Why can't you have a negative interest rate? It might not make sense with bitcoin, but consider gold: I have 100 g of gold, but I want to keep it safe, so I give it to the bank, and pay an account fee of 1 g of gold. Paying a storage fee for a physical commodity isn't quite the same as lending at a negative nominal interest rate. If bitcoins were gaining in purchasing power at a steady 5% per year would you lend some of yours out at a nominal rate of -1%? In purchasing power terms you'd still come out ahead by 4%, but why would you accept the risk of default to end up with less bitcoins than you would have if you had just held on to them and never risked them at all? Say I am computer-unsavvy, or I tend to loose my computer, or it gets stolen a lot. Whatever the factors, I decide the risk of me holding my own bitcoins and losing them is higher than the risk of you defaulting. If this is true, then it does make sense to lend you the bitcoins at a negative interest rate. That being said, I do not think it will ever come to this. My prediction is that the value of bitcoins will never rise strongly and consistently enough to justify a negative interest rate. If you are wanting someone else to hold your money, you are not lending but storing or depositing. If, in such a circumstance, you would expect to be able to get back your bitcoins at no notice, interest would not be an issue but there would likely be some kind of fee you would have to pay for the service. In truth, I can't see anyone ever lending at a negative interest rate. Regardless of the mathematics of the thing, you typically lend to get back more of what you're lending. Since the mathematics kinda-sorta make sense, it seems likely we are missing a piece of the puzzle. |
|
|
|
The right way to deal with this is to cite wikipedia's policy on dead sources: "if you cannot find another copy of the material, then the dead citation should be removed and the material it supports should be regarded as unverified if there is no other supporting citation. If it is material that is specifically required by policy to have an inline citation, then please consider tagging it with {{citation needed}}. It may be appropriate for you to move the citation to the talk page with an explanation, and notify the editor that added the now-dead link."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#What_can_be_done_with_a_dead_external_linkI think sudo would find a way around that. He seems to have a harsh bias against Bitcoin. Maybe he bought at $32? lol Bitcoin killed his brother. |
|
|
|
h jan,
thank you for your effort.
what will happend if the server is not reachable ?
will the bitcoin spinner app has also a malfunction ?
can i have access to my bitcoin wallet and bitcoins ?
what is happend in this case ?
regards
pazor
You should make sure to export the private key in any case. Then you can simply use a different wallet should bitcoinspinner fail in any way and for whatever reason. |
|
|
|
I'll just note that all the above was *before* I even knew about this thread I was googling about Casascius coins (there is an error in the description for the image of such on the page; the image is displaying the firstbits of the public key, *not* the redeemable (private) key as stated).
I don't think I messed up the caption when I uploaded the image. Here's what it says: English: Photos shows pile of 1BTC-denominated brass coins, with the bitcoin logo, production year, the text "Vires In Numeris", with the tamper-evident holographic sticker on the reverse. Printed on the sticker is a portion of the digital coins' public address, for verification of the coin's value. Beneath the holographic sticker lies a private cryptographic key, used to redeem the coin's value, and move the bitcoins contained by the coin into the owner's private wallet. Removing the holographic sticker leaves a hexagon pattern, and indicates to any future owners that the digital Bitcoin originally loaded on the coin have likely been removed. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Physical_Bitcoin_by_Mike_Cauldwell_(Casascius).jpgYeah, no problem with that. I was refering to the caption which now, almost correctly, says "Physical 1-BTC Casascius Coin with public key shown" (It's not the public key but the firstbits of the public key) |
|
|
|
I did hundreds of edits and dozens under my username that I forgot my password for. As more and more articles turned elite-only, I registered a new account that still has only 7 edits (5 in articles, 2 in talk pages discussing why my changes got reverted  ). Maybe I should edit some 3 more pages logged in? Are we that short in WP-users here? I've made quite a few edits in the past but they were all IP only. I'll just note that all the above was *before* I even knew about this thread I was googling about Casascius coins (there is an error in the description for the image of such on the page; the image is displaying the firstbits of the public key, *not* the redeemable (private) key as stated). |
|
|
|
|
I tried to make an edit to the talk page suggesting a change in wording that wouldn't attempt to remove the Ponzi scheme accusation but to clarify the text so that it didn't directly imply that Bitcoin *is* a Ponzi scheme.
But the page is locked so I needed to create an account
Which is a big pain in the butt. It took about 10 times to create an account since not only are duplicate IDs (hard to avoid) disallowed but also "too similar" user IDs.
Then new users don't get to make changes to locked pages unless they appeal (kinda like the newbie whitelist here)
So I appealed.
And I got denied and told to put my requested change on some page which didn't exist.
So I did.
I got blown off and told that I "wouldn't be a newbie long".
So I gave up.
|
|
|
|
So money becomes an asset on its own rather than an exchange medium; you can make money just by having money. I understand that ... doesn't mean I agree with it, I mean look at where this approach got us into now. The power to create money should reside with people that create actual things, not with banks.
In your example, the rent I pay is the price paid for a service you're providing to me (shelter). Interest on a loan is not exactly the same; I agree to pay to the bank for their services, for managing money (aka opening account, assessing my credit worthiness, transferring money, etc.), but that should be like a fixed fee, not % of interest. I guess I'm starting to advocate for Islamic banking ... lol.
Don't forget, that lender didn't just magic the number from nowhere (in a sane system), it either earned it or, more typically, was lent it itself. The bank is performing a service of matching a lender with a borrower. |
|
|
|
Here's a thought. For the loans+interest system to work, it has to have 100% efficiency. Meaning the bank will spend back into the economy all the interest money they collected, meaning there are no money "lost" somewhere in between, etc. Because in order to pay back interest without actually taking another loan, the money to pay back interest need to be be available somewhere in the economy, right? To use your example, one has to be very careful/fair with the spoon to not spill/pour a single drop of water on another bowl.
I don't believe the system can be 100% efficient, or in other words all interest money will be re-circulated and there are no money "lost" in the process.
You just need to think of it like any other investment. You spend money, you obtain resources and you hope to be able to utilize those resources to obtain more money than you spent. A bank is effectively partnering with another entity to form a partnership. The bank brings the money and the profits are split. |
|
|
|
some would argue that it will be a problematic when the floodgates are being openend.
That "the floodgates" will be opened is something of an assumption. Those currently holding large quantities of BTC probably have different ideas at what amounts they will sell at and even then, if individuals have any sense at all, they will release just a few medium-loads of BTC every now and then rather than all at once otherwise they could tank the price and end up taking a big "loss" (A CEO with a lot of stock options will never dump them all at once). |
|
|
|
A couple of comments on the IOUs, warehouse receipts, customer deposits and loans in a BTC economy.
First. With the current system, the IOU that you get from the bank is indistinguishable from the currency. Say you deposit 100 USD in BoA account, the bank will show that you have 100 USD, not 100 BoAD that are redeemable 1 on 1 with USD. So, that's a big difference because that will mean we need another form of currency to make BTC currency work, right? Name it banks' IOUs, vouchers, litecoins, etc.
That's an interesting perspective. Your bank statement is basically a promisory note that the bank will redeem USD x on demand. You don't have USD x in the bank. It's not currency since it's not transferable but it's interesting to consider it that way. |
|
|
|
These sounds abit strange however I think its not hard to know a would be ripper /scammer they some how show their "colours"
Half the people scammers scam are just dumb, the other half think they're too smart to be scammed... |
|
|
|
I guess I was confusing some things. What I was talking about was a bank actually making a currency backed by bitcoin and giving out more of that currency than it has bitcoin to back them with. I guess that's not fractional reserve lending at all.
No, this is a common misconception about fractional reserve banking. R.A.Heinlein used this mistaken in one of his books and I myself believe that to be the case for a while. FRB doesn't mean a bank can lend out more than it has on its books as deposit, only that it has to actually keep a fraction of it and can lend out the rest. Of course, the government, through the Fed (I believe) can create money to lend to the banks at crazy low interest rates so in some ways it amounts to the same. This would not be possible with Bitcoin, of course. |
|
|
|
Not true. Your home is not an investment (unless you are a dullard). Your home is the place where you live. You can choose to rent or buy. The return on lending the money for a home does not depend on the value of the property but on the income of the borrower. When I was paying the mortgage on my house, the value could have dropped hugely yet I would have continued to pay. It's the idiots who borrow (and the idiots who lend) more than can afford to be paid back that are the problem.
The return on lending the money for a home depend on the FUTURE income of the borrower. In a society that computer and machine continuously replace people and all the low tech work outsourced to other country, how could you make sure the future income is secured for the home buyer? That FUTURE is not one or two months, it is 20 years or more, who can see that far? Completely true. My point is simply that the return on a house loan is not dependent on the future price of the house. |
|
|
|
Education is an investment - not all investments are good or pay as well as we would like. Everyone, colleges included, is selling something (just like the bitcoin world).
I know this forum is full of intelligent people of varying degrees (no pun intended) of education. No matter how intelligent you are, many career opportunities and advancement levels will be closed to you without a given level of education. Everyone is free to go their own way and make their own life, but statistically, your peers with college degrees will do better.
However, education is in a bubble right now. The investment capital is becoming not worth the return for many. Not only are you having to pay large sums of money and waste several years worth of earning and on-the-job learning potential but at the end of it all, you have to compete with many others who have the same level of education. One should think seriously about the direction of one's career before jumping into "I gots ta get me an education" |
|
|
|
The return of buying a house is purely dependant on the house value, it is more like a speculation, it is not sustainable. The investment on future projects are more carefully considered by some experienced entrepreneur and are more likely to generate some return
Another problem is that currently there are really less and less investment opportunities, buying a house becomes an outstanding investment opportunity
Loaning out money to people to buy a house is a big deal, it quickly depleted the savings in the bank, and when house price falls, these loans will generate loss, banks have high risk of going bankrupt, currently they could only depend on FED buying their mortgage backed serurities to keep their life, but this situation will not improve until the savings in bank return to normal. During the next 10 years, there will be more and more savings deposit mature, and there will be less saving go into bank, banks have to borrow money from central bank to buy more time
All these has nothing to do with fiat or BTC, in a BTC bank, FRB could also happen, exactly the same
Not true. Your home is not an investment (unless you are a dullard). Your home is the place where you live. You can choose to rent or buy. The return on lending the money for a home does not depend on the value of the property but on the income of the borrower. When I was paying the mortgage on my house, the value could have dropped hugely yet I would have continued to pay. It's the idiots who borrow (and the idiots who lend) more than can afford to be paid back that are the problem. |
|
|
|
I believe there will be a point where all labor jobs will be completely eliminated. This is why I believe education should be important and those people who worked in labor could study something else and get a higher level job. Don't confuse education with intelligence. I know a lot of well educated idiots, that would more more useful doing manual labor. Education should be no more important than it is useful. To a point. Gates, Jobs, (the jury is still out on Zuckerberg) are the exceptions, not the rule. For most, to be intelligent and uneducated is to not realize your maximum potential. I want my brain surgeon to be both intelligent AND highly educated.  However, one does not have to receive an education to be educated. |
|
|
|
Owned in the sense that they had drawn lines on a map. Did anyone ask the people who were already there?
Owned in the sense that they had the guns and would exercise violence if anyone declined to agree (at least until other people with guns & violence objected). And I'm sure that the people who were already there were pretty well informed of the change of "ownership". |
|
|
|
Rand Paul on Civil Rights
Illegal to impose racial segregation in the private sector. (May 2010)
Opposes same-sex marriage. (Nov 2009)
Opposes affirmative action. (Aug 2010)
Supports Amendment to prevent same sex marriage. (Aug 2010)
Items 1 and 3 are not so much socially liberal as hobby horses of the left. Items 2 and 4 are one item and could be seen from more than one perspective (my own is that government should be out of the marriage business completely). I do agree with your other statement that the repubs need to move away from social conservatism (Well, I would, wouldn't I?) but there are several issues that should not be political at all. (Abortion should be left to the conscience of the individual politicians for example). |
|
|
|
Well, the first revolutionary war wouldn't have happened if George had simply said, "OK, you guys do your thing, and we'll do ours. Good luck, and all that." Neither would the second if Abe had said the same. It is the nature of rulers to rule. Allowing people to do their own thing, if it so pleases them, is the nature of leaders. When Abe said "No, you're part of the union, you're not going anywhere," he effectively ended the experiment in freedom which was the United States. The irony is that he did it, ostensibly, in the name of freedom.
True. It's probably just a matter of semantics but George (amongst others) "owned" the colonies whereas the Union was a union of the individual states. At least until ol' Abe got going. |
|
|
|
Thus everyone could live where they would feel closer to their views. That was the idea in the US. The Federal government was to do little more than protect our rights. You could pick a state that more more closely reflected your views. That all basically ended with the civil war. You mean the Second American Revolution? Not really so much a revolution as arguably seceding was a legal option. "Federal conquest" maybe? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
.jpg){kind=link}