Bitcoin Forum
August 16, 2018, 10:35:41 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.2  [Torrent].
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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 »
1441  Economy / Speculation / Re: Is the price slowly climbing? on: November 18, 2011, 06:18:53 PM
where does -100 go on the log chart
1442  Economy / Economics / Re: How come the bank failure destroy the wealth??? on: November 18, 2011, 06:11:44 PM
But I assumed that stupidity was implicit in the marxian theory of value.
Please, show me how it doesn't.

Marx did not come up with the labor theory of value. It has been a concept that has existed for a very long time.

Quote
I guess we can also agree that there's no intrinsic value, for example in gold, like some austrians believe.  

I guess we could, since this is economics after all.

I assumed we wanted to know things that are always true, so-called principles or laws.
I don't think LTV is a tautology, I think it is a false proposition: "things are worth (and priced) what it costs to produce them".
And it is based on the false proposition that value is an absolute quality that can be measured through prices.

"It is not that pearls fetch a high price because men have dived for them; but on the contrary, men dive for them because they fetch a high price."

And it is based on the false proposition that price is an absolute quality that can be measured through value.

See what I did there? It's arguing whether or not A = 3-1 or A = 1+1. The price is known, both theories attempt to discover why the price is what it is. There are no absolutes in either. The variables are always going to add up to the price because the price is the only thing we know. They are both attempts to explain phenomena. LTV is generally an intrinsic explanation, marginalism is generally a subjective explanation. Marginalism just happened to be developed around the same time that Marx adjusted the LTV to suit his needs, and marginalism filled in most of the blanks that Marx (or the LTV) had not yet explained. Just because the LTV has not received similar treatment does not mean that it is false, it just means that modern economists switched perspectives and stopped working on it (mostly because they hated Marx).
1443  Economy / Economics / Re: How come the bank failure destroy the wealth??? on: November 18, 2011, 02:00:54 PM
That theory also assumes that value is an absolute concept and it's not. Value is always relative to the person who values.

It would be a pretty stupid theory if it assumes that value is an absolute concept.

"Smith's theory of price (which for many is the same as value) has nothing to do with the past labor spent in the production of a commodity. It speaks only of the labor that can be "commanded" or "saved" at present. If there is no use for a buggy whip then the item is economically worthless in trade or in use, regardless of the all the labor spent in its creation."

That is the exact opposite of what you just said.

Quote
Something that is not always correct is not a law. Meaning it is not always universally true.
Also, in what cases is the LTV correct?

Where has either of us used the term "law" to describe anything here?
The LTV is a tautology, like almost every economic theory, so every case is "correct" for LTV assuming you can find a buyer.

Quote
Let's forget people, attitudes, affiliations and the like to just focus on arguments, please.

It's hard to focus on arguments when you dismiss them out of hand. I was only employing the same tactic you are. But really, I'm just commenting on the fact that you believe your economic theory is right and others are wrong because, well, because. It really doesn't even apply to this thread, I just got tired of you saying "that is LTV; LTV is wrong."

Quote
I'm just saying that is hard to change someone's mind without understanding what he currently thinks.

But you are assuming that I haven't spent time understanding what "he currently thinks." How could I possibly be in a position to bash bitcoin without understanding its economic theory or distribution "theory"? Most of my ire is directed at the latter. All non-bitcoin currencies appear as a credit for some form of labor. There must be an underlying value other than scarcity. Once the currency is widely accepted and distributed, then and only then could you have a currency switch to fiat. Bitcoin went straight to fiat, and a limited supply fiat at that, to the immense benefit of early adopters. THEN there was actual labor required to produce them when competition took hold. It worked backwards. It is ridiculous.

Quote
Sorry, I thought you were implying it. A misunderstanding.
Only Satoshi is a scamer then?

I can't say for sure what Satoshi's intentions were. I think the anonymity and disappearance says it for him though, but that is my opinion. Regardless, I think the utility of this "currency" is absolutely unsound, and my evidence is the wide valuation of it since its inception. Early adopters had to be complicit in this wide valuation, or it would not have happened. Therefore I believe the distribution scheme is highly flawed because of that power given to the early adopters. But yada yada yada half the people around here are early adopters or are people who think that they can make money, so this argument falls flat with them.

Quote
What position?
Most people in this forum disagree with me in economic matters. In the freicoin forum (not precisely crowded) there's also people who won't support a coin with demurrage if it has a fixed supply.
What position are you talking about?
Also, what fallacy?

The position would be "bitcoin is not a scam." You didn't address what I said, you appealed to the majority (a fallacy). You also did not address what I said about bitcoin in that post either, but misquoted me and presumed I did not understand their position.

Quote
When I make statements, yes, I assume I'm right.

Assuming you are right when it comes to economic theory is a dangerous precipice. Assuming others are proposing one tautology over another regardless of context is just pedantic.
1444  Economy / Economics / Re: How come the bank failure destroy the wealth??? on: November 18, 2011, 09:45:46 AM
Maybe he wasn't making a conceptual mistake but just a typographic one.

Or maybe the rest of the equation was implied?

Quote
I don't know what is CTP-TV, but definitely you can say that LTV is wrong.

Cost to produce theory of value. And no, you cannot definitely say that LTV is wrong, that is my point. Since when did economics become an exact science?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value
Quote
For example, some argue that value in the sense of the amount of labor embodied in a good acts as a center of gravity for price. As counter-intuitive as this may seem to those accustomed to neoclassical price theory, some empirical evidence suggests labor values are a better predictor of empirically recorded prices than prediction by any other means.

Quote
As classical mechanics, it is incompatible with some observable phenomena in nature.

Some, but not all. If it is correct some of the time, does that mean it's universally wrong? I suppose if you want to redefine the word wrong.

Quote
There's people who sincerely believe that bitcoin, gold or silver can change the monetary system for the better.

And these people are the butt of modern economists' jokes. Does that mean they are wrong?

Quote
You should try to understand why they think like this instead of always show you don't trust their intentions.

Yes, poor unlearned me. If only I could understand.

Quote
Bitcoin is not perfect, but I don't think it is a scam. Many people is putting their (most times) unpaid coding, documenting and thinking effort here and it's a shame that you call them scamers.

Bitcoin was designed to create a new, wealthy elite on top of a currency. The implications of the system, were it to get popular, would have been obvious to its creators (unless you want to insult their intelligence, you are pretty good at that). 25% of all the currency to ever be created is to be made in the first two years? Oh that couldn't possibly cause a problem. It's funny how Satoshi doesn't code, document, or think around here anymore. I'm not calling everyone who thinks bitcoin is a good idea a scammer, I'm just saying it brings out the worst in people because they are motivated by taking money from people down the line in a pyramid/greater fool commodity (ergo I think bitcoin is a scam). I think if Satoshi's intentions were actually good, he wouldn't have coded 25% of the monetary base for himself and a few friends, and he wouldn't have disappeared shortly after bitcoin hit mainstream.

Notice how you say "it's a shame you call them scammers" when I said no such thing. Why is it that you put words in my mouth that I did not say? Do you feel your position is threatened, so you have to resort to using a fallacy? Or are you just assuming that you know what I meant better than what I said? Perhaps it is just like you assume you know economic theory better than everyone else.
1445  Economy / Speculation / Re: So what are the real reasons bitcoin fell so low? on: November 18, 2011, 03:36:37 AM
Because it was manipulation that got the price so high in the first place. Greed is the reason.
1446  Economy / Economics / Re: How come the bank failure destroy the wealth??? on: November 18, 2011, 12:07:07 AM
Sorry for trying to explain things to people in an economics forum.

He did mention Adam Smith and how value is now considered to be a factor of supply and demand just 2 sentences prior to the one you quoted. So I think pointing out that something with a high energy cost will have a high value as "LTV" in that context is inaccurate. LTV or CTP-TV are not wrong, they are just not the whole picture. Like Newton's theory of motion versus Einstein's. And it is not a given that current economic theory, Einstein's theory, or any other theory is true either. It is just a better description for the same phenomena. So by saying "that is LTV, LTV is wrong" I think you are doing everyone an intellectual disservice.

Quote
And a little advice: try not to be so rude just because people don't agree with you.
We're all trying to change the world for the better, right?

This forum brings out the worst in me because I see the worst in people here (--I'm not referring to you). So many people unashamedly promote the scam that is bitcoin and it revolts me. There is absolutely no question in my mind that bitcoin is a scam, and the guise of solid economic principles makes it even more fraudulent. People perpetuate this silly economy not to change the world, but to increase the weight of their pocketbooks. Bitcoin is a vessel to bring out the worst in people. And it does so in such an ingenious way that they often don't even realize it. I feel like I have a moral obligation to set things right, but I know my voice is one of the few dissenting and that I probably have no effect and it is frustrating. The intellectual dishonesty around here is so high that I feel like I'm reading Fox News or listening to a politician speak in a campaign.
1447  Economy / Speculation / Re: Confirmed: Bitcoinica sold at $1.994 on: November 17, 2011, 05:13:31 PM
I would be a fool not to give you my money.
1448  Economy / Speculation / Re: Confirmed: Bitcoinica sold at $1.994 on: November 17, 2011, 05:09:57 PM
I've been saying all over the place on these forums the past few days, there is no "manipulator", if there was, the most likely candidate would not be any person per se, but an organization that moves lots of btc for its operation, aka Bitcoinica.

Right, so the drop to $1.994 was just a bad day at the market. Gotcha. BUY BUY BUY
1449  Economy / Speculation / Re: Confirmed: Bitcoinica sold at $1.994 on: November 17, 2011, 05:07:04 PM
EVERYONE:
Told ya.

Told us what? That 0.3% of the coins available dropped the market another 10-20%? Jump for joy, the return to prosperity is here.
1450  Economy / Economics / Re: How come the bank failure destroy the wealth??? on: November 17, 2011, 05:03:12 PM
When can we expect the next book, dr. jtimon?
1451  Economy / Speculation / Re: Someone just took a gigantic dump. on: November 17, 2011, 11:42:09 AM
I think the question is who doesn't have the coins to sell. There have to be at least two or three dozen people that could do this. These are the same people that chose to let the price run up to $35. What makes you think there has ever been good intentions from bitcoin's elite?
1452  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gentlemen, buy your Bitcoins while you can still afford them. on: November 17, 2011, 02:38:00 AM
But so far things are looking good, if early adopters cash out their coins will be distributed to more people over time, in that case I'll stick with it.

http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentPage____6861.aspx

"47. Market manipulation is regarded by some commentators as essentially a type of fraud. It involves the creation of a false impression of trading activity or price movement or of market information. The existence of such a false or misleading impression leads to a reduction in market efficiency as trading decisions are not made on financial fundamentals. Commentators have argued that market manipulation undermines public confidence in markets as investors are unable to rely on the integrity of the market. This then has detrimental impacts on the level of competition and liquidity of securities markets."
1453  Economy / Speculation / Re: Is the price slowly climbing? on: November 16, 2011, 06:14:39 PM
When the price was on 30$ almost nobody expected that in few weeks price will be under 10$.

lol, I didn't predict $10 within a few weeks, but I did call out the batshit retards predicting $100. Got banned too for pointing out the obvious early adopter manipulation.
Aw shucks and guess what, now at $2.x early adopters are still manipulating the price.

My point is that "if bitcoin is a traditional company with stocks at 20mil USD, it's incredibly undervalued".

Except bitcoin isn't a company, and all the holders are spouting off whatever bs they think will get people to buy in.
1454  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What I did Today for the Bitcoin Community - Billion Dollar Donation on: November 16, 2011, 05:40:24 PM
Why are you here if you don't think bitcoin is even worth using ?

Because I'm interested to see how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Quote
No, I don't have any altruistic intentions why you make assumptions like this ?

Cool, thanks for clearing that up. rofl

Quote
also noticed your great constructive critisim over on this thread you are a true charmer aren't you ? : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=52001.0

It is quite literally the 10th shameless, useless thread Xenland has made in bitcoin discussion advertising his site when there is a forum for it.
1455  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What I did Today for the Bitcoin Community - Billion Dollar Donation on: November 16, 2011, 05:26:15 PM
How is that I'm greedy by introducing more people to bitcoin ?

I'm pretty jaded about anyone who thinks that bitcoin is worth using. You might actually have altruistic intentions, but it's unlikely since the whole system is based around making money, not changing the world.
1456  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What I did Today for the Bitcoin Community - Billion Dollar Donation on: November 16, 2011, 05:17:34 PM
Got to start somewhere  it would introduce plenty of people to bitcoin regardless if he takes a cut.

Yes, his greed promotes your greed so it's all good.

I mean, seriously, he gets to become one of the 1% while "supporting" the 99%? Words cannot convey my derision.
1457  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What I did Today for the Bitcoin Community - Billion Dollar Donation on: November 16, 2011, 05:10:02 PM
And a scant 20% goes to himself. This should ring well with the bitcoin early adopters.
1458  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Cheaper in bitcoins - merchant account/profiles - ideas here. on: November 16, 2011, 01:51:54 PM
When are you going to start posting these lame advertisements for your site in the trading/marketplace discussion where they belong?

This thread has nothing to do with the discussion of bitcoin.
1459  Economy / Speculation / Re: 50K bidwall at 2.30 - Crash over? on: November 16, 2011, 02:53:39 AM
The delusion around here is astounding.
1460  Economy / Speculation / Re: 50K bidwall at 2.30 - Crash over? on: November 16, 2011, 12:47:08 AM
Yeah, but there is not enough panic yet. That wall is simply there to fuck with us. It is supporting the price until enough bids have been placed, after which it will be abruptly pulled and further panic will ensue. I might be wrong, but I don't think any manipulator worth his salt would actually give his hand away by leaving that wall there for so long. Call me crazy.

He also put up a $250k ask for all of a few seconds. Is there any explanation for that? Was he bragging?
You would think he would spread out the wall a bit to make it not so obvious. But perhaps he just wants to see how stupid people are.
Pages: « 1 ... 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!