5.5 Gh/s with 7 6990s. $325/month in electricity, about 7.2 BTC gross a month. (~4 BTC profit per month, at current prices.)

Still selling Ripples head on over to https://www.bitmit.net/en/item/29024-2500-xrp-ripples

Cheapest on the market!

This is completely wrong. the % return is presumably unaffected by this in Real terms. One can be more sure that projects undertaken are likely the right ones because this 'deflationary' currency is not subject to interest rate manipulations of central planners, which likely result in mal-investment due to incorrect signals (i.e. interest rates that do not reflect individual preferences and are therefore unsustainable).

Thinking about the housing bubble as an example. In the absence of a credit-based flexible money supply would it have played out the way it had?  i think the answer is obviously 'no' because 'yes you are right that interest rates probably would have been higher.' 

That's different than saying that there would be less investment!!  Probably capital would have been invested in more useful activities than building McMansions....

I think that your assertion is likely how things will develop. The Fiats won't disappear, rather BTC will act as a check on a currently unchecked group of central banks. People will no longer stand for negative savings rates. People will take their loans in fiat and keep their savings in BTC.

If  company wants a loan they certainly won't want it in BTC, they will ask for it in Dollars, Yen etc. The return on investments will be competing with the return on savings (read BTC) just as it always has. This will serve as a winnowing process with the less attractive investments failing to achieve funding. This may also have the effect of reducing the endless phenomenon of recurring bubbles as excess money sloshing around looks for a home. People will flock to a store of value that is much more liquid than gold; BTC.

In the end, BTC won't be the only currency in existence; the likely position of BTC will be to take over a large portion of what economists call M1 - the most liquid portion of the entire money supply.

Well that has developed into a "GDP/NX dynamics theory" of BOTH the classical and monetarist schools of thought that leads to an entirely different misinterpretation than what it rather clumsily attempts to point out. The problem comes from mis-stating it's deeply flawed temporal and qualitative false assumptions. It would do better to scientifically restate their flawed notions in this way:

aggregate past/potential incomes =< (tend to limit or "kinda must be sorta" less than or equal to) aggregate past/potential expenditures

On the surface you may rationalize such a weak premise to be somewhat generally true, but in fact even stated in this far more refined manner it is still not only a temporally false assumption, it totally ignores the entirely separate commodity-resource class of savings wealths.

A non-income or a non-expenditure that is drawn from or placed into reserve or pool of savings-wealth presents a huge surplus or defect that falls entirely outside of it's temporally myopic suppositions. Ergo any "snapshot" of "aggregation" is merely a "fly by survey" of only what newly or recently appears to be blowing around on the surface, ignoring all that is in the vaults.


This arises from both theories (ironically Smith and Keynes) hypothetical avoidance of not only the distinction between a wealth and a money, it also reflects their failure to distinguish a Labour from a Saving or an Investment. Keynes at least tried to distinguish an (only public) Investment from the three.

Leaning on the supply or the demand side of the income or expenditure aggregation potentials is based entirely on the false assumption of the "limits" supposedly imposed by not properly differentiating savings-wealths, investment-wealths and (labour-exchange)money-wealths. That confusion arose from bankers alone falsely claiming to have a "monopoly on the current savings component" of the "aggregate's" data.

People save Labour Exchange Tokens in mattresses and cookie jars as well as in fine art, antiques, collectables, emeralds, fast cars, big boats, fried chicken recipes and even gold. Not just in bigger taxed palaces or bank accounts.

As a "money" is a Labour Exchange Medium because labours are the Prime Resource it's exchange-valuation represents, that aggregate valuation must be "elastic" to a market driven supply/demand price.

As a "rare commodity resource" is a Savings Medium because it's rare components are ever-rarer diminishing supplies with regard to the ever expanding demands of the Prime Resources, it's aggregate's valuations are always certain to increase.

As a "general commodity resource" is a speculative Investment Medium because it's supplies and demands are valued by other supplies and demands it's past present nor future aggregate values are never certain nor stable.  

( aggregate potential incomes &&|| (and/or) aggregate potential expenditures ) <= (tend to limit or are always less than or equal to) aggregate real wealths

Since nobody really knows or can honestly guesstimate the "aggregate sums" of all "real" reserved, illiquid, liquid or borrowed/borrowable wealths there is essentially no "hard" limit to either of the other two "contained potential aggregates".

It all depends upon the applications and ingenuities of the flourishing (or atrophying) of the Prime Resources, which means "are you empowering or enslaving people?".

Understandable on not supporting it, that is fair. 75 BTC didn't seem reasonable after looking at organofcorti's estimates on BTC/day. 45-50 BTC was my cutoff for this auction and I scraped by at 50.5 BTC. The next auction, if it happens in 3-4 weeks, would have a cutoff around 30-35 BTC for myself I suspect.

Re: HD 7970s, I would love to see how you are racking 20 7970s @ $400/GPU. I think 7950s make more sense and even with them you are looking at a minimum of $400/GPU when factoring in MB/CPU/PSU/RAM/risers and something to house this rig. I did the GPU thing(ran a 14-15 GH/s farm for 6 months) and I'm tired of them. I'll run my remaining GPUs into the ground and keep up the hunt for more ASICs. I'm not too concerned about the blades being limited to BTC. If BTC fails I'm confident LTC will fail with it. By the time BTC's difficulty makes the blade a negative earner, I will have replaced it and I am gambling it will have hit ROI at least 2x.

And that is where I believe you are wrong.  In bitcoin land, paying back a loan does not reduce the supply of money, so there is no deflationary spiral.  In bitcoin land, paying back a loan simply means that those bitcoins are once again available to be loaned out. 

Just plain old deflation, which is good for savers and bad for debtors (the exact opposite of inflation, which is good for debtors and bad for savers).

Your ideas are very well reasoned and elucidated. Again, I encourage you to:
1) Introduce yourself here.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=179918.0

2) Create a new thread that puts forth the ideas you've expounded here. Also, include the parts you think are infeasible. All of us are doing that.

Perhaps an odd combination of each of our ideas will turn out to be feasible. Please put [StableCoin] in the title of your new thread. That way like minded forum users will be able to find it when they search for the topic.

i like the way this sounds

+1

Or even 40btc for 10Ghps, the most recent auction price.

If you won't be able to afford it in 24 years, how do you plan to pay the loan in the first place?

What variables would need to taken in?

For example take a look at Bitcoin mining with the massive resources being put towards it. This is clearly a case of huge monetary demand, would the perfect algorithm increase or decrease the supply based on that demand? Would it be better to disallow mining altogether and use another variable, perhaps unique transaction info? In that case only transactions between aged unique wallets might allow for a input to allow for inflation or deflation. (aged wallets that are only transferring between other unique wallets that do not have too many connections to determine that they do not belong to the same person)

A solution to a hard problem like this may very well allow a crypto coin to overtake Bitcoin, do you agree?

We have far too many inflationary currencies. So it feels right to have something different for people who believe that reasonable deflation is in fact a good thing. Spending and investment is not always good. It can lead to malvestment or spending "just for the spending". People will think twice, maybe three times before spending and they will buy only goods they really need. Loans would be possible but naturally discouraged.
If bitcoin gains wider adoption then there surely will be projects how to inflate it. There will be fractional reserve, loans and therefore "false bitcoins" in the form of "promises of real bitcoins". There will be far more promises than bitcoins used in backing. I have no problem with that as long as th following works:
If the BTCbank issuing false BTC goes bankrupt (unable to provide real BTC for the promises) then no one will be able to reimburse people by creating some new real BTC for them. Those people will have to decrease their standard of living (some of them might even lose their houses). And they will have to face the consequences of their mistargeted trust into BTCbank. So will all the merchants accepting false BTC from them. If this works and more reasonable "hoarders" are not forced to help them by a single bitcent then I am OK with all that. It might be that the BTCbank will never go bankrupt. Then the people and merchants will of course benefit from increased money supply. I am also OK with that as long as no one is forced (nor forbidden) to accept false bitcoins.

This fight between Keynesian/classical view on economics and Austrian school seems like neverending story. Such as fight between supporters of "giving people more freedom" and "doing right things for the people and perpetrate good even if it means forcing them".

TLDR:

. Some people here need to read up on history that isn't from the point of views of government sponsored/regulated schools and texbooks ( seriously, they lie to your face )

. In an unregulated and deflationary economy employers couldn't drop the wages so low that people would be forced to work for longer without consequences to them personally, that and the limited nature of deflationary currencies wouldn't allow for it mathematics wise

Something tells me you don't really know what you're talking about and I found the answer with the history you cited, the depressions experienced during that time were a result of massive hyper-inflation of the likes you saw in the great depression later on towards World War 2 both involved massive amounts of money printing of the kind that you saw the Weimar Republic churn out in the hopes of fixing the economy. The problem is money printing does nothing, it temporarily causes prices to rise and wages to rise and then everything comes crashing down. While this is deflation it is deflation and inflation that has been artificially created by central banks which because of the scale causes the massive and total collapses that you see of economies because rather than letting the poorly run companies etc. go out of business they steal everyone else's wealth to keep them going and of course because they are poorly run everyone ends up losing out entirely and the paper becomes worthless.

The idea of deflation is that prices go low and you guy buy things with much less currency than you would normally have to if the currency was inflationary, with deflationary economies you shouldn't be able to have prices going so low they are worth nothing because in a deflationary currency like with Bitcoin there is a limited supply so they will be valued to someone at a given time, gold and silver is also like this which is why they have been used as currencies for centuries. As for wages in general, if the wages go that low and the employer is forcing their employees to work for longer than that is a bit like what central banks are currenctly doing with inflation and interest rates, anyone with sense is going to find someone else to work for in that situation but unless they banded together there is no way the wages in a deflationary economy could go that low people would have to work much longer without them noticing.

Adding to that, deflationary wise I can start providing examples of deflation with real life examples, I calculated that if I sold silver Jewellery I'm making in Bitcoin I would be able to make far more profit than if I did it in paper and it was because Bitcoin, after all the fuss and rants of neo-keynesians is still having much more value than paper. For sure, inflationary paper money causes nothing but grief and is nothing more than an extremely clever way devised by ultra rich central bankers to steal other peoples wealth without getting into trouble.

In short, your history is wrong, you need to study what isn't just in school textbooks and told to you by teachers.