Bitcoin Forum
November 13, 2018, 09:14:00 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.0 [Torrent].
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 [60] 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 »
1181  Economy / Economics / Re: The Big Question: 21 Million Coins (yes, I know its been asked before) on: May 08, 2012, 02:16:24 AM
I expect this to be an argument and discussion where we can have a decent economic conversation without resorting to immature personal insults.

When can we do that without evoorhees resorting to immature obfuscation and meandering, most likely intentionally misleading trains of thought and arguments?
1182  Economy / Economics / Re: The Big Question: 21 Million Coins (yes, I know its been asked before) on: May 08, 2012, 01:47:48 AM
And you make that point by telling me to "tread lightly"?

What did you expect this thread to be? It's either gonna be filled with bitmiseslibtards who think a fixed supply is the cat's meow and will extol all its many virtues, or you'll have one of the rare non-groupthinkers around here like me who will actually argue against it. And what do I get for my arguments? "lol 2+2 equals potato" as a counter-argument. You've got two libtards in this thread using themselves as sources for crying out loud.
1183  Economy / Economics / Re: The Big Question: 21 Million Coins (yes, I know its been asked before) on: May 08, 2012, 01:33:15 AM
Tread lightly my friend, tread lightly.

oh man I just shat myself. internet threats from evoorhees's business partner
1184  Economy / Economics / Re: The Big Question: 21 Million Coins (yes, I know its been asked before) on: May 08, 2012, 12:56:14 AM
ohhh hey look evoorhees is a complete assclown!!! can't actually counter any argument I have with actual logic, so must resort to strawmen!
1185  Economy / Economics / Re: The Big Question: 21 Million Coins (yes, I know its been asked before) on: May 08, 2012, 12:51:15 AM
So basically, you selectively used information to counter my claim, then lampoon me for "selectively using information"...  Roll Eyes

No, you are telling me what I meant by the word I used. It is obvious that I was not referring to government regulation (is there any point to saying "government" regulation if all regulation is government? I guess so in your mind) unless you have a learning deficiency, so we can assume I meant by "rule". And, btw, "rule" does not necessarily mean "by decree of a king." Just in case that was your counter. Words can have more than one meaning, especially similar but slightly different meanings. Picking and choosing which definition you think I meant when it is clearly not what I meant and then using this as an argument against my point just makes you look like a complete assclown.
1186  Economy / Economics / Re: The Big Question: 21 Million Coins (yes, I know its been asked before) on: May 08, 2012, 12:48:56 AM
What is odd that anyone would lend if they would make more profit by not lending. And the act of not lending actually helps this. How does this not compute for you?

Hehehe... you are so enamored with inflationary money that you forgot in a free market people (at least before Bitcoin) would use metals as a currency, not fiat. Metals require storage, and thus it is possible for interest to be negative, and for you to still lend. You don't want $1m in gold in your house, I assure you.

My god, how do you write so much that has so little to do with anything?

Quote
But, if talking about Bitcoin with no storage cost, indeed there may never be a negative interest rate in a free market.

So does this mean you agree that there will be hardly any lending bitcoin? That means in a few posts you no longer believe this:

Quote
When money is scarce, the price of money (interest rate) rises. This brings incentive for savers to deposit their money with those interest-bearing accounts and through this mechanism the supply and demand for money is brought into balance.

Because that "balance" can only mean negative real interest rates, or rates that are lower than simply holding currency.

Quote
I've never "equated" monetary base with monetary supply. Base is a portion of supply. They are not equivalent. We agree on that point, right?

How could the base be a portion of supply? Perhaps you mean supply is a portion of base?

Quote
Money supply should tend toward constancy. A rate of 0% inflation/deflation means money is unchanging

A rate of 0% inflation/deflation means the monetary base is unchanging. It doesn't directly affect how much money is in circulation, or its velocity. This can be controlled and manipulated by the people who have a large portion of the currency. They can retract market liquidity (here I go using that phrase again which has nothing to do with FRB or central banks) by not spending/lending.

Quote
The issue of "money being less available" is only a problem if you assume prices do not adjust to money supply. Why do you assume this?

I wouldn't assume this. I am assuming that most people with wealth are smart enough to understand how easy it is to game this system. The entire world economy was just gamed to the tune of trillions of dollars. Of course you'll blame this on FRB and inflation and government intervention and whatnot, but the truth is they had won either way. If the government doesn't bail them out, millions of people lose retirement savings et al, so there really was no difference in the outcome, the one that happened is just going to hurt more slowly for much longer.

Now I'm quite sure some smart people will figure out a good way to lend bitcoins. It will be tougher without Federal Reserve Board, er I mean Fractional Reserve Banking, but no matter what there will be successful businesses, loaning money or not, and they will be able to start acquiring significant portions of the total bitcoin supply. Then say, oh a new country adopts bitcoin as a currency and the forex markets take a sharp upturn. Well before any money supply is actually constricted to these big businesses, they can begin demanding lower prices from their suppliers. By spending less, they are now taking currency out of the supply. They can choose to expand their business with this "extra money" or they can hold it and wait for the price to rise even more.

Where in inflation, banks get the advantage by getting new money first, banks/big business get the advantage by having the money already and demanding cheaper goods/services before the price hike actually affects them. This will allow them to cheaply and unfairly expand, or to hoard money at no cost and then eventually release it into the market when the market least expects it and gain massive amounts of profit by only withholding money. Or if lending does somehow make a large portion of the economy, banks can just pretend there is a panic and stop lending like they're doing now and cause massive recessions where they get to buy up all kinds of actual wealth for bitpennies on the bitcoin. It is the exact same bunk as inflation except, for now, the power will be in the hands of early adopters instead of big banks. People will manipulate the money to earn wealth from nothing productive. Even if they don't do it on purpose, making money from money is not productive and wealth transfer to unproductive things is what leads to recession.

In bitcoin's case, people will simply just wise up and stop using the seesawing currency in favor of controlled inflation. To expect that prices will just fall in a happy, orderly fashion was already fantastically disproven in the summer of last year.
1187  Economy / Economics / Re: The Big Question: 21 Million Coins (yes, I know its been asked before) on: May 07, 2012, 11:58:03 PM
Excellent points. And, just in case a real, working example might help someone, this is *already* happening with computers and other electronic items. That is, consumers know that the PC or the hard disk they are  buying for $1k today will be much cheaper (say, $500) in a year, yet the PC market hasn't come to a standstill.

Secondly, compared to deflationary-currency scenario where /all/ prices tend to fall over time, the effect is more pronounced for today's PC market - because their price is falling /while/ others largely remain the same.  And, yet the PC market hasn't come to a standstill.

But wages are not falling which would be the case in a deflationary economy.

And I'll link to this again: http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/wiki/Deflation as to why this is such a piss-poor argument.
1188  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Taking Down Bitcoin on: May 07, 2012, 10:34:23 PM
Why would nobody accept those BTC?

Ok, "nobody" is an overstatement. However, say 1% of businesses love the new chain and decide to switch over. Now you can spend your coins mined on the fake chain somewhere. Not in very many places though, and you will have to go through all the massive adoption pains that bitcoin currently suffers from. So perhaps you'll get a few extra coins for your work (then again, you won't because you control 99x the hash power of the original chain), but they will be worth, as a whole, far, far less as not many people will want them. Not to mention everybody with existing coins will be able to double spend them all on the new network and basically bring the value down to nothing.

Quote
The new block chain honors all BTCs mined in the old block chain. However, it offers more attractive conditions to every miner which adopts the new block chain. Therefore there is a clear incentive to switch to the new block chain.

No, there isn't, and I'm not going to keep rehashing this.

Quote
the old chain will lose 99% of its hash power and will be V-E-R-Y slow.

This can be an attack in and of itself. Probably only likely if someone finds a vulnerability in SHA256 and keeps it to themself. In which case, bitcoin devs can fork it themselves to use a new hash algorithm.
1189  Economy / Economics / Re: The Big Question: 21 Million Coins (yes, I know its been asked before) on: May 07, 2012, 10:19:59 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1907
Quote
Primary causes of the run include a retraction of market liquidity by a number of New York City banks and a loss of confidence among depositors, exacerbated by unregulated side bets at bucket shops.

Again, 1907 still had those issues I mentioned. Fractional reserve banking, and laws which prevented banks from branching. Even regardless of this, let's assume such panics can happen in a free banking environment. So what? If you don't like banks that are prone to runs, don't bank with fractional reserve banks! In a free market, vulnerable institutions go away, because people don't like risk when they bear it themselves. Today instead, the Federal Government bails out banks meaning everyone has to pay for their failures. If a bank is so vulnerable that a panic/run ensues, then that bank shouldn't exist and the market will get rid of it in due time.

Here you go again. Blind to the reality. The overall issue is the retraction of market liquidity; it always is when there is a recession. And then again moving on to issues with the Fed which are irrelevant. The Fed didn't exist in 1907 broseph. Stop going off on tangents.


Quote
When did I praise the FRB (I assume this stands for Federal Reserve Board?)? The Fed was created in 1913... and I was referring to the 19th century, which is the 1800's, as a time of massive economic growth that occurred without the Fed.

lol wtf now I know you're just a troll. the fkin link talked about fractional reserve banking. Which did exist during the 1800s. Oh and by the way, most European countries already had a central bank by that point and experienced the same growth.

Quote
Free market banking = capitalism. Capitalism refers to the absence of state coercion in the marketplace, meaning a free market in everything.

Meaning that free market banking is a subset of capitalism, not capitalism. Capitalism is not the issue at hand, so you again try to conflate instead of making any real point.

Quote
Bitcoin is not "the most extreme form of banking regulation." Bitcoin is not regulation... regulation means mandates which come from the State.

Uh, the hell it does. "2.  A principle, rule, or law designed to control or govern conduct." There is no "state" in there. You just decided to, once again, exclude information that does not suit your view. Bitcoin has the most strict rules possible when it comes to money. It cannot change in supply and the supply cannot expand to meet demand. These are rules that are laid down and enforced by the protocol. That is regulation. The supply is highly regulated.

Quote
You need to work on your terminology I think.

No, actually, I don't.
1190  Economy / Economics / Re: The Big Question: 21 Million Coins (yes, I know its been asked before) on: May 07, 2012, 10:04:08 PM
I don't see what you mean by a "negative interest problem." Who cares if interest rates go negative? Is it that odd that under a world of falling prices, a rate of -2% might still be a good deal? If prices fall at a rate of -3% per year, then one should be happy with a -2% interest rate. It is not the nominal rate which is important for enabling an economy to function, but the real rate.  I see no reason to think interest rates can't or shouldn't go negative in a world of falling prices.

What is odd that anyone would lend if they would make more profit by not lending. And the act of not lending actually helps this. How does this not compute for you?

Quote
Sorry, what am I being unclear about?

Let's see, equating monetary base with monetary supply whenever it suits your view, blaming government regulation for all ills whenever it suits you, basically using any pseudo-facts to help your view and ignoring the rest. Basically a typical bitmiseslibtard.

If you believe you can honestly answer this question: "Is Bitcoin a form of currency that prevents the underlying unfairness of wealth transfer through monetary manipulation?" with a "yes", then there is obviously no hope for you. If you cannot see that wealth transfer via money manipulation is at the root of all recession, then I don't know what to tell you. It isn't that there are less productive people or less products/services available during recession, it is that money is less available per person. What causes this? Or, what does bitcoin do to fix it? Nothing. It even brandishes it in your face.
1191  Economy / Economics / Re: The Big Question: 21 Million Coins (yes, I know its been asked before) on: May 07, 2012, 09:23:43 PM
Sigh. Those were due to A) fraction reserve banking and B) US laws which prevented banks in the 19th century from having multiple branches, thus preventing them from diversifying their risk pools (if anything bad happened in a town, there'd be a run on the bank, since it was known that bank couldn't by itself cover the deposits).

Fun how you only respond to the part of the post for which you have an answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1907
Quote
Primary causes of the run include a retraction of market liquidity by a number of New York City banks and a loss of confidence among depositors, exacerbated by unregulated side bets at bucket shops.

Quote
And let's also remember that even regardless of those short-term banking panics (which were not as common as you seem to indicate), the 19th century saw the rise of the most productive and powerful economy in the world, lifting tens of millions of people out of poverty and raising living standards immeasurably, even with multitudes of immigrants arriving. I'll take that over the stagnant, debt-riddled socialist mires of the modern era.

You go from bashing FRB to praising it within two sentences. http://www.economicsreform.com/index.php/the-industrial-revolution-a-new-view/ - this guy claims it is a new view but I have read it before and it does make sense. Although I will not claim it is the defining force of the industrial revolution like you would equate Mises to being an infallible economic god. Btw, he agrees that money supply != monetary base.

Quote
The more you look into the "problems of free market capitalism" the more you will discover they tend to stem in fact from government policy. The free market is not perfect, but it gets unfairly shit on by people who seek to control others.

I think you mean free market banking, not capitalism. And what bitcoin is most certainly not is free market banking. It is the most extreme form of banking regulation you could possibly imagine.
1192  Economy / Economics / Re: The Big Question: 21 Million Coins (yes, I know its been asked before) on: May 07, 2012, 08:18:05 PM
Interest rates are also self-correcting. When they go too high, they encourage savers to deposit funds and invest them, and money becomes less scarce. Interest rates then fall, and the savers lose the incentive. Thus, it's constantly rebalancing.

Except that we're forgetting that interest rates will be going high if money is scarce. By putting money back into circulation by investing at interest, you are lowering the scarcity of the money and lowering its value. Ergo the whole negative interest problem.

Quote
The interest rate cannot shoot off in one direction forever, except in cases of extreme hyper-inflation or hyper-deflation. Both of which are impossible with Bitcoin (let's also remember Bitcoin is not actually deflationary... it's merely neither inflationary or deflationary, because the money supply is constant).

God this board is such a trolling economist's wet dream. "Deflation is good, here is why (give examples of price deflation). Inflation is bad, here is why (give examples of monetary base inflation)." MAKE UP YOUR MIND. Money supply = currency in circulation. The supply can deflate and inflate even against a fixed monetary base.

Quote
Let's also remember that "financial meltdowns" are more common and more serious when central banks exist.

Let's also forget the yearly banking panics prior to central banking because it suits our point of view better.
1193  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Taking Down Bitcoin on: May 07, 2012, 08:03:29 PM
I suppose we have a misunderstanding with regard to the phrase "subvert 99% of the mining power" as it was used in an earlier posting. I understand it as "I own 99% of the mining power". It looks like you understand it as "99% of the miners are in my pool and they might also leave my pool".

Yeah well that's probably because "subvert" doesn't mean anything close to "own." Now you only need 99x the current mining power to pull off this attack.

Quote
I agree completely: If "my" 99% of mining power just is derived from miners in "my" pool - the miners might notice and might leave my pool. And still, even in this situation: Would they do so if they realize that their payoffs are larger in my version of the algorithm? They are getting 51 BTC (or 500 BTC) in my version. Is it tempting to move from a 500 BTC per block operation to a 50 BTC per block operation? ;-)

The payoffs are 0 when nobody accepts those BTC. This is getting silly.
1194  Economy / Economics / Re: The Big Question: 21 Million Coins (yes, I know its been asked before) on: May 07, 2012, 07:53:45 PM
If no such natural force exists, then ONLY a central bank can provide the liquidity needed to avert a financial meltdown.

This isn't true. Satoshi and other bitcoin elites will happily step in and liquidate the market for the price of a few islands in the bahamas. JP Morgan did it prior to the fed on several occasions.

Now the real question is how often will this be necessary, and how likely are the the wealthy to collude and manipulate to cause these financial messes?
1195  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Taking Down Bitcoin on: May 07, 2012, 06:39:46 PM
Forp, you are making an assumption that is impossible to suspend disbelief. Even if you manage to subvert 99% of the mining power to another chain, there is absolutely no way in hell you will be able to keep that a secret. Miners are going to notice. And they are going to find another pool that isn't subverted, or use P2Pool which isn't possible to subvert. Why would they just stick around?
1196  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Can the rules of Bitcoin ever be changed? on: May 07, 2012, 07:22:36 AM
Going to a more fundamental argument, even if its totally wanky makes it clear that the goal is really autonomy but its simply not achievable, and so we instead take majority ordering with eventual consistency.

I think it does a lot more to obfuscate the point than to elucidate it. If you have an example of two people running a 100m dash but runner A is on ground that is 1m higher than runner B, and runner B beats runner A by 2 seconds, you give credence to the argument from A that "B had an advantage, time ran slower for him." We can't ignore the laws of physics that says that A is just a piss-poor runner.
1197  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Can the rules of Bitcoin ever be changed? on: May 07, 2012, 06:59:04 AM
What say do they have? Their transactions are broadcast only, no? It's just a matter of whether the coins they spend exist in the chain they broadcast to.

They have the say of not using that network, plain and simple. If MtGox has the choice of using network A that continues to use the standard bitcoin rules, or network B one that awards 50 BTC per block indefinitely, MtGox need only choose to accept transactions on network A and completely ignore network B. Anyone who wishes to send coins to MtGox on network B will be wasting their time and money. The same goes for any business or user. Mining power does not determine which chain people will use.

Quote
Guess that's what I was going for.

You were going for an answer that fit your impression of how bitcoin works. It does not work this way, however. In fact, if in the future a lot of people are outraged about the bitcoin elite and wish to fork it to something more fair, they are only hurting themselves because anyone who accepts this new fork must also accept all the duplicate coins that existed when the chain forked. It is silly and much more logical to just start a new chain with different rules and let those who want the new rules to convert to the new chain.
1198  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Can the rules of Bitcoin ever be changed? on: May 07, 2012, 06:45:53 AM
Wow, I cannot believe you used relativity as the argument as to why an agreed order of bitcoin transactions is not possible. It kind of makes me want to gouge my eyes out with a spoon.
1199  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Can the rules of Bitcoin ever be changed? on: May 07, 2012, 05:48:36 AM
No, a majority of miners cannot decide to change some aspect of the protocol. If they do, they will be mining on their own fork. Not only would the majority of miners have to agree, but so would all the users and businesses have to agree to use that fork.
1200  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Microcash.org says "Solidcoin" on: May 07, 2012, 04:30:44 AM
I'm wondering what the hell an 'account' is in the microcash context.
Does this mean one needs to have a defragged wallet with all coins controlled by a single private key in order to stop the smaller inputs from being whittled away to nothing?

Not that bitcoin is ideal for microtransactions  - but so far it sounds like microcash is very microtransaction unfriendly...  and heavily into taxing the poor.

Looks like both the 'micro' and 'cash' parts are misnomers.  wow.. and I thought soiledcoin was as tragically comical as it could get!



from the SCT board:

Quote from: RealSolid
Part of MicroCash is accepting micropayments, so we want low transaction fees. A half cent daily account fee is pretty much nothing, especially to anyone who is running a computer and you complaining about it like it's the coming of satan is pretty hilarious.

my response:

Quote
"We want you to be able to send micropayments cheaply, so we charge you micropayments daily!"

 The logic astounds.

of course he did not respond to that part

it really is batshit retarded and is just another attempt to get the revenue stream going for RS and his cohorts

the "coin protection fund" has 5% of the total coins in existence (save the trust accounts) so it will be earning the vast majority of this microfee interest on top of it all. and there is no date of when the CPF will end or any direction for it either.
Pages: « 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 [60] 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!