As I stated above, speculation requires a significant risk of loss, per the dictionary definition. Hoarding does not. I can expect an increase in value more than the statistical norm for a non-risky asset, like guns or liquor as discussed above, and be hoarding, but not speculating. I also proposed that hoarding incorporates a statistically abnormal amount of acquisition, so holding one gun or one bitcoin would likely not qualify as well.
So, is this your definition? The acquisition of a statistically abnormal amount of a resource, due to a belief that the resource will gain a statistically abnormal amount of value in the future. My problem is that "statistically abnormal" is subjective. What is a "statistically abnormal" amount of bitcoins, and what is a "statistically abnormal" expectation of value? |
|
|
|
|
You're probably better off not generating in the Bitcoin client, but only poclbm. Using the CPU at 100% can starve the GPU of work, in my experience.
With poclbm, are you mining in a pool? If so, you don't need Bitcoin running at all to mine. If you are mining solo...
1) I would join a pool
2) You'll need to run bitcoind or add the -server argument to bitcoin when you start it.
|
|
|
|
Bittertea, where did you go? I have answered every one of the criticisms you threw at my definition, so far I have defined hoarding, distinguished it from saving (and distinguished it from speculation, too, which was not even required), and done so in a way that is measurable outside of personal preference (using a generally accepted statistical test of significance for the amount of acquisition as well as the expectation of price increase). Do you have anything else to throw at it? If you don't want to pay, don't sweat, but at this point I am curious as to whether you concede or have some other angle to attack my definition.
"Holding an asset expecting an increase in value more than the statistical norm" is a definition of speculation, not hoarding. By this definition I could hold one gun or one bitcoin, expecting the value to skyrocket, and I would be hoarding. Do you agree with this? |
|
|
|
I'm sorry. "Stable" was not the right word.
You said that "other" will become rich in the other currency. What if that other currency doesn't exist? The "hoarder" must trade something in exchange for "other"'s bitcoins. Either some sort of work, a finished product, or another medium of exchange (money). Since he is hoarding (saving) the bitcoins, as he gathers them the supply is still effectively reduced, increasing their purchasing power. That means that the "hoarder" must trade more goods or services in exchange for the same number of coins over time. He will eventually be doing an infinite amount of work for an infinitely small number of bitcoins. In the real world though, he will quit long before that since there is no point to trying to own all the coins. |
|
|
|
So a system with 2 currencies would be more 'stable' than a system with just 1? What do you mean by "stable"? |
|
|
|
|
To me, democracy is the idea that having a choice between slave owners makes one less of a slave.
|
|
|
|
Trivial case: 2 people. The "hoarder" and the "other".
The "hoarder" gets all the bitcoins. The prices fall to zero. The "hoarder" can get anything by spending nothing. The "other" then becomes a slave.
Am I wrong? Yes. As the "hoarder" attempts to acquire all the coins, the exchange rate rises (supply diminishes, demand stays the same). The "other" becomes rich in the other currency, while the "hoarder" becomes rich in bitcoins. Essentially, nothing changes. |
|
|
|
Fucking hell you are dense. How many times do I have to say this?
If you are still holding your bitcoin, you have not yet profited.
Am I supposed to respond to this? It isn't even a question. How do you know if I am or am not holding my bitcoin? And what difference does it make? If Bitcoin flops before I sell out then yeah, I guess I get it...no ferrari. It should be pretty clear by now that I understand this, but hey... apparently people think my eyesight is bad too cause this thread gone past bold and on to big fonts now. How about the next part, which refutes your constant claim that you are getting "free money" without "providing anything of value"? When you do sell and do profit, you are providing a valuable service (selling bitcoins) at a price other people are willing to pay. How is this "free money" or "not providing anything valuable"? Is this hard to understand, or do you have some argument that counters this point? |
|
|
|
people only invest in so they can get rich quick This is utter bullshit. Some people may be speculating on a short term increase in exchange rate, but I doubt many. can't use to pay their bills Yet. isn't any more anonymous than cash Cash can't be transmitted digitally. and constantly deflates Nope, the supply of bitcoins is constantly increasing (around 7,200 per day). if you actually USE bitcoin to sell products, you have to re-adjust your prices every 2 days because the value changed so much over the last 48 hours This is only due to the demand for bitcoins outpacing the supply, causing an increase in the exchange rate. The same thing happens in any market that spans more than one currency. This is only a problem while businesses expenses cannot be paid with bitcoins and/or the demand for coins exceeds the supply. Once both of those conditions are no longer met, the exchange rate will either equilibrate or will no longer be necessary to determine price denominated in BTC. |
|
|
|
how is getting 6 figures of free money being screwed? Fucking hell you are dense. How many times do I have to say this? If you are still holding your bitcoin, you have not yet profited.When you do sell and do profit, you are providing a valuable service (selling bitcoins) at a price other people are willing to pay. How is this "free money" or "not providing anything valuable"? The longer you hold your bitcoins, the more risk there is that the value drops to zero and you lose your entire investment. (Not that I think that is likely). |
|
|
|
lol, suddenly that theory about the government being the one who made BitCoin doesn't seem so crazy.
If I buy something from someone's website using BTC and they mail it to my address, the authorities could subpoena the seller to release my bitcoin address and then they can connect me with the address, yes?
Yes, except they could do the same thing if you used a credit card, except with less hassle. |
|
|
|
I hear you... it's just that this logic also sells pyramid schemes. No, the people at the bottom of pyramid schemes are always losers. When nobody else wants to buy bitcoin in exchange for fiat currency, everyone who has bitcoin is still trading them. That is their value. What's the difference between me selling BTC versus a 32-dollar bottle of wongo juice whose intrinsic value is maybe 50 cents? (I live in Utah which has got to be the "wongo juice scam" capital of the world). How do you know the intrinsic value of bitcoin? It is used as a money, like gold. What do you say to the guy who just filled his basement full of wongo juice the week before the world population decides it's acquired all the wongo juice it needs? That's the risk of speculation. What casascius isn't getting is that his $20k could have just as easily been the next wongo juice. As we saw in the recent slip from $9 to $6, when newcomers stop throwing money on the table, the value of BTC starts to lose steam relatively fast. What are you talking about? A drop in the exchange rate only means that people are willing to sell now rather than wait for the exchange rate to rise. |
|
|
|
I am fairly successful without $200k in Bitcoin profits The only profit you've made is the difference in price between the bitcoins you've bought and those you've sold. Since you appear to not have sold all of your coins, saying you've made $200k profit is false. Once you sell your coins, you are providing a valuable service to the people who want to buy them. It is the exact same as the people who sold you bitcoins at $0.80, making a profit up from $0.06 (or whatever). Why don't you considering that they profited unfairly from that voluntary exchange of moneys? |
|
|
|
So how much would a newly minted Bitcoin be worth to you, in older Bitcoin?
The comparative value would be pegged directly to the difficulty number in the block header where the original coinbase transaction is found (averaged where multiple coinbase transactions are combined). A logarithm factor would ensure that new coins weren't worth 433,000 times as much as older ones (that's not fair either), but they'd still be worth quite a bit more. And they should be - they were hundreds of times harder to create. So what about the people who just entered into the Bitcoin economy and could only afford say, 1 BTC. It just so happens that they bought that bitcoin from someone who mined it early on. The difficulty for their coin is very low, and it will be worth much less in the BCP system. Is that what you consider fair? |
|
|
|
Just start a new blockchain with massive hashing power thrown at it right from the start so no-one can complain that it started off ridiculously easy. Yes they can. The computing power necessary to secure the blockchain will always increase, thus at some arbitrary point in the future, the difficulty of currently generated coins will be "too low". |
|
|
|
As for your examples, I would think that neither involve hoarding. In the first case while you do have an expectation of significant price increases, you just hold 1, whereas hoarding probably requires amassing significant quantities. In your second case, while you have amassed significant quantities, there isn't the expectation of significant future price increases. The first case may be an example of speculation (because the value of the BTC is currently around $9 USD and could drop significantly), and the second may be an example of saving.
requires amassing significant quantities Your definition requires the subjective valuation of a personal preference and does not qualify for my bounty. I don't think it does. Significance can be measured statistically, and can be defined as "observations that are unlikely to occur by chance and that therefore indicate a systematic cause." Someone that amasses significantly more guns and liquor than the average Joe, as measured statistically, and does so because of the expectation of extreme price increases in times of anarchy or scarcity, is hoarding. What is significantly more? Twice as many as normal? Ten times? What is an extreme price increase? Double? Ten times? Fifty times? This all subjective and is no different than " you are saving more than I think you should, thus you are hoarding". The problem with your logic is that the only person who can tell what is the correct amount of anything to save is that person, no one else. |
|
|
|
Having foresight is a perfectly reasonable attribute that is marketable. You should feel good for yourself about being able to recognize a good opportunity. If you cashed out right now I would not begrudge you your 6-figure payout (over time due to market size)
If my foresight is of value, then listen to this: Newcomers don't like it when others profit at their expense without giving value. They are going to leap from putting new funds into the BTC block chain at the first solid safe opportunity. Your foresight only has value if you are right. So why don't you provide proof that you destroyed all the rest of your BTC and deposited them into BCP? |
|
|
|
|
If I value federal reserve notes printed in my state over all others, are federal reserve notes magically no longer as fungible?
|
|
|
|
As for your examples, I would think that neither involve hoarding. In the first case while you do have an expectation of significant price increases, you just hold 1, whereas hoarding probably requires amassing significant quantities. In your second case, while you have amassed significant quantities, there isn't the expectation of significant future price increases. The first case may be an example of speculation (because the value of the BTC is currently around $9 USD and could drop significantly), and the second may be an example of saving.
requires amassing significant quantities Your definition requires the subjective valuation of a personal preference and does not qualify for my bounty. |
|
|
|
I am saying IT'S NOT FAIR, while sitting on the advantaged ("more-than-fair") side of the equation, and that matters because the whole attraction to Bitcoin is the notion that it's supposedly more fair than the USD, which I feel is a lie at best under the current block chain.
So then give your coins away. What the fuck? Once again, you have not profited until you sell the coins. When you sell them, you are providing them to someone else at a price they are happy to pay. That is the service you are providing. Understand? Additionally, the BTC -> BCP conversion will not only affect those who mined coins early, but those who have already paid market value for those coins. So those poor people who got into Bitcoin later than others and bought the early coins will have their savings destroyed as well. Is that fair to you? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
