 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »
|
USA is not the land of the free it's the land of the regulated. The more educated the more they demand to be regulated. I think if people who founded the country would see the congressman and senators talk about bitcoin they would flip in the graves.
I love freedom and bitcoin if hope for freedom but Americans (average every day) hate anything that is not in order and regulated. Thank god for the few of un wierd who love bitcoin.
Absolutely! The governments really do have a desperate urge for control, don't they. I'm amazed at the lengths they go to spy on everybody. The gov back door they have had computer manufactures install! Wow, there really are no limits to what they will do. Im an Australian, which is a great country, but our gov is much the same as USA |
|
|
|
And more!
Billy Mays, is that you? Really though, that you prefer one country's bs over another's doesn't put the former on the cutting edge. That title is reserved for those who do the right thing, all the way, first. Not for the lesser of two weevils. Haha lol. Great answer. Yes, the title is way to much. And US gov have only held off fighting btc, because they learnt their lesson trying to fight bit torrents. So nodoubt in my mind, they will gallop up behind btc and try throwing a rope around it at some point. And achieving that, god knows what they would do to it. And it might be a difficult beast to domesticate, but they have boundless resolve. Much good can still come of btc regardless. But on the plus side, btc roams free for now! So I guess my point is, they understand btc enough to take pause. better than China's open fight policy. I am riveted by what will happen over the next few weeks, as the china ban deadline approaches. Will Chinese buy or sell while they still can? How will the gov react if they choose to buy buy buy? Are the Chinese really buying at the rate indicated by fiatleak? Why am I suspicious http://fiatleak.com/ |
|
|
|
|
Lets face it, USA have taken a very sensible approach to this new technology. They have shown themselves to be aware of the subtleties of this technological advancement. Or at least to the point where they haven't knee jerk reacted to badly. Not like China or Thailand.
China on the other hand have shown the people making their decisions are less than fully informed. The next few weeks are going to be oh so very interesting to watch, bitcoin vs china authorities 31st deadline. Better than a Hollywood thriller! And there will be a movie made about this one of these days. But China are only going to make things worse for themselves the longer they hold out on bitcoin. As sooner or later, they will be forced to publicly reverse their decision. Or watch from behind a closed door, as the rest of the world benefit endlessly from friction-less payment systems. And more!
|
|
|
|
Blogspot sucks.
It really does. I want to convert to wordpress but I'm worried about losing all my old posts and street cred. Any ideas? Also to whoever was talking about overpopulation being a problem: No, it's not. World population growth rate has been slowing for decades and is expected to be negligible, possibly even negative, by the end of the century. Technology is easily outpacing the problem and as a result people on average are getting much more nutrition and overall quality of life every passing year. Yes, its not all doom and gloom. but even if the population leveled off now. Bringing 6 or 7 billion people to a high standard of living is going to be a strain on the environment. And yes, technology is my hero too, and has solved a lot of our problems, and we'll be 100% reliant on it continuing to do so. My original comment, was that our economic model only seems to work when its expanding. Otherwise we call it a recession or a depression and get all upset. I suggested, this is a problem that will need to be solved at some point. Otherwise future populations and the planet are going to face consequences. |
|
|
|
Keynesian economics has proven very useful in the past. I don't think anybody could argue it hasent.
I'll take the bait. Perhaps the useful aspects of Keynesian economics can still be adapted for use with bitcoin. For example, gov can still hold btc and increase spending during recession. And it can still create policy that encourage spending, licenses, tax incentives etc.
I believe you have internalized a number of assumptions about economies. Or, you simply haven't challenged what you've read... Why is "government spending during recession" necessary? If you think about this, it's usually because a government has: 1) Overtaxed its citizens, and/or overburdened the productive sectors with tariffs 2) Distributed wealth unequally toward the top 1% because of monopolies and graft 3) Created huge trade imbalances and market inefficiencies Money doesn't just disappear - if no money is circulating in the economy, it's usually because the rich are hoarding it. Granted, printing more money "solves" this problem by devaluing the hoarders' stashes, but back in the old days the rich started spending when they started getting eaten... I dont disagree with you. Its been and still is a lousy system. And Keynesian economics had its uses providing a crutch for this crippled and flawed system. But you maybe right, a different better system might not need stimulus spending to holt recession. But that's an untested theory as far as I know |
|
|
|
Oh my head! Turned into a big one last night Nice to meet you abbyd. Keynesian economics has proven very useful in the past. I don't think anybody could argue it hasent.
I'll take the bait. Afterall, perpetual growth is impossible in a finite world, so if we don't want to bust, we need to solve this issue.
What makes you think trying to do something impossible is a good idea? Or perhaps you're moving to a world that is not finite? Ok, for all those who were hoping for and working toward a solution for over population and exploitation of earths resources. Dont bother! apparently its impossible. |
|
|
|
Economics is a science, like weather forecasting is a science. There are so many shifting variables, including human behavior, so our scientific inquiry has limits. Perhaps it is fairer to say that economics is part science, part art?
More specifically, economics is a social science. That is to say, it is a science of human behavior. Human behavior isn't a variable in economics. That would be like saying mathematics is part of algebra. In reality, economics is a part of human behavior, just as algebra, calculus, or trigonometry, is a specific study within the field of mathematics. Economics is, at its essence, an effort to understand and explain human behavior--behavior related to the exchange of goods and services. Love your profile picture by the way. Shaw shank redemption is one of my all time fav movies. I kind of, sort of get your point. But how can human behavior not be a variable in economics, when economics is the study of human behavior? Surely that makes in variable by default? This is a mind bender. Perhaps I need to be sober to understand this!! |
|
|
|
Thank you, great write up. Keynesian economics has proven very useful in the past. I don't think anybody could argue it hasent. And your ironic piece makes a case well worth consideration.
Perhaps the useful aspects of Keynesian economics can still be adapted for use with bitcoin. For example, gov can still hold btc and increase spending during recession. And it can still create policy that encourage spending, licenses, tax incentives etc. And btc can still be taxed, even if it is harder to trace earnings. Tax is basically an honest system now, requiring that we self report our earnings. Most people will still do the right thing.
But Governments cant print more, or de-value btc. Time will tell if that's a good or bad thing. I'm no expert, but I'm leaning toward it being a good thing.
I think the biggest problem our financial system presents, is not that its failing, or problems of adapting to a new type of currency (btc). I think the biggest problem is our markets only work if they are expanding, driving gov policy toward population growth, and ever increasing exploitation of earths resources. I wonder if btc could somehow become part of a new system structure which was able to maintain steady state, rather than perpetual growth. Afterall, perpetual growth is impossible in a finite world, so if we don't want to bust, we need to solve this issue.
I don't personally know how btc could achieve this, but it certainly has a whole new set of possibilities which haven't been considered before.
I dont see how anyone would think that keynesianism has been useful. And more importantly economics is supposed to be a science, so it should be correct not useful and keynesianism has been proven false again and again. I tried having a debate with some keynesians who were claiming Bitcoin would not succed because keynesianism and they could not handle it, so I extend the offer to you. But by debate I dontmean an internet slogan-catchy phrases ridiculous back and forth, I mean an honest exchange of ideas. Honest exchange of ideas? Sounds fine, thanks for the offer. Who knows, we might even find we agree on some things. Firstly, I dont believe Keynesian economics has all the answers, so I certainly wouldn't label myself a keynesian. And I do believe btc can succeed, and I hope it does. But spending gov money to stimulate the economy, I suggest can be useful at times? Economics is a science, like weather forecasting is a science. There are so many shifting variables, including human behavior, so our scientific inquiry has limits. Perhaps it is fairer to say that economics is part science, part art? If you have an economics model which is not just useful, but fully scientifically correct. Then plz do tell us about it? No, I do agree that there is a difference between so called "social sciences" and empirical sciences. There is people who even argue that social sciences, by their own nature, should not be called sciences. I dont really care about the name and redefinitions of the word science. I do acknowledge that by strict historical standards social sciences should not be called sciences and that the extended use of the word science has been used to give credibility to certain theories that probably did not deserve it. But the new meaning is so extended at this point that its a bit useless to try to "enforce" the strict old historical definition. As long as we understand that social sciences are different than empirical sciences, I dont have a problem with the word people decide to use. But social sciences are not art. Engineering has an "artistic" side, trading too, but social sciences are not so much about art, but about creating a theoretical body of ideas that try to reflect reality, not really about producing an effect (which is what art is). Moving into the economic part, since you have started by bringing up the idea of government spending to (allegedly) stimulate the economy, why dont you expand on as a first topic of discussion? I say in all respect. But your reply doesn't answer any of my questions, or address any of the points I made. All you have done is question the context in which I've used two words (science) and (Art). But I think my intended context is quite clear. You can argue weather prediction is not art if you like, but I think you'll find most people will have understood the point I was making. As for your question, for me to expand on stimulus spending? I can do that, but first please make an attempt to answer my questions? Respectfully, Questing I think you have missed the part where I said I agree with your remark. [/quote] Thank you. Agreement noted. Ok, lets start again, because I would like to hear your opinion plz? You stated the following, and requested it be a topic for discussion. "Quote" I dont see how anyone would think that keynesianism has been useful. And more importantly economics is supposed to be a science, so it should be correct not useful and keynesianism has been proven false again and again. "End quote" Then I pointed out, 1. Keynesian economics is useful for its mechanism of "Stimulus spending" to avoid recession. and 2. economics isn't an exact science due to there being so many shifting variables, including human behavior. So now the onus is on you to justify 1. Stimulus spending is not useful. 2. And more importantly, why economics is supposed to be a science, so it should be correct not useful and keynesianism has been proven false again and again. Ok, over to you hugolp. I look forward to receiving your comments |
|
|
|
Thank you, great write up. Keynesian economics has proven very useful in the past. I don't think anybody could argue it hasent. And your ironic piece makes a case well worth consideration.
Perhaps the useful aspects of Keynesian economics can still be adapted for use with bitcoin. For example, gov can still hold btc and increase spending during recession. And it can still create policy that encourage spending, licenses, tax incentives etc. And btc can still be taxed, even if it is harder to trace earnings. Tax is basically an honest system now, requiring that we self report our earnings. Most people will still do the right thing.
But Governments cant print more, or de-value btc. Time will tell if that's a good or bad thing. I'm no expert, but I'm leaning toward it being a good thing.
I think the biggest problem our financial system presents, is not that its failing, or problems of adapting to a new type of currency (btc). I think the biggest problem is our markets only work if they are expanding, driving gov policy toward population growth, and ever increasing exploitation of earths resources. I wonder if btc could somehow become part of a new system structure which was able to maintain steady state, rather than perpetual growth. Afterall, perpetual growth is impossible in a finite world, so if we don't want to bust, we need to solve this issue.
I don't personally know how btc could achieve this, but it certainly has a whole new set of possibilities which haven't been considered before.
I dont see how anyone would think that keynesianism has been useful. And more importantly economics is supposed to be a science, so it should be correct not useful and keynesianism has been proven false again and again. I tried having a debate with some keynesians who were claiming Bitcoin would not succed because keynesianism and they could not handle it, so I extend the offer to you. But by debate I dontmean an internet slogan-catchy phrases ridiculous back and forth, I mean an honest exchange of ideas. Honest exchange of ideas? Sounds fine, thanks for the offer. Who knows, we might even find we agree on some things. Firstly, I dont believe Keynesian economics has all the answers, so I certainly wouldn't label myself a keynesian. And I do believe btc can succeed, and I hope it does. But spending gov money to stimulate the economy, I suggest can be useful at times? Economics is a science, like weather forecasting is a science. There are so many shifting variables, including human behavior, so our scientific inquiry has limits. Perhaps it is fairer to say that economics is part science, part art? If you have an economics model which is not just useful, but fully scientifically correct. Then plz do tell us about it? No, I do agree that there is a difference between so called "social sciences" and empirical sciences. There is people who even argue that social sciences, by their own nature, should not be called sciences. I dont really care about the name and redefinitions of the word science. I do acknowledge that by strict historical standards social sciences should not be called sciences and that the extended use of the word science has been used to give credibility to certain theories that probably did not deserve it. But the new meaning is so extended at this point that its a bit useless to try to "enforce" the strict old historical definition. As long as we understand that social sciences are different than empirical sciences, I dont have a problem with the word people decide to use. But social sciences are not art. Engineering has an "artistic" side, trading too, but social sciences are not so much about art, but about creating a theoretical body of ideas that try to reflect reality, not really about producing an effect (which is what art is). Moving into the economic part, since you have started by bringing up the idea of government spending to (allegedly) stimulate the economy, why dont you expand on as a first topic of discussion? I say in all respect. But your reply doesn't answer any of my questions, or address any of the points I made. All you have done is question the context in which I've used two words (science) and (Art). But I think my intended context is quite clear. You can argue weather prediction is not art if you like, but I think you'll find most people will have understood the point I was making. As for your question, for me to expand on stimulus spending? I can do that, but first please make an attempt to answer my questions? Respectfully, Questing |
|
|
|
What is going on? Trading volume is so low!
And by the way, the Australian government has announced it is thinking about printing more AUS dollars, to devalue its currency. But that's off topic. Please let us know your opinion, why is trading volume at an all time low?
I'm thinking summer time slump. Same thing happens in the stock market, everyone's too busy enjoying the sun/on holiday to trade. But its winter down here in Oz. So we'll pick up the slack. I'll be rugged up warm indoors with my computer |
|
|
|
My thoughts are if the price can't crash downwards it will crash upwards first  but........ I am betting that by the end of the year bitcoin will be worth just $60 (betting nothing though) nobody is going to be willing to keep millions of dollars on the exchange if the price isn't going up adequately (and is in fact going down) it's too risky to keep a lot of money on I think. I'm a bear now. Crash upwards! I like that  $60? Personally I hope so. then it can run right up again. Big money risky on the exchange. Quite right. But it hasn't stopped people before! But you make a fare point I'll reserve the right to change my mind. But I have money on the exchange, and I'm willing to bet it all. Quadruple or nothing!! Guess that makes me a bull |
|
|
|
Thank you, great write up. Keynesian economics has proven very useful in the past. I don't think anybody could argue it hasent. And your ironic piece makes a case well worth consideration.
Perhaps the useful aspects of Keynesian economics can still be adapted for use with bitcoin. For example, gov can still hold btc and increase spending during recession. And it can still create policy that encourage spending, licenses, tax incentives etc. And btc can still be taxed, even if it is harder to trace earnings. Tax is basically an honest system now, requiring that we self report our earnings. Most people will still do the right thing.
But Governments cant print more, or de-value btc. Time will tell if that's a good or bad thing. I'm no expert, but I'm leaning toward it being a good thing.
I think the biggest problem our financial system presents, is not that its failing, or problems of adapting to a new type of currency (btc). I think the biggest problem is our markets only work if they are expanding, driving gov policy toward population growth, and ever increasing exploitation of earths resources. I wonder if btc could somehow become part of a new system structure which was able to maintain steady state, rather than perpetual growth. Afterall, perpetual growth is impossible in a finite world, so if we don't want to bust, we need to solve this issue.
I don't personally know how btc could achieve this, but it certainly has a whole new set of possibilities which haven't been considered before.
I dont see how anyone would think that keynesianism has been useful. And more importantly economics is supposed to be a science, so it should be correct not useful and keynesianism has been proven false again and again. I tried having a debate with some keynesians who were claiming Bitcoin would not succed because keynesianism and they could not handle it, so I extend the offer to you. But by debate I dontmean an internet slogan-catchy phrases ridiculous back and forth, I mean an honest exchange of ideas. Honest exchange of ideas? Sounds fine, thanks for the offer. Who knows, we might even find we agree on some things. Firstly, I dont believe Keynesian economics has all the answers, so I certainly wouldn't label myself a keynesian. And I do believe btc can succeed, and I hope it does. But spending gov money to stimulate the economy, I suggest can be useful at times? Economics is a science, like weather forecasting is a science. There are so many shifting variables, including human behavior, so our scientific inquiry has limits. Perhaps it is fairer to say that economics is part science, part art? If you have an economics model which is not just useful, but fully scientifically correct. Then plz do tell us about it? |
|
|
|
I wonder if btc could somehow become part of a new system structure which was able to maintain steady state, rather than perpetual growth. Afterall, perpetual growth is impossible in a finite world, so if we don't want to bust, we need to solve this issue.
I don't personally know how btc could achieve this, but it certainly has a whole new set of possibilities which haven't been considered before.
easy. establish a Bitcoin Standard based on the Gold Standard that existed prior to 1971. I have an inkling you have something interesting to say. Can you please elaborate on btc standard, and how it might improve things? |
|
|
|
I wonder if btc could somehow become part of a new system structure which was able to maintain steady state, rather than perpetual growth. Afterall, perpetual growth is impossible in a finite world, so if we don't want to bust, we need to solve this issue.
I don't personally know how btc could achieve this, but it certainly has a whole new set of possibilities which haven't been considered before.
easy. establish a Bitcoin Standard based on the Gold Standard that existed prior to 1971. I have an inkling you have something interesting to say. Can you please elaborate on btc standard, and how it might improve things? |
|
|
|
|
Thank you, great write up. Keynesian economics has proven very useful in the past. I don't think anybody could argue it hasent. And your ironic piece makes a case well worth consideration.
Perhaps the useful aspects of Keynesian economics can still be adapted for use with bitcoin. For example, gov can still hold btc and increase spending during recession. And it can still create policy that encourage spending, licenses, tax incentives etc. And btc can still be taxed, even if it is harder to trace earnings. Tax is basically an honest system now, requiring that we self report our earnings. Most people will still do the right thing.
But Governments cant print more, or de-value btc. Time will tell if that's a good or bad thing. I'm no expert, but I'm leaning toward it being a good thing.
I think the biggest problem our financial system presents, is not that its failing, or problems of adapting to a new type of currency (btc). I think the biggest problem is our markets only work if they are expanding, driving gov policy toward population growth, and ever increasing exploitation of earths resources. I wonder if btc could somehow become part of a new system structure which was able to maintain steady state, rather than perpetual growth. Afterall, perpetual growth is impossible in a finite world, so if we don't want to bust, we need to solve this issue.
I don't personally know how btc could achieve this, but it certainly has a whole new set of possibilities which haven't been considered before.
|
|
|
|
The US will never default on its loans. It can just print more money.
Furthermore your whole premise is based on the idea that people aren't idiots. Any prediction that relies on the non-stupidity of people is unlikely to come true.
I like that. Great answer. Probably spot on, and charmingly cynical |
|
|
|
Since the DDOS yesterday, MtGox turned off API support for anything calling the older https://mtgox.com/api pages and is now only allowing orders to be placed through their data.mtgox.com url calls. I haven't looked on the forum much but didnt see this announced anywhere. Over the next few days I imagine others who run bots will pick up on this, fix their code and re-start their bots. *edit* To clarify, I believe the API functions to query order response / account data were changed. Plz forgive my ignorance. Are the bots hostile toward Mtgox? No, when I talk about bots, I mean the scripts that are written to trade on mtgox through their API. These scripts usually trade high volume (much more volume than users using the website interface). Why do they use these bots? Do they analyzing data, and buying and selling btc automatically? I run a market making bot. It maintains orders on both sides of the book at 1.3% intervals. When my buy orders are filled, it places a sell 1.3% higher. When my sell orders are filled, it places a buy 1.3% lower. I lose out when it trends continuously, but it stabilizes price and I turn a profit when the bulls and bears duke it out. By keeping orders on the book, I help make it possible for companies like bitpay that need to accurately price and immediately convert bitcoins to USD and companies like bitinstant and coinbase that need to go the other way. That is genuinely fascinating. Thanks for telling us how your operation works. Now here's a man who knows how percentages work. Do you mind if I ask a question plz? How efficient is the following trading method? Use the MACD to mark buy and sells, and when there is uncertainly or very weak trends, go half in. Basically hedge both ways. Is this an ok method? any suggestions would be appreciated plz? 1.3% intervals is obviously a figure you've arrived at after a great deal of trial? I'm not sure I'd trust a single signal to trade on. If you're looking for something simple, a balancing strategy is decent. Basically, you keep 50% of your value in bitcoin and 50% in USD and rebalance once a week or so to maintain the ratio. Obviously, you can use any ratio you want. Keep a little more in bitcoin when things look bullish, keep a little more in fiat when you're bearish. I wouldn't rely solely on one indicator. But MACD might be a primary, and refer to others to paint a more detailed picture. I've only been learning about indicators the last few days, so have a lot to learn. I have no idea where to start with bots. Where to get one, or how to use it. I'm curious about such things, but probably dont have enough time or money to invest in btc to make it worth while. Or is it simpler than I might think? Thanks again for your advice. I have some work to do on my trading method, and your a big help |
|
|
|
|
We assume Governments will continue to oppose btc, but is there another possibility?
Take Chimerica for example!
So USA have paid and owe massive sums of US dollars to china. Possably more than can be paid back. And China have become massively dependent on the US$, as they have piles of it, and are owed bigger piles more. They're both locked in this position, headed for a date when USA looks likely to default on its loans. So what happens next? Well, everybody deserting the US dollar for btc makes the US$ worthless, and US dept to China basically evaporates like empty promises. The only thing China can do to fight this, is try to redeem something else of value with their US$ before US$ becomes completely worthless. and so the rush to Gold, Silver, and hopefully btc. China are already buying gold to reduce dependency on US$, so it's already started
Could this happen? Could governments have incentives to embrace btc as the financial system erodes? First they ignore it, then they fight it, then they embrace it whole heartily.
We assume Governments will always oppose btc because it undermines their control. But their own system has become a monster, which is out of its cage and out of their control. Btc might solve some of their economic problems. And solving economic problems will win a lot of those all important votes
|
|
|
|
Since the DDOS yesterday, MtGox turned off API support for anything calling the older https://mtgox.com/api pages and is now only allowing orders to be placed through their data.mtgox.com url calls. I haven't looked on the forum much but didnt see this announced anywhere. Over the next few days I imagine others who run bots will pick up on this, fix their code and re-start their bots. *edit* To clarify, I believe the API functions to query order response / account data were changed. Plz forgive my ignorance. Are the bots hostile toward Mtgox? No, when I talk about bots, I mean the scripts that are written to trade on mtgox through their API. These scripts usually trade high volume (much more volume than users using the website interface). Why do they use these bots? Do they analyzing data, and buying and selling btc automatically? I run a market making bot. It maintains orders on both sides of the book at 1.3% intervals. When my buy orders are filled, it places a sell 1.3% higher. When my sell orders are filled, it places a buy 1.3% lower. I lose out when it trends continuously, but it stabilizes price and I turn a profit when the bulls and bears duke it out. By keeping orders on the book, I help make it possible for companies like bitpay that need to accurately price and immediately convert bitcoins to USD and companies like bitinstant and coinbase that need to go the other way. That is genuinely fascinating. Thanks for telling us how your operation works. Now here's a man who knows how percentages work. Do you mind if I ask a question plz? How efficient is the following trading method? Use the MACD to mark buy and sells, and when there is uncertainly or very weak trends, go half in. Basically hedge both ways. Is this an ok method? any suggestions would be appreciated plz? 1.3% intervals is obviously a figure you've arrived at after a great deal of trial? |
|
|
|
Since the DDOS yesterday, MtGox turned off API support for anything calling the older https://mtgox.com/api pages and is now only allowing orders to be placed through their data.mtgox.com url calls. I haven't looked on the forum much but didnt see this announced anywhere. Over the next few days I imagine others who run bots will pick up on this, fix their code and re-start their bots. *edit* To clarify, I believe the API functions to query order response / account data were changed. Plz forgive my ignorance. Are the bots hostile toward Mtgox? No, when I talk about bots, I mean the scripts that are written to trade on mtgox through their API. These scripts usually trade high volume (much more volume than users using the website interface). Why do they use these bots? Do they analyzing data, and buying and selling btc automatically? |
|
|
|
|
