I didnt watch the video, but bitcoin has party of a ponzi scheme, namely the graph of money creation.

why the rate of money creation would be the biggest at the beginning, when it was obvious there would be no demand, is beyond me. money creation should have started slowly, then picked up when wider adoption was expected for a couple of years and then decline.
when other monetary systems were started they didnt distribute 10 mil each to 100 people.
the money supply was increased when the currency got more widely used (for example: more countries were added to the eurozone).

now I understand you can't manage this in the same way with bitcoin because there is no central authority, but the graph should have been shaped differently.

Do you know what true value is? The average layman does not.

We are talking monetary value here, not just any old value.

For music, the intellectual property has value. You can sell the IP or you can use it to manufacture records that will sell.

Now let me ask again, where is the value in a bitcoin? Mining is no different to printing money and we have all seen what happens to economies that print money. They suffer for it.

Economics is just too broad subject, I was giving you the upper hand by letting you choose an area.

You want me to choose: Aggregates. This is one of the big fuck ups of keynesianism. It leads to the idea that the crisis are created by lack of demand and the idea of slack capacity, which is basically nonsense.

The idea that the present crisis has been caused by a lack of demand (as keynesians like Krugman have said) is evidently wrong. The USA had a wrong sturcture of production, basically producing too many houses and sectors that gravitated around the housing bubble. The fact that the demand fo rhouses has decreased is a good thing and does not mean that the general demand (such thing is a concept, it really does not exists) has fallen. What its happening is that the demand is re-arranging for what the people really need and want. The problem is the productive capacity is not producing those types of goods (it has capacity to produce too many houses). The demand and the supply are descoordinated.

There is not slack capacity. There is basically malinvestments that need to be purged. If you believe there is slack capacity you bascially believe that you need to keep building more houses (and asociate industries), because that is the type of capacity that exists.

the past couple posts are exactly what I was referring to when I made this thread
everyone get lost please

Yes, I think. I can explain you logically why keynesianism does not work and the main points why keynesiansim is wrong.

Social-democracy is just a kind facade for corporatism, so yes, I think its pretty accurate to say that a big part of the USA democrats are social-democrats.

Social-democracy just increases the power of the political elites and their allies, increases the gap between rich and poor, diminishes the standards of living, and usually tend to collapse or degenerate promoting warmongers to government.

"Money and goods are not the same thing but are, on the contrary, exactly opposite things. Most confusion in economic thinking arises from failure to recognize this fact. Goods are wealth which you have, while money is a claim on wealth which you don’t have. Thus goods are an asset; money is a debt. If goods are wealth; money is not wealth, or negative wealth. The value of goods, expressed in money, is called “price”, while the value of money, expressed in goods, is called “value”.

Tragedy and Hope

Generalizing much?

But Liberal in the USA does not mean the same as it means in the rest of the world or what it used to mean in the USA. Liberal in the USA is basically social-democrat while european liberals oppose social-democracy. If you want to refer to real liberalism in the USA you have to use classic liberal, as opposed to progressive liberal. This happened because duting the last part of the XIX century begginning of the XX the progressive movement highjacked the Democrat party, that was liberal (supporting free markets and individual liberty) and changed its program. But the word liberal stuck, thus chaning the meaning in the USA.

I actually really like this sub-board. It's okay if most people have no clue about economics, this is a great place to debate it and learn.

I can't tell you how refreshing it is to see individuals here referencing Mises and pointing out the monetary fallacies of Keynesianism.

And of course, this is all expressly relevant to Bitcoin. If the economics are sound, then it will likely succeed as a currency.

It does basically prohibit trading for the average Joe. You need to take an exam and have a net worth of over $1 million (excluding primary residence) or make $200k a year. Someone very astutely commented:

"the modern control matrix of prohibiting something is to leave it technically legal, thereby diffusing anti-tyranny opposition, but bury the actual activity in so many regulations, fees, and licenses, as to make it virtually impossible for a person of average means, knowledge, motivation, and connections, to conduct it with any level of enjoyment, profit margin, or benefits."

I move for no price discussion in "Bitcoin Discussion" there are forums just for this shit.

Relax, bitcoin is just a play ball for many of the forum users. We take enjoyment from the rises and falls...

Initially bought £2000 @ average £8, sold at £15. bought £2000 again @ £10, sold at £14. Just over doubled my money ~£4500, cashed it all out. But i've wasted a ton of time on this forum and watching charts. Might look at making a long term investment in a few weeks.

Rather than jacking the press hits thread, I thought I'd start a discussion here. As Jeff said, he emailed some journalists and "corrected" their idea that Bitcoin is anonymous. I think he may have gone too far in the other direction.


I agree that it is important for people to understand that all Bitcoin transactions are recorded in a publicly available log. However, his statement seems to imply that it is trivial to link a transaction to an identity. I believe that this is just about as incorrect as saying that Bitcoin is completely anonymous.

For instance, Silk Road has a built in coin mixer. When you add coins to your account, they are sent through a bunch of dummy transactions, split up and recombined with the coins of other people. This would make it much more difficult to associate a specific sale with a Bitcoin transaction and individual identity.

Another precaution that can be taken from the buyer's point of view is to only spend virgin coinbase transactions. These have no history so cannot be traced via information leakage (associating a previous address with your identity accidentally or purposefully). These can be obtained by mining yourself, or via "proxy mining", where a miner creates the coinbase transaction for a public key whose private key you control.

If the proper precautions are taken, I believe that nothing short of seizure of the hard drive containing the wallet can prove the link between a transaction and an identity. Further, once the transaction is complete, the used private keys can be removed from the wallet, negating even this risk.

Any thoughts?