It's actually impossible for the money supply to always accumulate to any group. Eventually the distribution must drop below a functional level for a medium of exchange, at which point a free market chooses something else less scarce to be the new medium of exchange.
Indeed that is my point. If you don't design Bitcoin to be distributive in supply and thus a medium-of-exchange, it will fail. I take it that you really don't know how bitcoin actually works, do you? Haha. You don't know who I am. Very funny. That is like telling the President he has never run the country. Wait I will get an embarrassing link for you. Oh, this is going to be fun...
I will grant you this. Money is not always a debt, but that is just semantic weasel words, because it is always compatible with debt. Hard money that presumes that money and debt are orthogonal (as you claim) has never been a reality.
I've made no such claim.
I've presented the logic upthread. You have not refuted it.
I don't have to, really. You're here trying to argue (prove) a negative. It can never happen. I don't have to disprove your premise, your premise is false on it's face. |
|
|
|
Shouldn't we first need to worry about getting this blacklist thing off the agenda ?
Yeah, it's an huge issue. Why? The Bitcoin Foundation is no more able to enact it's agenda than anyone else is. Their impotent. Their only function is to play the part of the, ultimately ineffective, NGO for the major governments of the world; because that is how the statist psycology works. The protocol doesn't provide a mechanism for blacklisting, and simply wishing for it doesn't make it so. But making the case for same, even if you know in your deepest of hearts that it's never going to happen, does so much to divert the ire of politicos who are conditioned to believe that someone is in charge of all this bitcoin stuff. Even if the foundation can lean on US developers to cave into their desires, the open source nature of bitcoin is certain to take that development consensus away from them, and someone else is going to be releasing the dominate clients going forward. The Dark Wallet project is already doing exactly this, and those guys cite the Bitcoin Foundation itself for the motivation. If the mainline client starts blacklisting, anyone who uses it is going to slowly remove themselves from the bitcoin economy. |
|
|
|
It's actually impossible for the money supply to always accumulate to any group. Eventually the distribution must drop below a functional level for a medium of exchange, at which point a free market chooses something else less scarce to be the new medium of exchange.
Indeed that is my point. If you don't design Bitcoin to be distributive in supply and thus a medium-of-exchange, it will fail. I take it that you really don't know how bitcoin actually works, do you? This ends here.
I'm surprised this lasted this long. |
|
|
|
Realize that the money supply is always accumulating to the capitalists.
Thus our big opportunity with crypto-currencies was to get the wealth distributed back out to the people with a decentralized control over the coin supply. But not in a socialist method of distribution of course, as that would be counter-productive.
More neo-marxist, monetarist bullshit. Just because you can imagine it, does not make it so. It's actually impossible for the money supply to always accumulate to any group. Eventually the distribution must drop below a functional level for a medium of exchange, at which point a free market chooses something else less scarce to be the new medium of exchange. This crap has Cambridge written all over it, it's somewhat suprising that the UK is still a first world nation. Bitcoin fucked up both aspects of the design.
1. It puts 98% of the coins in 2% of the hands.
Citations? Fail.
2. It ends debasement, so the mining and thus the control over the coin supply ends up in a cartel.
Show your work, child. How do you arrive at this conclusion? Make sure that you explain how such a cartel could maintain loyalty among it's ranks when mining services are distributable with relatively low cost of market entry. |
|
|
|
BTW, you really have misunderstood the meaning behind the Quantity Theory. Changes in velocity do not support your position that debasement is an economic requirement, it contradicts it.
That demonstrates you did not comprehend what I wrote. I wrote that velocity can increase as a substitute for debasement. But remember velocity eventually has to decline when the economy does. So it does not absolve the necessity of debasement. By your own logic, it doesn't need to resolve anything. Like all thinkgs, demand for money comes in waves, and recedes the same way. We call it the business cycle. Debasement is not required, although it is often beneficial for certain parties. You apparently did not read the links I provided. I told you I don't have time to repeat all the past discussion I had already at those links. I care not at all about your past bullshit.
Those links PROVE why debt requires debasement.
Bullshit. You can't prove anything. If you had any education in the dismal field, you would know this much. Essentially it is because if 97% use debt, then the money supply (or the velocity) has to increase by the prevalent rate of interest. That is mathematically unarguable. The lenders are protected against default by the central banks, which was my point after all, of what we can actually improve upon.
I agree that the above highlighted part is mathmaticly correct. However, your unstated premise is that the average inflation rate is the only variable force on the demand for money. This is not supportable, and is easily disproven. For example, bankruptcy is a countervailing force. Anohter unstated premise youseem to have is that, because this effect is evident under the current fiat currency systems (i.e. central bankng, farctional reserve) that it must always have been this way or cannot be any other way under a different monetary system. While it's possible that that second statement is still true, it's still unsupportable. Just because it's true in every case that you (or I) could be aware of does not condlucde that it must be true under any system. You would have already failed my class. You metioned that you live in England, perhaps you do or have attended Cambridge? Or, perhaps, like to echo the bullshit of someone who has for strangers on the Internet?
I never mentioned I lived in England. You have low comprehension skills. I did write the UK has a total debt-to-GDP ratio of 550%. And many other countries have near that level too. And I quote... "With a central bank that can create base money out-of-thin-air (or authorize banks to do it by lowering reserve ratios), they can just prevent write-downs for decades until we reach f or example now 550% total debt-to-GDP in the UK we are facing now" Considering that I live in teh US, I'm not "facing" anything that happens in the UK. And again you did not read the link I provided which (contains a link which) shows all the countries in the world have a similar level of debt. Thus we are all facing the same outcome. Again, no we are not. It's actually impossible for all nations to face the same outcome even if allnations have similar issues (which they don't). Once the first major nation defaults, the situation on the international stage has changed, and the next must fail in another manner. The cascade probably makes it worse for the late nations, so the best time to default is early. Iceland has proven this already, as they don't really have any lingering effects of telling Euopean banks to poiund sand. I notice, also, that you really never did say why you identify with Britons in particular. From whom do you draw your economic education & understanding? Sorry I don't have time to reorganize a whitepaper every time I get into a debate with another hard money fanatic.
Again, I'm not a hard money fanatic. I would assume that a fanatic would actually own some, at least a little. I don't own any. However, I do understand the difference between a debt owed betweeen contracting parties and a debt based currency. |
|
|
|
Debt and debasement (in various forms of regimes ranging from debt-issued fiat as we have now to fractional reserves of gold in the 1800s to fractional purity of coins in Rome) have always been required and will always be required, because otherwise dumbass wanna-be elite capitalists (e.g. gold fever "goldbugs" greed) go create a ButtCon that puts 98% of the coins (of the world's wealth if ButtCon becomes ubiquitous which thus it won't) in 2% of the hands. And the 2% doesn't spend, they invest to gain more coins. So the 98% has no choice but to accept debt to survive. Then the base money is debased to accommodate the required money supply expansion to accommodate the interest on the debt. Note due to the Quantity Theory of Money, M x V = P x Q ≈ GDP, increases in monetary velocity substitute for money supply increases until the downturn and drop in velocity by -50% as we have since 2007. Debt is required because there is a tension between the incentives of capitalists and the masses. Neither is wrong, this tension exists as the way nature works. See the research paper I linked upthread. This is not an argument. Whatever you think, or feel, is correct is not an argument. It's bullshit. This sounds like the distorted (and wrong) economic education that marxists try to tell me about whenever I'm forced by circumstances to interact with them. Your inability to comprehend is not a rebuttal. I wasn't trying to rebut a non-argument. You may continue to live your life believing that anyone who disagrees with your bullshit doesn't comprehend. You have my permission. However, you are far from the smartst person in this room. I'm one of the nicer lot here, and eventually you're going to hit one of the not-nice and have your virtual arse handed to you in public. I don't have the time or inclination, and suspect that you'd just bail if I should try, but I will enjoy that day. BTW, you really have misunderstood the meaning behind the Quantity Theory. Changes in velocity do not support your position that debasement is an economic requirement, it contradicts it.
That demonstrates you did not comprehend what I wrote. I wrote that velocity can increase as a substitute for debasement. But remember velocity eventually has to decline when the economy does. So it does not absolve the necessity of debasement. By your own logic, it doesn't need to resolve anything. Like all thinkgs, demand for money comes in waves, and recedes the same way. We call it the business cycle. Debasement is not required, although it is often beneficial for certain parties. You metioned that you live in England, perhaps you do or have attended Cambridge? Or, perhaps, like to echo the bullshit of someone who has for strangers on the Internet?
I never mentioned I lived in England. You have low comprehension skills. I did write the UK has a total debt-to-GDP ratio of 550%. And many other countries have near that level too. And I quote... "With a central bank that can create base money out-of-thin-air (or authorize banks to do it by lowering reserve ratios), they can just prevent write-downs for decades until we reach f or example now 550% total debt-to-GDP in the UK we are facing now" Considering that I live in teh US, I'm not "facing" anything that happens in the UK. By including yourself (by way of the "we" above) in that group, you betray that either you identify with Britons, or you have a poor understanding of English grammer rules with regard to context. I don't believe that I'm the one with poor comprehension skills, but at least one of us has poor communication skills. I'm dyslexic, so that's my excuse. |
|
|
|
Debt and debasement (in various forms of regimes ranging from debt-issued fiat as we have now to fractional reserves of gold in the 1800s to fractional purity of coins in Rome) have always been required and will always be required, because otherwise dumbass wanna-be elite capitalists (e.g. gold fever "goldbugs" greed) go create a ButtCon that puts 98% of the coins (of the world's wealth if ButtCon becomes ubiquitous which thus it won't) in 2% of the hands. And the 2% doesn't spend, they invest to gain more coins. So the 98% has no choice but to accept debt to survive. Then the base money is debased to accommodate the required money supply expansion to accommodate the interest on the debt. Note due to the Quantity Theory of Money, M x V = P x Q ≈ GDP, increases in monetary velocity substitute for money supply increases until the downturn and drop in velocity by -50% as we have since 2007. Debt is required because there is a tension between the incentives of capitalists and the masses. Neither is wrong, this tension exists as the way nature works. See the research paper I linked upthread. This is not an argument. Whatever you think, or feel, is correct is not an argument. It's bullshit. This sounds like the distorted (and wrong) economic education that marxists try to tell me about whenever I'm forced by circumstances to interact with them. BTW, you really have misunderstood the meaning behind the Quantity Theory. Changes in velocity do not support your position that debasement is an economic requirement, it contradicts it. The very notable fact that velocity of money is able to change in response to the demand for money implies that hard currencies are more flexible in practice than is often touted by academtic economists. You metioned that you live in England, perhaps you do or have attended Cambridge? Or, perhaps, like to echo the bullshit of someone who has for strangers on the Internet? |
|
|
|
|
Switzerland is not neutral. There is no answer to this poll for the notion that no nation state can be neutral with regard to bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
Credit has existed since the time of Mesopotamia. Martin Armstrong has images of clay tablet credit contracts on his blog to prove it.
Credit, yes. Debt based currencies, no. The difference is not trivial. Either the base money was a fractional receipt or it was a fractional purity. Never has there been a non-fractional, hard assets currency. Never. Not even in the Byzantine Empire as some think. Yes, there has been. Regression theory requires it, and takes it as a given. Evidence of same isn't even a requirement. Or are you contesting the regression theory?
Because humans require debt.
Prove it.
Try outlawing debt, you will enter another 600 year Dark Age and feudalism
Maybe, but irrelevent. Commerce often requires debt, even if momentary in nature. That does not imply that commecre requires a debt based currency. Think about what it is that you are really advocating here. If you owe fiat to anyone, you owe a debt; but when you pay for it in fiat, you're paying for it by transfering debt to another party. You are never actually settling the debt. Yes, modern fiat currencies work this way, and they will continue to work so long as the public continues to trust that the issuing government will continue to exist & continue to honor it's own debts. (which is one reason that an outright & open default on foregn debts is never acceptable to an idebted nation) This does not conclude that all mediums of exchange are, themselves, a debt of another party. Physical gold rounds, silver bullion, trade barter in canned goods and bullets, etc. is not the exchange of a debt unless you're the creditor. All that is required for you to see the difference between a two party consumer debt and that of a debt based currency system is to reason it out a bit. |
|
|
|
This is a falsehood.
Ignore this guy. I read his posts upthread and he is suffering the goldbug delusion. I don't have time to correct all his wrong thinking. Dude, you don't even know who you're talking about. I'm no goldbug, for one. It's a falsehood that is easily provable. Money predates nation-states, it's only the advent of nation-states that has permitted debt based money. Credit is something a bit different. Gold & Silver (not a gold standard paper currency) are two monies that have no counterparty risk, there are others also. When you pay with gold, real gold coins and not warehouse receipts, the debt is immediately settled. Without counterparty risk, debt based currencies cannot exist. With regard to modern fiat currencies, the counterparty is the government that issues the currency. I.E., "The full faith and credit of the United States..." (or, in the case of Britian, the Crown) Credit has existed since the time of Mesopotamia. Martin Armstrong has images of clay tablet credit contracts on his blog to prove it. Credit, yes. Debt based currencies, no. The difference is not trivial. |
|
|
|
I don't fully understand. Don't people use both these units? I mean I just use unit that's relevant for the amount I'm talking about.
Yes, most people have no problem using both of these unit standards where appropriate. These guys just seem to think that they are important somehow. |
|
|
|
This is a falsehood.
Ignore this guy. I read his posts upthread and he is suffering the goldbug delusion. I don't have time to correct all his wrong thinking. Dude, you don't even know who you're talking about. I'm no goldbug, for one. It's a falsehood that is easily provable. Money predates nation-states, it's only the advent of nation-states that has permitted debt based money. Credit is something a bit different. Gold & Silver (not a gold standard paper currency) are two monies that have no counterparty risk, there are others also. When you pay with gold, real gold coins and not warehouse receipts, the debt is immediately settled. Without counterparty risk, debt based currencies cannot exist. With regard to modern fiat currencies, the counterparty is the government that issues the currency. I.E., "The full faith and credit of the United States..." (or, in the case of Britian, the Crown) |
|
|
|
That's it, right here. The block only permits a limited amount of zero fee transactions to be included, and any additional transactions must meet the criteria for the fee schedule to be included into a block. That is not correct. A miner could make every block 1MB ~2,400 tx only include the free ones and exclude every paying tx if they wanted. Not saying they would (it would be stupid) or they should but they could. Saying the "block" prevents them is a cop out. Miners decide what tx to include in a block. The only thing which can't be included in a block is an invalid tx, or a sum of tx greater than 1MB in size. I was generallizing. I know that miners can choose their own rules, but the default set of rules say that there is a limit to the free transactions. Changing those rules requires programming skill and the desire to do so. |
|
|
|
And back on topic, There are currently just a little more than 11 millions addresses with unspent outputs.
Finding one by running a random generator looks less likely than winning national lottery 3 times in a row.
And currently there are only just over 11 million BTC in circulation, so the average address has about 1 BTC. If the odds of such a thing occuring to you, by random bad luck or otherwise, simply divide your massive bitcoin wealth up into a few addresses. Not correct. If you take out of the equation top ~10 addresses, the per address amount for the remaining ones is much less. But I did not take the top anything addresses out of the equation, so the average win should an address collision ever succeed would be 1 BTC right now. If someone is trying to collide with one of those top 10 addresses in particular, then the odds are nominally zero before the heat death of the known universe. |
|
|
|
Actually, this (misconception) points out very clearly why Bitcoin/Gold are on the same side opposite modern day fiat.
Modern day fiat monetary systems are almost all 'debt based'. The currency is actually created by someone going into debt and extinguished by someone going out of debt through one means or another. The paradox is that if there were not debt, there would be no money. This explains, among other things, why pretty much everyone and every corporate and government is in debt.
Money has always been debt based. The state mafia indebted the people from the very beginning with a tax (debt ex nihilo). This is a falsehood. |
|
|
|
Can someone just please respond to him by stating gold is infinitely divisible? Has anyone tried that with him?
Yes, the second bitcoin caller on that link tried it, but Peter just talked over him and wouldn't let him finish that point; declaring that it's not true and/or not the same. Which, of course, is bullshit on Peter's part. |
|
|
|
Prove it. There are some scenario's where gold would become of no use (say a global catastrophic event that wipes out most of the population and technology sending us back to the cave man days, basically).
Yes, there are some astronomicly unlikely disaster scenarios that gold would not be of any use. Neither would anything else be, for that matter. Returning to a gold standard without any central banking or fractional reserve lending is vastly more likely, however. No matter how advanced a society we become, and no matter how successful Bitcoin (or other cryptocurrency) ever becomes, gold & silver will have a value. Peter's point is that, in the absence of that modern industrial society, wherein trustless transfer of value over distances no longer has it's own use value, that it's possible that Bitcoin will not have an another use value. Even then, if the human species has not been wiped out, I can think of several non-monetary uses for gold. If you lived 500 years ago (assuming gold had no monetary value) what would you do with it? That exact scenario played out with platinum, since it was so uncommon that the Spanish had no experience or understanding of it, they used it as if it was common scrap metal. They made cannons and ship ballasts out of it. If I were to survive a complete breakdown of modern industrial society, and lived anywhere near the ocean, the first thing that I'd be trying to get is a boat. And gold plating would not only make a wonderful external ballast, but since it cannot corrode it would also make a great hull skin to protect a wooden hull from rot and barnacles. Anyone with a seaworthy boat can scratch a living from the sea today, as the somewhat famous boat peoples of asia have well proven. Athough it'd be wise to keep one's distance from the island of Japan. |
|
|
|
Peter has claimed bitcoin is fiat on many occasions. This proves wither he has no clue what he is talking about or he is trying to recoup the credibility he lost on ALL of his "bitcoin is going to crash and people will lose money" claims.
No, it just shows his bias. Since it's not gold, and to him that is a bad thing, then bitcoin is substandard. Calling it fiat is a shortcut to his audience. He knows it's not fiat, really. |
|
|
|
Simple version: blocks are 90% empty, tx wait longer to be included in a block
Pay 0.0001XBT fee, or 0.04USD, will solve the problem That's it, right here. The block only permits a limited amount of zero fee transactions to be included, and any additional transactions must meet the criteria for the fee schedule to be included into a block. Basicly, too many people are choosing cost of transaction over time to confirmation. This is to be expected as the number of transactions increase, as this sets up a market for the fees (higher fees are more likely to be favored into the next block) while still providing for a free (or out of band transaction fee) methodology. |
|
|
|
|
Yes.
But you can get out before the crash, and limit your losses. I'll give you twice that for whatever you have. $10 each, limited time offer.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
