|
In tutta questa discussione su chi è proprietario / possessore (che sono due cose differenti anche se qualche volta coincidenti) nessuno ha pensato di partire con la domanda:
se sei il possessore/proprietario del bilancio su un indirizzo bitcoin (perché sei l'unico che ha la chiave privata per firmare le tx), come sei venuto in possesso o hai acquisito la proprietà di quei bitcoin?
per capire se qualche cosa appartiene a qualcuno bisogna vedere come ne è venuto in possesso o ne ha acquisito la proprietà.
se ho acquisito la proprietà in modo lecito sono miei, altrimenti non sono miei.
Va anche ricordato che la proprietà di qualche cosa è riconosciuta dagli altri nella società: la società riconosce che ho acquisito la proprietà in modo lecito e quindi sono l'unico che può negare o concedere l'uso di quella cosa ad altri.
Il possesso, al contrario, è una mera constatazione di un dato di fatto: controllo quella cosa, in questo momento. Non significa che ne ho la proprietà.
LO stesso vale per la serratura di casa: se la casa è mia, la chiave mi permette di entrare. Se la casa è di un'altro, anche se la chiave mi permette di entrare la casa non è mia, perché non l'ho acquisita in modo lecito e riconosciuto dalla società. Magari la chiave l'ho trovata per strada, oppure l'ho creata a caso e sto provando tutte le porte, oppure mi è stata data a livello fiduciario perché il proprietario non è in grado di usarla personalmente (è in coma in ospedale).
Il possesso dei Bitcoin è definito dalla capacità di usarli mentre, allo stesso tempo, si può impedire agli altri di usarli (anche solo non rivelando la chiave privata).
La proprietà (di default) del bilancio di un indirizzo viene assegnata a chi controlla la chiave, nello stesso modo con cui la proprietà di una banconota viene assegnata a chi l'ha in mano. Sono entrambi numeri unici.
Ma se io prendo la banconota a qualcun'altro, senza il suo permesso, contro o senza la sua volontà, quella banconota non diventa mia.
P.S.
Il pagamento per la scrittura è una stupidaggine, perché a scrivere sono i nodi (miners) e non gli utenti che si scambiano i bitcoin. Al massimo chi firma la transazione sta dettando ai minatori cosa scrivere (a pagamento)
|
|
|
|
|
A solution to the inflation under zero / lost coins in the distant future is just to add some rule in the consensus where, if coins are not moved every 20 or 200 years (full nodes consensus is implied, maybe it should be configurable by the node operators) miners can just take a part of them (maybe starting with the smaller balances).
Maybe, if the mean fee is x, everything lower than x/2 can be taken after 20 years it stops moving.
It would be like:
if there are $ 0.02 left there for a century, can we take them?
Nodes: Yes. not a problem.
If there are $ 200 left there for one year can we take them?
Nodes: No!!!
|
|
|
|
|
La data scelta è il 16 Dicembre 2016.
Il luogo è sempre il Bar Gozzi (vedete sopra per un link al locale con google).
Prevedibilmente, dopo il Meetup, chi vuole può fermarsi a cena.
Il locale lo decideremo sul momento.
|
|
|
|
Hi. I think you're locked in a tautology. If "transactional utility is the price of money itself" then it can only be determined in relation to that which it prices itself by, i.e. its own unit of currency or an equivalent.
My opinion is he used the wrong words. "transactional utility is the price of money itself" SHOULD BE "transactional utility is the value of money itself" As money is always acquired to be exchanged later for something else, its value is in the ability it confer to obtain some other good and service in the future. This, in exchange depend on its features and how many people use it and how often. Menger explained money as the "more re-sellable commodity" available in the market. Mises, explaining the Regression Theorem, state gold (or any form of money) INITIAL value is the value of direct use at the time it is used for the first time as a mean on indirect exchange. As gold started to be used as a mean of indirect exchange, the price (the exchange rate of gold measure in other goods and services) raised. This can be understood as the same quantity of gold was used before only for direct use (jewelry, etc.) now must be used for indirect exchange and some direct use. So the less valuable direct use must be ceased to free some gold to be used as a mean of indirect exchange. |
|
|
|
This might work with gold as well as silver coins (arguably), works with bitcoin "tokens", but it doesn't work with fiat money. And not just because the majority of dollars (for example) exist only as digital money (that could still be accounted for somehow), but primarily because the amount of money printed or emitted by a central bank makes up only a small part of monetary equivalents or substitutes that flow through the economy. For example, credit money is created and destroyed by banks...
Are you sure that it is not you who doesn't quite understand economics?
I don't wanted to go in too much details, but in this regard "inflation" is not "inflation of money" but "inflation of a particular type of money" E.G. if we talk about bitcoin we can measure the inflation (increase) of the number of bitcoin tokens If we talk about gold, we can measure the quantity of gold available overground in monetary form (because non-monetary - jewels - has different value and uses) Same for silver. Same for USD (printed and electronics). In these case we have many types of measure Money Base, M1, M2, M3, etc. based on what we want measure and the definition of any of the previous). But we can not measure the quantity of money "per se" because money is a property not a thing. Everything can be used as money, if it has the right features. If gold appreciate too much to be used for everyday payments (E.G. the newspaper, the coffee, candies), silver start to be used as a substitute of gold for its own properties and take over the uses where gold it is too much difficult to use. This would cause an appreciation of silver over its current value (and price) so other metals (copper/nickel) could start to be used to allow very small transactions. This happen because it is difficult and costly to make a gold coin small enough to be useful in small purchases (a tiny 1/10 ounce ~ 3g gold coin is worth more than 100$), a little less difficult is do the same for silver (the same 3g coin would be worth today 1,5$) and copper and nickel would be more versatile for small payments. Bitcoin has not this problem because being immaterial can be divided with arbitrary precision. But we can not measure with a single number gold + silver + bitcoin + other.... Because they are not the same thing. You can make some equivalence, like 1 ounce of gold = 70 ounce of silver, but these are valid only in the moment they are done, because the ration between one and another always fluctuate depending the market demand and offer. |
|
|
|
|
To ha worthless fiat you need to have $ 1.000.000.000.000 / BTC (one trillion dollars per BTC)
And, if it is worthless, there is no price between $/£/€/etc and BTC --> it tend to infinity (AKA no one want fiat anymore)
|
|
|
|
Wow its such a good explanation about BTC in terms of inflation and deflation.
a general increase in prices and fall in the purchasing value of money is called inflation but bitcoin we use only in online system than how we know that price id less or greater .
Calling the "general" increase or fall in prices "inflation" is just a misuse of the term. The fact so many in the press and in the university / professional fields misuse this term show just how low is the understanding of economics. Using the wrong terms end always in misunderstanding and fuzzy logic arguments. We can measure the changing in the money base with a precise and not disputable number; E.G. there are so many gold coins, so many bitcoins tokens, so many silver coins, so many dollar bills of with various values printed on. And this can be measured consistently during the years (a gold coin coined yesterday is interchangeable with a gold coin coined today and so with printed USD, etc.). The "general" level of price is measured using a basket of always changing goods and service. In fact there are many baskets, one for consumers, one for industries, one for the group you are interested in (in fact you can measure different values in different places using the same type of currency for the same basket). And the same basket have changing goods and services measured, because the services and goods offered by the market change with the time. I remember a time, in Italy, when the inflation number was published by ISTAT (a government branch dedicated to statistics) and the number jumped up because they selected the tickets sold by two teams just promoted in an higher league to substitute the tickets of the teams demoted in the lower league at their places. And the team managers decided a large increase of the ticket's price that month. Had they selected a different team the value would be different that month. The same is done with goods: if you put an iPhone in the basket, and the next year the same model is no more produced, you can substitute it, but it is not the same thing you are measuring. The same is for meat. If the law change and the meat must be produced in a cheaper way or in a more costly way, this will impact the price but will have nothing to do with the quantity of money. Same for cars, gasoline (it changed a couple of time in my life), drugs, etc. And some goods and services are notoriously kept out of these baskets: fuel, housing prices usually. |
|
|
|
|
Il giorno dell'incontro è
Mercoledì 28 Settembre 2016 dalle 15.00 a 19.00
presso
Bar Gozzi Via Enrico Degli Scrovegni, 1, Padova, PD
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
