|
As a footnote, the Austrians is not one of monetary deflation in normal times nor as a proscribed policy. Their position is that credit bubbles should be allowed to bust, but money should otherwise be honest and stable; that is, neither inflationary nor deflationary.
|
|
|
|
the inflation/deflation and hoarding vs spending and austrian vs keynsian debate is eternal and to be honest rather tedious. in simple terms, consider a set of scales. on one side is money and on the other is everything else. now to those who prefer perpetually deflation currency: you get this  and for the keynesians: this  note that for the last two I could swap the pictures and you would still not be able to tell the difference between a monetary system that 'targets' deflation and one that 'targets' inflation. Both are unbalanced and both are as wrong as the other. unless both the quantity and circulation of money is in balance with the real economy it will end badly. the unbalanced scale views of money whether keynsian or austrian are both simply products of extreme ideology both of which are incompatible with what people actually need and want from their money. in the end money is only used to settle debts so fundamentally debt/credit is what needs to be balanced and the means of clearing between them (money) is a means to an end (balanced clearance of debts and somothing of deferred consumption), not an end in itself. So I suggest focus on debt dynamics first (e.g. ripplepay) and then determine what form(s) of money help lubricate that clearing process. Are you confusing monetary deflation with price deflation? Because Bitcoin is neither inflationary nor deflationary, in a monetary sense (once most of the coins have been created; for now it is somewhat inflationary). At the most, you can say it is mildly deflationary from loss of coins, but it is too early to tell how much of an impact that will have. If it is predictable, then interest rates can take that into account. |
|
|
|
gold declined as a currency because there wasn't enough of it, so credit was invented, and then fiat.
Well, it's resolution that matters, not quantity. We have enough gold in the world. With modern technology, there is no reason you couldn't own part of an ounce of gold or transfer parts of a gram of gold around, and you can indeed do this today. |
|
|
|
|
I am... would it be even faster on SSE3?
|
|
|
|
"If I were to be a hoarder, let us say I have control of 60% of all BC, and have no intention to use them, why would I not lend them at interest? "
what you have overlooked is that if you are hoarding 60% of BC and lending them out at significant +ve rates of interest it would be almost impossible for your borrower to find the BC required to repay the principal of your loan plus the interest, so you wouldn't lend, because you would not be able to find a borrower worthy enough.
That is the problem with hoarding.
Why can't the borrower sell services to the lender? OTOH, other people can borrow from the lender and the borrower can sell services to them. Any debt can eventually be paid off as the money cycles through. |
|
|
|
The total money supply of USD, for instance, is somewhere between $1 Trillion and $10 Trillion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supplyNow imagine the extreme scenario where Bitcoin replaces all USD transactions in the world: That would mean that each Bitcoin would be worth approx. 1e13/2.1e7 = 480,000 USD. The smallest possible unit would be worth 480,000/1e8 = 0.48 cents In other words, even in most wildly optimistic future scenario, a divisibility of 8 figures would more than suffice. I think you made a pessimistic mistake in the calculations. I get 10 trillion / 21 million BCs = $476/BC. The smallest possible unit would be worth 0.000476 of a cent. |
|
|
|
Well, it's hard to estimate the coins lost so we don't know how many of them currently circulate. Anyway, I'm just interested in _possibility_ of such reclaiming, I don't insist it should be done in the software in any way. Just in theory, can we somehow check when the particular coin was spent last time? If yes, then if (when) in future we'll have too few coins left, there will be a way to reclaim that were lost. The timestamps are stored in blocks, AFAIK, so it may be possible. The check period may be a year or so, if you didn't run your client within a year at least once, your wealth will be treated as lost. To confirm your ownership you can (for example) make a transaction to the special address that won't be counted but accepted as pong. As it will be done once a year, it won't overload the network. Will this scenario potentially work or I completely misunderstand some principles?
It's not really necessary. Each coin right now is divisible into 100 000 000 parts, so in reality we have 2 100 000 000 000 000 (2.1 quadrillion) coins. Even with a total value of 10 billion dollars, the smallest part is only worth 0.0004762 of a cent. Even if we lose 99.99% of all coins (a heck of a feat), then the smallest part will be worth 4.762 cents. A loss of resolution, to be sure, but not the end of the world. There is already talk of extending the precision which would make this problem moot. There is also no need for us to "know" whether the coins are lost or not. My problem with the whole idea of "checking ownership" is that it's exactly the type of feature that could be open for abuse. In any cash system, people should be able to hold on to their cash for as long as they wish without worrying about whether the system will yank their coins out from under them. Losing coins or not spending them has the same effect on supply and demand. Imagine if you had a ton of gold and either buried it in the ground or dropped it into the ocean in the middle of the sea. You are removing that gold from circulation. It has the same effect on supply and demand, so long as you don't pretend you still have the gold and use it as collateral or make loans based on it  2100000000000000 |
|
|
|
Core 2 Duo 6600 (2.4 GHz, 4MB cache)
2GB RAM
Debian Linux, kernel 2.6.34.1
BitCoin 0.3.0 Beta (32-bit x86), with custom SSE hash code
Very responsive. No significant change in interactive response.
1 thread: ~4200 khash/s
2 threads: ~7700 khash/s
What is this custom SSE hash code? Now, now. If I told you that then I would lose my advantage.  Suffice it to say that I leverage SSE instructions to calculate four hashes at once, per thread.  |
|
|
|
you guys are right... i took the ads off Hah, I wanted to see it with the ads. |
|
|
|
Core 2 Duo 6600 (2.4 GHz, 4MB cache)
2GB RAM
Debian Linux, kernel 2.6.34.1
BitCoin 0.3.0 Beta (32-bit x86), with custom SSE hash code
Very responsive. No significant change in interactive response.
1 thread: ~4200 khash/s
2 threads: ~7700 khash/s
What is this custom SSE hash code? |
|
|
|
|
Successful transaction with methodeux.
|
|
|
|
This is actually a pretty interesting idea. I might start doing something like this in my spare time, just for fun |
|
|
|
I strongly suggest everyone read the children's books of Dr. Seuss and Roald Dahl as well as the Harry Potter series. Please let us know why or what about the books you're recommending. Honestly, nobody is probably going to read either of the books, so you might as well at least let us know that they offer a good argument in this or that direction. I would recommend everyone read "How an economy grows (and why it doesn't)" by Irwin Schiff. In graphic novel format, it's an easy introduction to the basics of economics and on how an honest banking system becomes dishonest. It's quite relevant to this thread and other threads about Bitcoin, actually. "How an economy grows (and why it doesn't)"http://freedom-school.com/money/how-an-economy-grows.pdfA very entertaining libertarian cartoon. It has some major flaws, but it is certainly an entertaining read. Not sure what it has to do with bitcoins though. Bitcoins are kind of the opposite of fish. It does have its flaws, but it's still a good introduction. It's biggest flaw lies perhaps in the presentation of inflation in the form of steadily shrinking fish; surely people would have noticed  Still, it's relevant to the idea of fractional reserve and how banking can both become dishonest and stay dishonest for long periods of time. The first chapter about loans and capital accumulation are also good as a primer if you don't want to read something like economics in one lesson. I also like the part about why you shouldn't lend people money to spend it on consumption, i.e. to go on vacation. I happen to know some people that behave exactly like how the two jokers behaved when they "wanted to go on their vacation NOW!" |
|
|
|
I strongly suggest everyone read the children's books of Dr. Seuss and Roald Dahl as well as the Harry Potter series. Please let us know why or what about the books you're recommending. Honestly, nobody is probably going to read either of the books, so you might as well at least let us know that they offer a good argument in this or that direction. I would recommend everyone read "How an economy grows (and why it doesn't)" by Irwin Schiff. In graphic novel format, it's an easy introduction to the basics of economics and on how an honest banking system becomes dishonest. It's quite relevant to this thread and other threads about Bitcoin, actually. "How an economy grows (and why it doesn't)"http://freedom-school.com/money/how-an-economy-grows.pdfA very entertaining libertarian cartoon. It has some major flaws, but it is certainly an entertaining read. Not sure what it has to do with bitcoins though. Bitcoins are kind of the opposite of fish. It does have its flaws, but it's still a good introduction. It's biggest flaw lies perhaps in the presentation of inflation in the form of steadily shrinking fish; surely people would have noticed Still, it's relevant to the idea of fractional reserve and how banking can both become dishonest and stay dishonest for long periods of time. The first chapter about loans and capital accumulation are also good as a primer if you don't want to read something like economics in one lesson. |
|
|
|
I strongly suggest everyone read the children's books of Dr. Seuss and Roald Dahl as well as the Harry Potter series. Please let us know why or what about the books you're recommending. Honestly, nobody is probably going to read either of the books, so you might as well at least let us know that they offer a good argument in this or that direction. I would recommend everyone read "How an economy grows (and why it doesn't)" by Irwin Schiff. In graphic novel format, it's an easy introduction to the basics of economics and on how an honest banking system becomes dishonest. It's quite relevant to this thread and other threads about Bitcoin, actually. "How an economy grows (and why it doesn't)"http://freedom-school.com/money/how-an-economy-grows.pdf |
|
|
|
I know that they are divisible but it's good to look forward. There must be at least a conception to work around coins loss. I don't speak about implementation, just about the possibility of such things in the current design. Don't know if there are special packet types to make requests or anything that is currently not implemented (by inserting them into the chain) that's what this thread about.
And what about snapshotting? I read the paper, Satoshi-san wrote that old transactions are packed into Merkle trees and therefore gets about 4 Mb per year. Looks just perfect but to be profitable it should affect not only diskspace but also bandwidth. Current download speed of all chain isn't fast. I personally downloaded about 10 hours, however I can get about 240 kbytes down and up simultaneously. Of course, new releases may include the chain to date but it's a bit against the p2p spirit to my point of view. Snapshots that peers themselves create and spread would be better. Just all coins state in one big block (looks like this or something close is already implemented in database but it's all local and newcomers have to download the whole chain which is perfectly long in terms of time).
Agreed about including chain in the download, or at least improving the download algorithm. I still stand by coins remaining a person's property until the end of time; there should be no need to periodically "claim" coins to preveotn them from taken and given to someone else. Deflation in terms of lost coins shouldn't be too big of a deal; even if it happens, it will be on a % basis so the value will simply adjust upwards in compensation. Physical gold gets lost all of the time. We'll just have to make sure that backup and replication schemes are easy to use (perhaps even on by default) in order to make it difficult for this to happen. Please see the other threads about deflation as these concerns have been addressed |
|
|
|
If Bitcoins become wildly popular, and the money supply in the aggregate becomes worth 1 billion USD, then every 10 nanobits (10 nanobits being the smallest resolution possible with the current scheme) will be worth only 0.0000004761 $USD. 1 USD = 0.021 Bitcoins, or 1 Bitcoin = $47.62 If Bitcoins become worth 100 billion USD, then every 10 nanobits will be worth 0.0000476 USD. This is still only 1/210th of a cent. There is still plenty of resolution here, even without extending the precision. 1 USD = 0.00021 Bitcoins, or 1 Bitcoin = $4762 In short, we are a looooooong way away from this becoming anywhere near a problem. It will be a good problem to have |
|
|
|
|
Once deleted, are the contents of the article lost forever, or can they be restored at some point?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
