took a loan for it to be around!!!  Not necessarily true. Governments pay people for stuff all the time. They do, but they become indebted to central banks or others to do so. Also generally not true, most government outlays come from taxes. Only a small portion of expenditures in a given year are from borrowing. In the US, at least, M1 is larger than the internal debt, so cash is not debt. If the only one allowed by law to issue dollars, euros etc are banks (central and/or peripheral), and they only issue it as loans, then all money has to be debt, old or new. Not if that debt is settled without removing the cash from circulation. That can never happen because of interest. Let's play a game. Suppose you are a central bank and I am a client. There's no money in circulation and you are the only one allowed to issue it. You also require interest to issue money. Now, I request a $10 loan. With interest, you should get back $12. BUT only $10 exist. The only solution is for you to give a loan to the next client and then the next etc............ all the way to infinity. Until numbers lose their meaning!!! I hope you understand!!! As far as I understand, the interest is actually counted as profit, and doesn't disappear when you pay it off. It actually gets spent into the economy again, unlike the principal that do disappear when you pay it off. So you can pay off $10, then $2 gets spent into the economy, and you can try to earn that to pay off the last $2 as well (simplified). It doesn't make the system moral in any way, but I still think it's important to be correct about it. |
|
|
|
|
Wallets didn't have password protection 4 years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
The average distance to Mars orbit is about 200 times the average distance to the moon.
Sooo... 200k, here we go!!!
|
|
|
|
Hows about:
Bitcoin = Bits = 1 unit
cents = cBits = 0.01 units
millis or mills = mBits = 0.001 units
micros or mics = μBits = 0.000001 units
Satoshi or sats = 0.00000001 units
nanos or nans = nBits = 0.000000001 units (for when 1 Bitcoin = 1 Mega dollar or BTC1 = M$1 = $1,000,000)
I never got why we actually have satoshis and not nanobits, the 64-bit signed integer is more than big enough to store >21M bitcoins even if it was divisible to nanos. There are a lot of completely arbitrary choices in Bitcoin that bugs the perfectionist in me. Like why did Satoshi choose 21M as the cap in the first place. It's such a random number that makes a lot of the math in Bitcoin "ugly". A power of 2 would have been way more elegant and taken away all the rounding complications for block reward halvings etc. |
|
|
|
Its worth checking what the average payout to investors since 1990 has been. Its a lot lower than you think... You can cherry-pick any time period to prove whatever you want. But past performance does not determine future results. So the question then becomes which period will best represent the future. Unless you have a crystal ball I'll go with the biggest data set availible of 100+ years. That includes the great depression and still averages a return of almost 10% yearly. Besides, it's not like the time period you chose is absolutely horrible. The S&P500 has still yielded a gain of 4.3 times your principal since Jan 1990. That is an average of 7+% yearly, so even during this historically bad period you could have cashed out 3-4%, lived on that and earn money over time in the process. I'm being conservative when I tell you 1 million is enough to retire. http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5Egspc+interactive#symbol=%5Egspc;range=my;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined; |
|
|
|
This loan thing is depending what is the situation. It's dumb to say that investing loaned money is absolutely wrong or that it's right. Many people spend rest of their lives in debt hell and investing some of that to bitcoin might be the way to get rid of that debt. There's risk but you have to calculate those risks based on your situation.
When you're in a hole, dig faster? Maybe you can do a 180 curve while digging and get out of that hole. You can't get out of a hole by digging - you need to find something that is about to defy gravity to lift you out  Sure you can. Dig on one side of the hole and use the dirt to build something that gets you up on the other side of the hole. |
|
|
|
I regret entering the earlier immature tit-for-tat debate.
It would be better for me to phrase my view succinctly and unarguably.
Fact:
In the Quantity Theory of Money a constant money supply requires that the economy can grow only if the velocity-of-money circulation rises exponentially or the price level declines exponentially, neither of which are plausible for a healthy economy.
Goldbugs give up. You have no argument.
Fact: The Quantity Theory of Money is circular logic. It basically says that the velocity of money determines the value of money which determines the velocity. It treats velocity as a cause of human action, when it actually is the result. https://mises.org/daily/2916The equation asserts merely that what is paid is equal to what is received. This proposition may require algebraic formulation, but to the present writer it does not seem to require any formulation at all. The contrast between the "money side" and the "goods side" of the equation is a false one. There is no goods side. Both sides of the equation are money sides. This bears repetition in slightly different words. Increased velocity of circulation is not, in itself, even a contributing cause of higher commodity prices. It is not even a link in the chain of causation. Increased velocity of circulation and higher commodity prices are joint results of a change in the value of money in relation to the value of goods. When people value money less in relation to goods, they offer more money for goods; when they value it more in relation to goods, they offer less money for goods. Any change in velocity of circulation is likely to be a result of these changed value decisions: it is not itself a cause of the change in value. The value of money does not decline because its velocity of circulation has increased, though the velocity of circulation may increase, when it does so, because the value of money in relation to goods has declined. |
|
|
|
If you actually followed the source wikipedia links to, it says the following: I use the term fiat or abstract paper money interchangeably to stand for a government supplied means of payment of no intrinsic worth. So not even your own source actually supports your claim. It's just Wikipedia messing up. Not sure why this bothers some of you so much. There is government fiat, now digital fiat, clam shell fiat, etc, etc. As freethink just said, fiat isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's not bad that USD is fiat in that sense. What's bad about USD is that it is debt based. It enters the system as debt. It would actually be nice if the treasury would just issue sovereign money and break capital holders grip on our economy. But they can't/won't because they are in debt to the capital holders. Some of you worry about the small things and don't really see the big picture at work here. Because it is muddling language. When you add meanings to words, the words actually get less meaningful. This serves a good purpose in politically charged topics as you can become more vague about what you mean without people even realizing it a lot of times. The etymology is fairly clear in this case, fiat means by decree. Relevant: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm |
|
|
|
2) The word you are looking for is "fiduciary". "Fiat" means "let it be" and thus means that someone is in control.
fiat
ˈfiːat,ˈfʌɪat/
noun
1.
a formal authorization or proposition; a decree.
"the reforms left most prices fixed by government fiat"
Fiat money has been defined variously as: any money declared by a government to be legal tender.[1] state-issued money which is neither convertible by law to any other thing, nor fixed in value in terms of any objective standard.[2] money without intrinsic value.[3][4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_moneyBitcoin has ZERO value, except what we all agree it is worth. Just like USD. In fact, given the fabric USD is printed on, it's fair to say USD is actually "worth" more. If you actually followed the source wikipedia links to, it says the following: I use the term fiat or abstract paper money interchangeably to stand for a government supplied means of payment of no intrinsic worth. So not even your own source actually supports your claim. It's just Wikipedia messing up. |
|
|
|
Once more, and then I'll just have to accept that having a vested interest means you lot will never get it.
The 21 million units that are labelled Bitcoin are just an abstraction, the Bitcoin system is actually comprised of 2.1 quadrillion subunits, which can be inflated to infinity. Now you all cry that making a currency more divisible isn't the same as inflating the supply, but the comparison is being made to long established currencies which are well defined in the market. Of course the sleight of hand here is to fix the supply of the highest denomination unit to 21 million, thus ensuring that those holding whole Bitcoins will get relatively richer and richer as more and more Bitcoin subunits are required to buy a single Bitcoin.
And why 21 million Bitcoins, why not just 1? With infinite divisibility why do you need more than 1? Or perhaps that would make it a little too easy for people to see that in a system where one tiny part of the whole and the whole can perform the same function , and that whole can be broken up to infinity, that the claims of supply constraint are meaningless.
I think you are misunderstanding inflation. Thought experiment, imagine every dollar bill in existence magically had an extra 0 printed on them (lets suppose there are no fractions of dollars for simplicities sake). Every 1 dollar bill becomes a 10 dollar bill, every 10 dollar bill would become a 100 dollar bill etc. What would happen? As soon as everyone has figured this out, the only thing that would happen is that everyone ads a 0 on all their price tags as well, so that a good that previously cost 3 dollars would now cost 30 dollars. You could argue that the dollar supply, in terms of the "base unit", increased tenfold, but this wouldn't matter as everones wealth in dollars did as well. This is the kind of "inflation" of base units bitcoins may experience. It is irrellevant. Inflation doesn't have bad consequences of itself. It is bad because it usually comes with a redistributive effect of wealth. If newly created money is spent into the economy from a fixed point, those who get it early benefit at the expense of those that get it late. As long as new money is distributed based on what you already own, the only effect will be new prices in terms of what you seem to call the "base unit". |
|
|
|
I found that transaction, but is there a way to easily see who paid these 36BTC in fees? I mean the Bitcoin addresses.
Sort by fee?
All the addresses listed as inputs did. Can you please give a link or a screenshot at the exact page where all the fees totalling 36BTC are listed. Thank you. Here is the transaction. https://blockchain.info/tx/465fd256ebb68c72df166f31d5f5d7e5eb61de4c1729ed0e6f4e83079a4d9cccA transaction normally consists of multiple adresses. All the adresses to the left contributed to this transaction, and they paid the fee together. This could be one person with many adresses, or multiple persons. |
|
|
|
Still, that's a huge fee. Like almost, 20%. Yeah. What I meant was that the amount of inputs means it's a lot more work to go through all the adresses to find the owner. |
|
|
|
Fear is what is driving this rally. It's not about utility or long term use, but purely fear of missing the boat. "Last chance to get in and get rich". "Last chance to own a Bitcoin." I do believe we're going to break $1000 on this fear and maybe more. The fall however, is going to be something else all together.
The good news is, no one need sell when it dips....because of the below events. Bitcoin value doubled in 3 months
19 times in a row
It is a nonsense. a) 2^19 = 524 288 b) $266 / 524 288 = $ 0,000507354736328125 2000 Coins for a dollar. Doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. We are talking pre-exchanges and pre-10k Pizza time here. |
|
|
|
Genius! nothing gets political backing faster then "donations" Sooo... This makes it a good idea to donate to the most anti-liberty minded politicians who are most likely to be against Bitcoin, in order to disincentivize them to do anything against it. That's weird. |
|
|
|
The amount of coins on sale on the exchange is shrinking fast. Only 6k on sale on BTCChina, 7k on Bitstamp, 11k on Gox.
This is the "all time low" in terms of BTC on sale. Just think about how Avalon holds 65k coins in one address.
In my opinion is not a very good sign, it would be better for the trend to be fueled by new money in instead of scarcity of supply - just because the scarcity can be easily reversed by only one big holder.
I guess this is the nature of "penny stock market", and BTC behaves completely as a penny stock market.
Tighten your seat belts.
Thing is, more coins than ever are locked up for the time being and can't make it to the exchanges in the foreseeable future. The FBI has 174.000 BTC and probably won't be able to sell them until after the case against Ulbricht Bitcoin Investment Trust has 60.000+ BTC locked up that they are obliged to hold on to for their customers for probably at least a year (the number is based on the fact that they had 15.000.000 USD invested when the exchange rate was ~250 USD/BTC). This number will probably rise quite a bit in the coming months as they will buy more bitcoins to supply to new customers. Possibly, the success of BIT will make other high profile individuals/companies imitate them and start buying up coins to start competing businesses. This would lead to additionally 10ks of coins being looked up for the time being. This is just speculation though, but a fairly reasonable assumption as far as I'm concerned. You also have the Winklevii twins claiming they had 1%+ of all bitcoins in the beginning of the year waiting for their ETF. That's at least 110.000 BTC. We also have Chamath Palihapitiya, ex Facebook-executive, who claimed to have 5.000.000 USD invested in BTC at the end of october. At the exchange rate back then, that would be 25.000+ BTC. He also said he was still looking to acquire more. And there is a very high likelihood we have unknown high profile investors who have made private bets but hasn't said so officially. This is hard to quantify, but I belive this is at least a multiple of 10ks of bitcoins being locked up for the time being in anonymous rich investors' wallets. If you add it all up, far more coins are being "on hold" right now, than ever before. 40000 here that will not be for sale any time soon. Might move more from my active trading wallet. I feel like we have almost all the ingredients neccessary for "the perfect storm", the only one missing is a financial crisis of some sort, the Cyprus ingredient. Then, we would see a rally. |
|
|
|
The amount of coins on sale on the exchange is shrinking fast. Only 6k on sale on BTCChina, 7k on Bitstamp, 11k on Gox.
This is the "all time low" in terms of BTC on sale. Just think about how Avalon holds 65k coins in one address.
In my opinion is not a very good sign, it would be better for the trend to be fueled by new money in instead of scarcity of supply - just because the scarcity can be easily reversed by only one big holder.
I guess this is the nature of "penny stock market", and BTC behaves completely as a penny stock market.
Tighten your seat belts.
Thing is, more coins than ever are locked up for the time being and can't make it to the exchanges in the foreseeable future. The FBI has 174.000 BTC and probably won't be able to sell them until after the case against Ulbricht Bitcoin Investment Trust has 60.000+ BTC locked up that they are obliged to hold on to for their customers for probably at least a year (the number is based on the fact that they had 15.000.000 USD invested when the exchange rate was ~250 USD/BTC). This number will probably rise quite a bit in the coming months as they will buy more bitcoins to supply to new customers. Possibly, the success of BIT will make other high profile individuals/companies imitate them and start buying up coins to start competing businesses. This would lead to additionally 10ks of coins being looked up for the time being. This is just speculation though, but a fairly reasonable assumption as far as I'm concerned. You also have the Winklevii twins claiming they had 1%+ of all bitcoins in the beginning of the year waiting for their ETF. That's at least 110.000 BTC. We also have Chamath Palihapitiya, ex Facebook-executive, who claimed to have 5.000.000 USD invested in BTC at the end of october. At the exchange rate back then, that would be 25.000+ BTC. He also said he was still looking to acquire more. And there is a very high likelihood we have unknown high profile investors who have made private bets but hasn't said so officially. This is hard to quantify, but I belive this is at least a multiple of 10ks of bitcoins being locked up for the time being in anonymous rich investors' wallets. If you add it all up, far more coins are being "on hold" right now, than ever before. |
|
|
|
Well at least now you added a time-frame. But betting on something happening "in our lifetime" is still lol. Shorting the dollar because you think it might crash in 60 years is dumb. Schiff is not shorting the dollar. He is mainly investing in high-yielding stocks in other countries he believe will be coming out of top after a dollar collapse. That doesn't mean he is losing money every year the dollar doesn't collapse. As far as I know, the only thing Schiff ever shorted was the sub-prime bubble. But I admit I don't follow him as close as I used to do. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
