I disagree.
We are still overall in a deflation that will accelerate again and will be persistent for some time until inflation kicks in again.
What you see in some mainstream financial coverage is the masking of the deflation becuase noone wants to face reality.
The best way to look at it is to view the Dow Jones / Gold ratio. Then you see that deflation is in full force still, and will further accelerate.
By mid-2011 the rise in prices will start to be evident. Government and media will claim is a sign of recovery. By 2012 stagflation will be oficially admited. |
|
|
|
I will try to follow the convention, but as someone said earlier, good luck with this. - "Where my bitcoins at, bitch?"
And that should cover everything, right? "Where my Bitcoin at, bitch?" works also for the non-tech-savy pimp.  |
|
|
|
Agree with 1 caveat.
The ratio can stay unchanged at a high level even if both go down.
As there are big speculators in the gold market on top of longterm investors, if the crisis gets worse (which I believe it will), Gold will also go down as hedge funds need to unload gold to pay out fund withdrawals and stay liquid.
Hence, Gold is likely to go down towards 1000 and possibly towards 650-850 by 2011/12 before sharlpy turning up and making new highs.
That would happen if the crisis developed as a deflationary correction, but from now on is going to be more and more inflationary. Look at this lasts months. There are deflationary presures, but the Fed monetizing govt debt everyday is keeping the market up. We are going directly towards stagflation. |
|
|
|
|
I dont have time to argue now, but gold will keep going up until the crisis is over, that is it will go up for 4 or 5 years more. If you believe the crisis will be over tomorrow sell your gold now. In all the big crisis the DOW/gold ratio goes to near 1 and we are still at 7. I wont sell until that ratio goes under 3.
|
|
|
|
Someone sent me a pointer to this thread today. The majority of this thread is disparaging toward women, so its not a big surprise to me that your ratio of men to women is very low. -Jer scorched.chips@gmail.comTHE Jeriel Ellsworth? If you really are, I just checked your blog and added it to my blogroll. Looks interesting. |
|
|
|
|
I took a look at dash7 and it looks great for what it wants to do.
That said, I think its too low-bandwith for bitcoin. Also, is supposed to be extremely low consumption devices (devices that can run on a simple battery for years) so its not intended for heavy load (and heavy load in microcontrollers is different from heavy load in computers). I am not sure dash7 is for bitcoin. As a matter of fact I believe its not.
|
|
|
|
|
The idea is that coining new bitcoins will be so hard that will become energetically non-profitable, and so your wealth will be determine by what you can produce and sell to your fellow bitcoin users.
|
|
|
|
We would like to launch a peer2peer currency bounded to a specific community®ion (i.e. central europe) and therefore we found it more practical to have our own network, parallel to the main bitcoin thread, independent from the speculations of GPU miners.
Good luck with that. With a centralised currency it is already difficult enough to exclude people who try to use it outside the intended community or region. I am curious. How do you plan to enforce these restrictions in a p2p currency? Moreover, in a p2p cryptocurrency where a user can identify himself with nothing more than a set of cryptographic keys? How do you plan to prevent a GPU miner (or any other kind of "speculator") from joining your network? And who is "we"? Are you part some kind of local currency initiative? In which case, the Bitcoin software is probably not the tool you are looking for. I would suggest looking into the Ripple monetary system. I am very curious about this also. I have been saying that there will be competing bitcoin networks and I think its healthy. But the way you want to do it I dont think its a viable solution. |
|
|
|
|
Usually proponents of the deflationary spiral argue that the problem is the debt, as explained by Fisher in its debt deflation paper (which by the way I found quite infantile). I dont think anybody is arguing that decrease in prices due to increase productivity is a problem (well some fanatics might, but not any serious economist).
About the debt problem is quite obvious that if a recession comes and the companies or individuals are highly leveraged, the downturn is going to be harder than if they dont have debt or have little debt. You really dont need a 20 pages paper to explain that. Also, there is the issue of the debt being used as money and when disappearing creating monetary deflation, but this strengthens the currency, it does not collapse it. It can create problems in he economy, mainly because there is usually an increase in the demand for cash, but since bitcoin is a voluntary currency, and not a monopoly with a oligopolistic credit system like the government currency, the deflationary presures can be dealt by the market.
|
|
|
|
In addition, we should be able to download the wallet, encrypted with some password protection.
So everybody who use mybitcoin can use another service, or a bitcoin client their computer/phone/etc.. even if mybitcoin goes down.
Probably I am not understanding what you want to say, but this is already posible. You just have to send the bitcoins in mybitcoin to your wallet. |
|
|
|
The max block size is not imposed by fiat, but by agreement to a convention. You could change that in your client right now and produce blocks just fine, but unless at least 50% of generators agree with you, whenever your client produces a block that defies this agreed convention it will be ignored by those who do. By fiat, I don't mean to suggest that someone dictated it with an iron fist. But I do mean to point out that it makes the currency dependent on a central authority. No, its not dependent on a central authority. And fiat means imposed using force or thread of force. Please dont change the meaning of the definitions because it makes discussing things harder and tedious. Sure, it is open source, but it is meant to benefit humankind, not just developers... over 99.9% of its users will have no clue how to participate in the management of this convention, which at this point appears to be designed to require it. No. If someone wants to change it, you just need one developer changing the source and making it available in the Internet. Things are always going to be like this, people have different knowledge. The developers are not a unit, they are different people that can take different decisions. The software is open source. A group of people could even pay a developer to implement the changes they want. Anyone can make what they want with bitcoin. Bitcoin works by voluntary agreement. Wouldn't it make sense to change the convention to something that will automatically cope with growth I dont understand what you mean by "cope with growth" (growth of currency, growth of prices, growth of GDP, economic growth, ...?). That said you wont be able to make a software that is 100% versatile for any change you can imagine. A software is always limited and actually its bad if you try to make it too versatile. My experience shows that it is better to keep a software simple and that solves a practical task, not some range of remote posibilities. , much like the difficulty system adjusts to new computational pressure? With a hard limit like this, the threshold at which it suddenly grinds reliable transaction processing to a halt at a reasonable price (until everyone upgrades their client at the direction of the developers) will, in all likelihood, be exactly at the moment where it sees a viral surge in new popularity that suddenly brings it past that point and to its knees. That may bring it a lot of unnecessary questioning and criticism by the public and the media, particularly about just how truly viable and independent it is.
I have read repeatedly that the achilles heal of Bitcoin is that 50% CPU threshold. I have never heard of another one I believe might exist - the possibility that the Bitcoin community gets very large, and then has factions, the block chain forks, and the system crumbles in the face of FUD while two or more camps argue which leg is correct (sort of like a country that started out with a Constitution or a religion that started out with a Bible or Koran and now has two large factions eternally asserting their particular interpretation of it). Two religious factions can go their own way and live their own separate lives on separate lands, but if they must trade while they can't agree on what constitutes the existence of money, the money may as well not exist. If Bitcoin is in its "constitution" phase, I would submit that the time to address something like this is now. Competing currencies is very common and it does not have to undermine bitcoin. If bitcoin forks it will just strengthen the system. There will be exchange places where you will be able to buy or sell one bitcon currency for another if you need to, etc... In fact, I have said since the beginning that the its inevitable that different bitcoin chains appear. I think the division will be by physical territory, but who knows really. |
|
|
|
How do you propose this group should work?
I don't know. We could have a round-table on a book. Let say, each of us pledge to read a book about economic. Then we get together and talk about the particular chapter with questions like.... What is true and not true, economic implication, and so on. Mmm, is this a virtual round table? I am in Europe. |
|
|
|
|
How do you propose this group should work?
I have some ideas regarding the ideas of "free banking" of Selgin and White and the problems bitcoin would have once it reaches its "coin" limit, and how to solve this problem.
|
|
|
|
|
The question is confusing, not the best wording ever.
How do your feel about....?
Yes, Depends, No
I am guessing No means I feel I am against it.
|
|
|
|
Agorism is left-libertarianism. Roderick Long is left-libertarianism ( http://aaeblog.com/) There is even free market socialism, called mutualism, in the tradition of Proudhon and Tucker. What is the problem with calling myself a free market left libertarian? I don't know exactly what you mean by "left", but to me it means "communism", or "socialism". It is very much incompatible with free market. So to me, "free market socialism" is an oxymore. I guess I'll have to read about that. I think I had the discussion in this forum again, but... Socialism really is not a system. Is a set of promises or desires, but not a set of policies to acomplish those promises (which is very convenient, I know). This promises are equality and having the basic needs covered (food, housing, etc...). Then there are different systems or proposals to get to those objectives, communism being the most famous, but we all know how it ended. But there are others. In fact, socialist Proudhon was one of the biggest critics of Marx. And developing the ideas of Proudhon, people like Benjamin Tucker or Lysander Spooner would take mutualism to the next level. Now Kevin Karson (which I highly recommend reading) is taking this ideas forward with heavy use of Austrian economics. This people believe that the free market will bring society as closer as it can get to their ideal of equality. I honestly dont think that peacefully looking for equality is a bad thing. I instinctively dont like to see people having a lot while other people starve. I understand that using the excuse of inequality to gain power and violently impose rules is bad and even against equality itself. But I dont see nothing wrong on working towards a more equal world under free market rules. I have stopped calling myself a capitalist, because its too loaded, and I wont call myself a socialist for the same reason. I call myself a free marketeer, and since I come from a lefty family I consider myself left-leaning (meaning the core of social values usually related with the left pro-gays, sexually, etc..., but would not like them imposed trough government). That is why I call myself a free market left-libertarian, or if you want a left leaning free marketeer. |
|
|
|
Free market left libertarian.
No offense but, what does that mean ? How can you be in favor of free market and claim being "left" ? Agorism is left-libertarianism. Roderick Long is left-libertarianism ( http://aaeblog.com/) There is even free market socialism, called mutualism, in the tradition of Proudhon and Tucker. What is the problem with calling myself a free market left libertarian? |
|
|
|
|
Free market left libertarian.
|
|
|
|
|
In my country (somewhere in the south of Europe) the cars got seat belts before it was mandatory by the government to wear them, so it was just a matter of choice.
|
|
|
|
|
I have only read the first message and I dont know if someone has told you already, but the one on one exchange ratio with bitcoin is suicide. Since the two currencies will have different market values you are creating a big profit opportunity that someone will use, crashing anyone trying to hold the one on one ration exchange. This is why you felt that part was murky. You need to let the exchange float freely.
Does your system really needs to be decentralized? Because if it does not the solutions are way easier.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
