Now the $100 in your savings account is worth $105. Don't forget the guy with $10,000,000 is now worth $10,500,000. Now it is more difficult to purchase a new car, house, or start a new business. It's more difficult for the poor and middle classes. It is easier for the wealthy. This causes the amount of debt per person plummet. People are no longer working to pay off their mortgages or car payments. Salesman, bankers, & corrupt government officials aren't making a killing while the rest of us suffer. I'm not sure where salesmen come in, but bankers and politicians won't make a killing off of any currency they can't control--inflationary, deflationary or otherwise. It is an advantage to any decentralized currency, not an advantage of deflation. Inflationary and deflationary transfers of wealth may be different mechanisms, but the end result is the same: a select group benefit at the cost of everyone else. |
|
|
|
So while I have a pretty good idea, some tenuous facts, shaky reasoning, I can not unfortunately reveal who I think satoshi is, since they have made it clear they wish to remain anonymous and indeed advocate for net privacy in many other fields also (clue). And I respect these efforts immensely.
I think you started that thread in off-topic too right? If this is all you have, then your guess appears to be no better than the michael clear stuff or the 3 guys that wrote some crypto patents. But IIRC you said in the thread that it was someone who posted here, which I mentioned narrows it down to just a few people who go by their real names or have them public... Besides, if you found it, someone else will, it's not like it will stay hidden forever. |
|
|
|
Two things to consider:
Electronics are already "deflationary" in nature. Prices drop like a rock on new tech as it ages, yet people still buy it at one point or another. If prices dropped on other products, they might slow down their purchases on some items, but it certainly wouldn't stop altogether. Electronics' deflationary property is a result of an increase in productivity, it is not a result of the scarcity of the money supply. These two effects are completely different and have nothing at all to do with each other. This cannot be used as an argument in favor of a deflationary currency. People are in too much debt, largely because it is easier to pay back a loan with money that is worth less tomorrow. People are in too much debt because the majority of money is created via debt and the wealth and productivity of healthy societies has been vultured by the financial sector, thanks mostly to crony capitalism. To keep economies from collapsing, lines of credit have become the new form of money for the poor and middle classes. Deflation would cause people to take out fewer loans, which would help build wealth instead of build debt. There is nothing to suggest that fewer loans would help build wealth. All evidence is to the contrary. Growth requires investment. Without investment, there can be little to no movement between classes. Over-investment/malinvestment is caused by the "thin air" money creation ability of banks, the enormous derivatives market that massively increases systemic risk, and asset bubbles that allow a constant increase of bank leverage. The banking system is an ouroboros that feeds into itself by virtue of the stupidity of the monetary system that prevails in the world today. Ideally (in my opinion), a currency would be perfectly stable, and cause neither price inflation or price deflation. But so far, there is no way to create such a currency without a central authority, and no central authority would agree to it.
pfft |
|
|
|
|
Mining isn't a job bro, so don't treat it like one and you'll be just fine.
|
|
|
|
On the contrary, people are already complaining about too many US jobs moving overseas. With the modern globalization of the world's economy at this point, do you really think it is viable and smart for the US to alienate corporations with higher tax rates? The higher the tax rates, the less incentive a company has to conduct business in the US, and it is a lot easier for a company to operate internationally based in a different country today than it was in the 50's and 60's. Arguably part of the reason for outsourcing is the need for lower pricing within the US where wages have not kept up with economic growth. And arguably the US does not maintain any kind of international dominance over any sectors other than financial, anymore. The simplest way to force companies to maintain a US presence with high taxes is tariffs. I still don't quite understand why hiring people would be better than saving money, even at a 90% tax rate. Surely a rich person would rather save 10% than 0%? Or are you saying that hiring people would "expand the company," resulting in greater profitability down the road? Even in that case though, it's essentially the same incentive. Right now, it is invest 100% in new employees for 65% of future profits or take 65% now, but with a 90% tax rate, it would be invest 100% in new employees for 10% of future profits or take 10% now. Where is the extra incentive to hire people if a higher tax rate is in play?
I was just making a potential argument to the contrary. I don't know why there is a correlation between higher taxation and economic growth, I was speculating, as I said. |
|
|
|
So you're saying the rich would rather lose 100% of their money by paying it to employees instead of losing 40% of it to taxes? What kind of logic is there in that?
I'm saying the benefit could easily outweigh the costs. If the choice is to expand the company or to cut costs at every turn, cost-cutting becomes less and less viable as a profitable measure the higher the tax is. And the tax would probably have to be higher than 40%, that is about what it is now in the US and most of europe. The US has had taxes in the 90s for a short period, as well as in the 50s and 60s for extended periods. The scary, untenable, uncapitalistic thought is that economies run better the more evenly that wealth is distributed. It makes a pretty logical form of sense when it is the 99% that move the economy. |
|
|
|
If the rich work less because it isn't worth the money after tax, then it does penalize the poor. That is less money for the rich to loan to the poor or to pay the poor to work for them. There are consequences.
The contrary argument is: the higher the tax on the rich, the more inclined they are to reduce their tax burden by employing more people. Both are speculation, the argument I propose might seem to be backed up by the data. |
|
|
|
The main reasoning from the top comment is that the rich hoard their money preventing it from being re-circulated into the economy. But wouldn't that decrease the supply & increase demand aka making your money worth more? Making money scarcer does not help the poor or middle classes. It causes high unemployment (and bankruptcies) due to price stickiness while the economy readjusts. Assuming making your money worth more is a bad thing ("then everyone would hoard!"), why is giving it to the government a good thing? Am I the only skeptic that believes the government is just a bunch of talking heads that give tax revenue to their rich friends? I don't know what you're reading so I can't verify that the conclusion is that "giving to the government is a good thing", but all government spending eventually goes to the private sector. There is certainly a degree of crony capitalism involved, but what congress does with a budget is certainly public information, so there is only so much that they can get away with. And even if the government perfectly reallocated money, what would be the point of working? If I'm getting money from not working...I'm not going to work. This is certainly not a valid conclusion. The government doesn't spend money for nothing, they expect work to be performed in return. It may be inefficient, and it may be liberty-depriving, but it (almost always) isn't a hand out. |
|
|
|
|
I meant to say a 70-80% reduction, or 20-30% of the current size. Flipperfish's link would be pretty much all that is necessary to avoid doubt in the future.
The bandwidth section is still misleading though.
|
|
|
|
Why would anyone accept a bitcoin-backed note? The singular redeeming value of notes is that they are easier to carry and transact with than is specie. Expansion of the money supply. It allows for easier credit at lower interest rates. By virtue of being deflationary, bitcoin almost encourages FRB, or at the very least heavily discourages lending without FRB. Some bitcoin proponents have settled on the fact that there will be a banking application layer on top of bitcoin for most everyday transactions, which helps make it ripe for FRB. Without a mechanism to slow deflationary pressure, anyone borrowing bitcoins is likely to default, and this will make for a terrible economy. 50% of all the coins are mined, 75% in 4 years, there will be little incentive for anyone else to use the currency without favorable borrowing. |
|
|
|
|
How about because I don't know the link?
|
|
|
|
I don't understand what you're talking about here. Is it a peer to peer network, or is it bitcoin visa? It's backed up by reality. Check out Pieters ultraprune branch and dump the stats from it yourself. Or you could just ask Pieter himself. It is a wiki, why not put a link in? |
|
|
|
Can you fix the "18 different people edited this" format? "VISA handles on average around 2,000 transactions/sec, so call it a daily peak rate of 4,000/sec" "Let's take 4,000 tps as starting goal." "Let's assume an average rate of 2000tps, so just VISA." "That means that you need to keep up with around 8 megabits/second of transaction data (2000tps * 512 bytes) / 1024 bytes in a kilobyte / 1024 kilobytes in a megabyte = 0.97 megabytes per second * 8 = 7.8 megabits/second. This sort of bandwidth is already common for even residential connections today, and is certainly at the low end of what colocation providers would expect to provide you with." If the network were to fail miserably, this is accurate. Otherwise everyone needs more than just a single downstream connection. "As of October 2012 (block 203258) there have been 7,979,231 transactions, however the size of the unspent output set is less than 100MiB" You need to back this up, because from what I recall estimates were between 70-80% of the current block chain's size, which, even today, is definitely not 100MB. "Only a small number of archival nodes need to store the full chain going back to the genesis block. These nodes can be used to bootstrap new fully validating nodes from scratch but are otherwise unnecessary." Yeah, unnecessary if there's a monopoly on mining and validating.  |
|
|
|
|
Honestly Andy, your knob slobbing is almost as bad as smoothie's trolling. Are you getting paid?
|
|
|
|
Please know that a perfect system for freedom of speech actually obligates anonymity. E.g. elections in democratic societies are anonymous. Uhh the people may cast a vote anonymously, but they are still registered, and the politicians certainly aren't anonymous. Now with the development of a public good, like a software infrastructure, the creator only has the obligation to release enough information for things to get peer reviewed. And by being open source, ppcoin also has full filled that requirement.
Whatever, this is just a rationalization. I'm not saying it's a requirement to be known, but the fact that every single "leader" of these crypto knock offs have chosen to be anonymous (except coblee, I think), and it's no coincidence that every single knock off is a pyramid just like the original. Quite debatable that it is a public good, after all, when there is so much potential wealth transfer to be had. |
|
|
|
|
Self-indignant? That's quite a strange expression. And can you ever actually make an argument that isn't about sucking satoshi's cock? Enjoy the cliff dive, little one.
|
|
|
|
I think this argument in itself could be a pretty good response to the "deflationary death spiral" one.
I think it's an awful one considering it has absolutely nothing to do with the currency and everything to do with productivity. In essentially claims that nobody knows what will happen with a "deflationary model" (which Bitcoin doesn't really have, IMHO, it's designed to be stable). So are we using some heterodox definition of deflation then? Because that isn't confusing or misleading at all. Bitcoin implements a steady-state model that is essentially "full reserve banking" or the Chicago Plan, but implemented by eliminating banks and having a global consensus on inflation rather than laws that require 100% reserve ratios. Eliminating banks? So loans just don't exist under this "model"? Or do loans come from Vinny in the back alley? Where is there a model at all for how bitcoin banking (or lack thereof) will work? I don't believe one is written into the protocol. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
