The forum is slow today, so I thought I'd share a thought that hit me yesterday.
"I don't want to make early adopters rich."
I've heard this said in person and I've read it in reader comments on MSM articles. But is doesn't actually make sense. The benefit to early adopters moving forward in time is exactly the same as to adopters who choose to buy today. Early adopters may already be rich, but if that's true then it's already happened. As of right now, it is just as risky to continue to hold, as it is to choose to buy.
Consider this: Alice and Bob each have $1,000,000 in financial assets. Alice is an early adopter of bitcoin and holds half her wealth in BTC. Bob just learned about bitcoin today, and holds 100% of his wealth in US treasuries and stocks. The risk Bob takes by moving $500,00 into BTC simply puts him at the same risk level as Alice moving forward in time. The fact that Alice's bitcoins performed well in the past has no bearing on portfolio allocation moving forward. Alice choosing to continue to hold $500,000 in bitcoin is just as risky as Bob deciding to buy $500,000 of BTC.
The public cannot make early adopters un-rich by not investing in bitcoin. And by investing in bitcoin, the public makes early and current investors rich to the exact same degree from this point in time moving forward.
This logic does not make any sense. People should be rewarded for taking risks. The early adopters took on a lot of risk when they used/mined bitcoin in it's early days. As of 2010 or 2011 the chances that bitcoin would catch on to the level that it is at now were slim to none. They should be rewarded by this. If you are referring to the MSM as in the liberal media then I would expect an article to say exactly what you said. |
|
|
|
|
Yea, I would not trust Facebook with my money/bitcoin/alt(shit)coin.
They have terrible privacy policies and have not been good in the past of telling people as to what they plan on doing with the information they collect about their user base, nor what they even collect about their users.
|
|
|
|
Let's pretend right know 'everybody' would have or even get the same amount of bitcoins, and all the bitcoins are mined.
What would happen? Some will instantly sell, while others will buy, some will hold, some will spend, and some will lose them.
So within months, there again is an uneven distribution. Which then in time will be considered 'unfair', because some would argue they needed the fiat, did not fully understand Bitcoin, got robbed, etc etc.
What you are suggesting would be "fair" is similar to socialism (everyone getting the same number of bitcoin). To see how this would not work see The tragedy of the commons (this is not a play) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commonsEDIT: nor is it shakespeare |
|
|
|
Would anyone be interested on mining USD, if it was possible, @ $0.01 per block (scrypt)?
If you are serious about this then it would be an alt-coin not the United States Dollar. |
|
|
|
He is a puppet of people with money. Naturally. In this case owned and operated by goldman sachs. not only Gold man Sachs Was RGB and other wall street firms that threw him parties to promote him, I worked at one of them and they threw him a event. The president is not accountable to anyone that gives him money. He runs for election at most two times and as unfrequent enough intervals so that as long as he manages the country sufficiently people will donate money to his campaign. The president controls the economy via regulation and economic policies. He cannot crash it nor can he make it boom but he can nudge it in either direction based on how well he manages it. |
|
|
|
Utopia is not something that is achievable. The world will never be perfect.
But we've achieved so many things that used to be considered the hallmarks of an impossible Utopia. Do you realize that less than one person out of ten thousand dies of homicide now? Less than one out of fifteen hundred of starvation? Nearly all of our children survive to adulthood! That's incredible! Or at least it would have been back when the word was coined.
If you'd told Thomas Moore that we'd come this far, he'd have declared it impossible and dismissed you as a dreamer. He'd have said it was impossible, for reasons of economics and human nature, and according to all that was known of economics and human nature at the time, there'd be no reason to say otherwise.
Who knows what dreams may become possible -- or be achieved -- in the next few hundred years?
This is a optimistic view for sure, one could argue that we've stalled (except maybe China) in the last thirty years or so. I think there needs to be a broad-scale restart of the global economy in the near future before we see progress accelerated. The kinds of projects to restart the system aka a globalized world - probably need to be huge in scale i.e space colonization or at least serious energy innovation here on earth. We have had massive amounts of innovation over the last 30 years. Cars have gotten more efficient and faster, the internet has gone from dial up sites to what it is now, social media has been born, we can use a device the size of a small calculator to contact anyone in the world in a matter of seconds, we can translate almost any spoken language using nothing more then copy and paste. |
|
|
|
I don't think that the stock market will crash any time soon. It is a much larger market than in 1929 and there are too many support structures in place to prevent collapse. Even if it collapses it doesn't necessarily entail a major disruption in the economy.
It is very difficult to predict a stock crash. If this were possible then people would take advance of this information, buy put options the day before the cash and profit massively. |
|
|
|
Can old people do computing, personal training, nursing, heavy lifting and other strength and tech related activities?
Yes, but young people do it better!
I would not say this is necessarily true. In regards to tech related activities many older people have backrounds that would allow them to easily pick up on things like coding. In regards to strength related fields/activities: jobs that require these types of activities often do not pay very well and have very little room for advancement. |
|
|
|
Please take note that if you want to live of $200k for the rest of your life and move to another country, you likely will have to change your nationality (which comes at a price). Otherwise, in many cases, your original country will still tax you. Also you will need a license to be allowed to live in most countries.
That is only true in the US. All other countries will only tax you on income you produce in that country. |
|
|
|
|
I think I read somewhere that his company is now actually accepting bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think solar roadways are a good solution.
Solar panels are very expensive are very expensive, more so then roads are. I believe they are generally fragile as well.
I think the electric grid is one thing that probably should be centralized.
|
|
|
|
|
Hyperinflation is caused when a country borrows too much of it's currency and/or sets it's interest rate much lower then the market would support and/or make it very easy to get out of debt obligations.
|
|
|
|
US's broke, no money to bomb Syria and the US "help" to Ukraine is laughable, considering the Canadians sent more aircraft and advisors.
US can't fight a war with anyone - the Empire is gone, it's like the British Empire back in the 1950s.
USA has a president with brains now. Why should we give a rat's ass about Syria, the country is already infighting at this time and so is Ukraine. Why waste our money on it? There is just no reason to fight like a fool is the point when there is no need to. USA are in syria, iraq, libya, and not in north korea, is because of oil venuezla, and iran are next they have lots of oil too The vast majority of wars are based on oil. |
|
|
|
The appearing of BTC has been causing some problems,such money laundry, crazy speculating, loss money for stolen wallet. It is normally the early stage of innovation! It is adapting to the real situation. One day BTC will be accepted by Chinese government.
Bitcoin should make clear its way and set a policy with the govt to have a common understanding and try to setup within the common market of exchange. Bitcoin cannot have this type of policy. Since it is not governed by anyone it would not be something it can do. The only policies that Bitcoin can have are ones that can be validated mathematically |
|
|
|
Since many people use multiple wallets, it's hard to know how many users there are.
At best, a very rough estimation can be made.
The total number of users is impossible to know, so the next best thing is to check for total activity. In other words the amount of bitcoin being moved between addresses on a given time interval. But even this has to be corrected a little because some of the transactions may be a single user moving between two of his own wallets.
This is true, however I read something on the forums that estimated the number of BTC users to be roughly 6 million |
|
|
|
Quck update: Coinbase no longer seems tied to Bitstamp, at least not this very moment. Both the buy and sell prices are above Bitstamp's. They're either making a hard buy themselves, or are tracking to another system. Any ideas?
Will try to back my findings up with new charts, soon.
I just started to notice this the other day as well. I figured since they were a BTC/USD exchange they would just establish a market rate themselves. The only thing I don't like about coinbase is you can't put in reserve buy/sell orders at a given market price. Meh, other than that I like coinbase a lot, very stable and reliable. They likely use a number of exchanges and probably keep some for their own investment without even using an exchange at all. For example if one person wants to buy one bitcoin they can sell it to them for $600 (they would already own it). Then if someone wanted to sell a bitcoin they could buy it from them for $589 to replenish their supply. Then they can adjust their prices based on a number of exchanges and based on how much people are buying and selling. |
|
|
|
Planning on buying a house in the UK with bitcoin when it goes to the moon in next price bubble. Buying with bitcoin will mean avoiding tax vs cashing out bitcoin before purchase in UK im pretty sure?
Im imagining issues of:
1.) Estate agents will still assume bitcoin is retarded money :/
2.) Negotiating for a lowball price will be harder with bitcoin
3.) General lack of choice, we need ebay to accept bitcoin or like a bitpay for property
Any tips about how to go about the procedure, has anyone bought a property with bitcoin? (if UK great!)
I dont think using Bitcoin would let you avoid tax, they will use it to calculate the actual value in USD and still tax you. Exactly right If you're using bitcoin to tax evade you are to late, authorities caught on in the $20/BTC days It is always a bad idea to avoid paying taxes. With that being said it is still possible to deal with bitcoin anonymously to avoid any kind of reporting. |
|
|
|
Same in a way can be said about gold. So it's fine in my opinion. Many politicians don't want to accept the fact that Bitcoin is real because it does not have a bank at the head of it.
May they continue to underestimate bit coin. The tipping point is not that far away. Many also do not understand Bitcoin. They also associate it with nefarious things like SR. The more companies that accept it successfully (read: jobs in a congressman's district) the more credibility it will get. |
|
|
|
Cash is extremely useful for quick transactions. Some places are still cash only, even. It's faster than credit cards for a lot of POS transactions (think convenience stores). And sometimes you want to remain anonymous...
The cost of using cash is usually less then it is for most other payment methods, especially with lower cost items. |
|
|
|
Forcing the banks to create loans will bring more debt into to economy. More debt equals more fiat, because our money is based on debt.
This will mean inflation in the short term, and more poor people in the long term (someone will need to pay their debts sometime).
That's the whole thing, all this debt based fiat currency is giving us the illusion of wealth, while in reality every dollar you own is backed by the debt of someone else. Or maybe even backed by your own debt.
If people can successfully invest the money they borrow and get a return greater then the interest rate they pay then they will profit and the economy will flourish. If they cannot make more money then what they pay in interest then their standard of living will decrease. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
