Bitcoin Forum
May 27, 2018, 02:04:14 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.0  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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 ... 93 »
661  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: [EGO?] How much Sunny King thinks his PPC development is worth... on: October 14, 2012, 07:13:47 PM
didn't this thread already exist?
662  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: [PPC] Is Sunny King (of PPCoin) RealSolid (of SolidCoin)? on: October 14, 2012, 07:10:58 PM
Is bitcoin a scammy society? Yes. (If you need proof I can provide hundreds of links.) Did satoshi create bitcoin? Yes. Is my observation that satoshi started a scammy society inaccurate? Clearly not. Did I mention anything about governments? Strawman. Is it well within my libertarian rights to scathingly point out the vast theft inherent to the growth of the current crop of cryptocurrencies and the sarcastically serendipitous anonymity of their creators? Certainly. You can play at being coy, stupid, or imply my stupidity, but I will not stand down from my beliefs because you think you have some kind of moral or intellectual superiority and make-believe that it is warranted by calling yourself libertarian.
663  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: [PPC] Is Sunny King (of PPCoin) RealSolid (of SolidCoin)? on: October 14, 2012, 06:35:09 PM
If the source code is not open then maybe this 'have something to hide' argument would have some merits.

Perhaps if I had been referring to the code.

Quote
With open source I think repeating this line just shows that you don't fully grasp the concept of privacy, liberty and the political nature of cryptocurrencies.

Ohh please educate me, Mr. King, as I am so obviously stupid.

Quote
Besides, revealing identity might cause other non-political issues to the developer and hamper their ability to continue the work.

Yeah like everyone knowing that you're a grody, obese, neckbearded nerd.

Quote
Just don't claim moral superiority over those who wish to remain anonymous.

I didn't claim moral superiority, I claimed that you are a lemming.
664  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: [PPC] Is Sunny King (of PPCoin) RealSolid (of SolidCoin)? on: October 14, 2012, 05:00:54 PM
Satoshi was anonymous, whats the big issue ?

The issue is, as I said, it makes it look like you have something to hide. Perhaps because of the pump and dump aspect of these currencies. Anonymous creators, pyramidal currency distribution, scandal after scandal, etc. The community attracts and fosters scammers by its nature and partly by the precedent set by Satoshi, imo.
665  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: [PPC] Is Sunny King (of PPCoin) RealSolid (of SolidCoin)? on: October 14, 2012, 04:01:34 PM
I gotta wonder what the deal is with being anonymous. Who gives a rat's ass? It only makes it look like you have something to hide. Do you post on BTCtalk via tor like the oh great satoshi too, Sunny?

If satoshi's identity is ever revealed, he is well-deserving of the pie-to-the-face treatment for begetting such a scandalous community.

And I highly doubt Sunny is RealSolid. RealSolid is still working on his scamcoin 4.0, though it has been constantly delayed.
666  Economy / Economics / Re: Kitco Erases Evidence of Cartel Silver Raid on: October 14, 2012, 01:06:36 PM
I agree.
My point is that we will be exchanging one group of rich bastards for a completely new (and mostly unknown) group of rich bastards.
Since the currency is not the actual problem bitcoin will not fix this atomagically.
At least in a inflationary economy the rich bastards are prodded to invest their capital back into the economy. No such thing in bitcoinland.

Saying that something will simply fix itself is the apex of ignorance.
There are reasons for why things are the way they are and if you do not address these issues nothing will get fixed. Bitcoin magic will not help, i'm afraid.
Since everyone else does it when someone says something pro bitcoin...

+1!

The control of money happened prior to its control of government. And it happened with a relatively fixed supply that had nowhere near the lopsided distribution that bitcoin has. It would be folly to assume that the same will not happen again... just because.
667  Economy / Economics / Re: Rise of socialism in Europe on: October 14, 2012, 09:52:54 AM
I remember reading some economic theory that free people are more productive than slaves and would out compete them in the end.

I don't see any way to make an argument against this. Maybe it isn't true, but every bone in my body says that freedom > slavery. For everyone, not just the slave owners.

On a very anecdotal note, I have family that works for a very large auto manufacturer. I was told that once upon a time they only allowed "casual fridays" where blue jeans and polos and such were allowed on fridays. At some point, someone noticed that friday productivity was the highest of any day during the week, so they added casual mondays. The trend continued. So why not make all days casual? So it was, and overall productivity was increased. If even such a small token of freedom promotes productivity, what could happen if we could bring ourselves out from under the economic slavery that we are all a part of?
668  Economy / Economics / Re: No central bank + fixed money supply == banking crisis? (US between 1834 - 1913) on: October 14, 2012, 09:42:12 AM
johnyj says the "BTC economy can not grow fast" but why is it supposed to? What kind of value system places a higher priority of economic expansion over freedom? Growth over sustainability?

It is not a matter of sustainability, but one of viability. If bitcoin cannot encourage people to adopt it, it will not be adopted, and its benefit to society will be nil.
669  Economy / Economics / Re: No central bank + fixed money supply == banking crisis? (US between 1834 - 1913) on: October 13, 2012, 08:10:12 PM
Again neither I nor Dr. Salgin are raising the Canadian model as some kind of ideal or a role model that a market regulated strictly by it's consumers i.e. a free market would come up with, just that a banking system without a central bank can work reasonable well when there are no regulations that would fatally flaw such a system.

But there was nothing remotely close to a fixed supply of money, either. Nor will there realistically be with Bitcoin, either. Banking competition may end up with who has more reserves, or who holds a higher percentage of reserves, or who has a higher capital asset to liability ratio, etc. There is no such thing as a fixed supply of money. If people don't want to accept bitcoin-backed notes, then perhaps they have moved on to other cryptocurrencies. If they accept bitcoin-backed notes, that means we are in the same situation all over again where banks have the power to control money. If they move on to other cryptocurrencies (or include them), then bitcoin has failed to supplant fiat currency, at least on its own. The scarcity of bitcoins will ensure that banks will devise ways to get people to accept substitutes. Or people simply won't acquire them or any claim on them.
670  Economy / Economics / Re: No central bank + fixed money supply == banking crisis? (US between 1834 - 1913) on: October 13, 2012, 07:24:40 PM
Btw I'm not trying to hold the Canadian model before 1935 as some hallmark of how free banking is done,

I understand that, but you are trying to make the argument that the free market had something to do with it, which it did not.

Quote
it's just an example of a system that didn't have the same futile regulation as the US but also had no central bank that performed better, although far from the best.

Quite debatable.

http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/encyclopedia/BankinginCanada-CanadianBanks-CanadianHistory.htm

Quote
All the charters were alike and, therefore, the Bank of Montreal charter may be taken as typical. A study of this charter shows clearly that it was taken directly from that of the first Bank of the United States , which had been planned by Alexander Hamilton, the first secretary of the Treasury of the United States . Thus the Canadian banking system is a direct descendant - the only surviving one of the first Bank of the United States.


Quote
You also failed to mention:

Meaning this "effective central bank" instantly got competition and in no way resembled a central bank of the European model.

I didn't fail to mention it, the Bank of Kingston quickly failed and was irrelevant. There were others, though:

Quote
Through the collapse of the private Bank of Upper Canada at Kingston and the inability of the Bank of Kingston to get going within the period of its charter, the Bank of Upper Canada obtained a monopoly of banking within the province and hoped to keep it. With its control of the Legislative Council it could have thwarted all efforts to obtain new charters, but a financial crisis in 1821-2 made it necessary for the bank to apply to the legislature for a reduction in its capital and for other considerations. This gave the Assembly an opportunity to protest the monopoly, but it was not until 1832, however, that another charter - that of the Commercial Bank of the Midland District - was granted to the financial interests of Kingston whose first charter had lapsed. The Bank of Upper Canada had its charter extended in the same year.

The point is that there were very, very few of them and they all had central bank-like charters. No, they were not central banks per se, but it is much more difficult for a national bank to fail than a regional one. Reserves can be re-allocated to areas that need it whereas regional banks have no choice but to fail under pressure. And once some regional banks start failing, panic generally ensues.

And the supply of money was hardly fixed under this system, but that is another topic, I suppose.
671  Economy / Economics / Re: No central bank + fixed money supply == banking crisis? (US between 1834 - 1913) on: October 13, 2012, 06:31:35 PM
The reasons why Canada had fewer problems are very clear, and IIRC Selgin tends to gloss over these subjects (but I watched this video some time ago when it was posted here).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Canadian_banking_system

Quote
The British administration under Isaac Brock introduced what became known as army bills in 1812, in order to finance the War of 1812. The total value of these bills was 250 000 pounds. These were promissory notes issued directly by the government. They came into wide usage during the war (1812-1815) to make up for the lack of bullion in Upper and Lower Canada. Unlike the card money used in the late 17th century, army bills could be and were in fact exchanged for gold coin once the war had ended. The army bills had thus proven themselves reliable, eradicating any real stigma against paper currency.

The government was issuing fiat at least until 1817 when...

Quote
In 1817, Montreal bankers were granted a charter by the British government to open the first formal bank in Canada. This was the Bank of Montreal. Under its charter, the Bank of Montreal was given a monopoly on the right to issue promissory notes on the model of the army bills. Because of its monopoly rights, the Bank of Montreal essentially acted as a central bank for both Upper and Lower Canada.

Voila, an effective central bank exists.

Quote
However, banking remained in private hands, which meant that the issue of currency was at the discretion of private bankers. This frequently led to high inflation when the infant Canadian economy was in recession.

That also caused inflation.

Quote
After Confederation, Canada developed a banking system very different from that of the United States. Whereas the United States was served a large number of small banks serving just one town or, at most state, Canada's banking sector came to be dominated by a few banks with transcontinental branch networks. The Canadian system promoted stability and produced far fewer bank failures than either the contemporary United States or Australian banking systems. The downside of the Canadian banking system was that it was much less competitive that the United States and Australian systems, which meant that consumers paid more for banking services. The legal foundation of the Canadian banking system consisted of a series of laws passed in 1870 and 1871.

It had to do with the fact that banks were national whereas US banks were very regional. Yes, this was due to some piss-poor regulation on the US's part, but the central bank "fixed" the problem. It most certainly was not that "canada was unregulated and free" though as you conclude in your post.
672  Other / Meta / Re: Hazek's opportune pruning on: October 13, 2012, 06:15:29 PM
I saw my thread being derailed by off topic posts and fallacies, so I set rules I initially didn't think I would need. You are more than welcome to follow those rules and post a rebut if you'd like.

You mean like your begging the question fallacy?

Quote from: hazek
Quote from: johnyj
The problem with a fixed money supply:

When economy grows and generated more goods and services, the money are not enough to trade all the new goods, so the value of money increased, and that value increasing caused higher interest rate and hoarding, which further decrease the available money for transaction

And this will hit those with a debt very hard, they could not afford higher and higher interest due to the continuously rising value in money. And those who have a lot of saving are not willing to invest, since the return of just hoarding the money is much higher than investing those money and take business risk

As a result, the economy growth will be stopped and turn to negative, the number of tradable goods and services will reduce, until they become so scarce that their value against money rise again


This possibly is the reason that BTC economy can not grow fast, since holding BTC is much more profitable than invest BTC to generate new business, everyone will just hold BTC

Of course if BTC is not mainly used as a currency but as an investment target, then that is a totally different logic
Interesting theory. The only problem with it is that it doesn't match reality.

Nice try though.
673  Other / Meta / Re: Hazek's opportune pruning on: October 13, 2012, 06:07:40 PM
Oh so you get to create "local rules" ex post facto because you don't like the responses to your thread, and this isn't an abuse of moderator power? Or is it just because I made you look like a dumbass and your feewings was huwwt?
674  Other / Meta / Hazek's opportune pruning on: October 13, 2012, 05:55:33 PM
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=118063.0

Hazek has pruned this thread so that only people who agree with his sentiments have posted. stan.distortion even had a nice, well-thought reply that was in no way trolling.

This is not appropriate behavior for a moderator. If this is policy of the bitcointalk messageboard, there are numerous threads in the economic boards with all kinds of arguments for or against certain economic theory. To my knowledge, hazek has not gone through and pruned the posts which disagree with his point of view in threads he did not start.
675  Economy / Economics / Re: No central bank == banking crisis? (US between 1834 - 1913) on: October 13, 2012, 09:54:37 AM
Except that even if we went by the terrible and almost worthless statistic of market cap it most certainly hasn't. I live in this reality: http://blockchain.info/charts/market-cap?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

Wait, so 122 > 188? That's an interesting and unsurprising reality you've created for yourself.
676  Economy / Economics / Re: No central bank == banking crisis? (US between 1834 - 1913) on: October 13, 2012, 08:30:49 AM
Interesting theory. The only problem with it is that it doesn't match reality.

Nice try though.

Except that if we go by market cap (lol) it most certainly has. What reality do you live in?
677  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Qubic - Quorum-Based Coin on: October 11, 2012, 12:17:05 PM
maybe it's just a coincidence that google is based in mountain view
678  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: TEDx: Bitcoin, seasteading, and 3D printing: How technology moves society on: October 08, 2012, 02:25:55 PM
First of all "there weren't new laws that stopped its acceleration" means something completely different from "it wasn't new laws that stopped its acceleration."

Really, what is the difference, in your humble opinion?

Quote
Now to show exactly why there is no problem with the phrasing of the original correction (and why the Youtube video got it wrong), consider this quote by Muhammad Ali:

"It isn't the mountains ahead to climb that wear you out; it's the pebble in your shoe."

Unfortunately, the "it" pronoun is unambiguous and the leading clause. PS - semi-colon splice.

Quote
You would have this quote rendered, "There aren't mountains ahead to climb that wear you out..." This again changes the meaning entirely.

No, I wouldn't, because I understand how pronouns work and when and where to use them.

Quote
"Men aren't the enemy," and, "The enemy isn't men" are both standard English sentences, as is, "The enemy wasn't men," and "It wasn't new laws that stopped its acceleration."

And yet, "they weren't new laws" still makes no sense in the sentence, does it? Do you disagree that "they" is the the plural of the pronoun "it"? Then why does "Scientists argued for 150 years that politicians needed to stop population growth, but they weren't new laws that stopped its acceleration" sound so silly? Oh yeah, because you're wrong.
679  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: TEDx: Bitcoin, seasteading, and 3D printing: How technology moves society on: October 08, 2012, 10:33:34 AM
Quote
But "it" is an ambiguous pronoun (in this case) that is introducing a new clause. It is a very unusual construction for english, and the proper word would be "there". You wouldn't say "they weren't new laws" in the sentence, yet the pluralization is correct. "It wasn't new laws" would be idiomatic at best, but most likely just as wrong, imo.

[/grammar nazi]
Maybe you should listen to native English speakers because the way you've written makes you sound like a moron. Maybe you learned English from a text book because it's nothing to do with idioms that we don't say "it weren't" instead of "it wasn't". I'm completely sure every native speaker is scratching their head at reading that.

I'm sorry I didn't write out the proper sentence for the idiot native speakers out there such as yourself, but it should be "there weren't new laws". Again, if you'll notice, "they" (the plural form of "it") sounds just as strange and obviously incorrect.

"but it wasn't new laws that stopped its acceleration" - subject and verb disagree! Sad 3rd graders know this.
"but it wasn't a new law that stopped its acceleration" - subject and verb agree! what's it?
"but they weren't new laws that stopped its acceleration" - subject and verb agree! what's they?
"but there weren't new laws that stopped its acceleration" - subject and verb agree! no ambiguity! congratulations on learning proper English!

While the second case does sound somewhat right, it is only because "it" is used idiomatically for many things (what time is it?), whereas "they" is always just a pronoun. The correct word is "there" as you are introducing a new clause, not an awkwardly used pronoun prior to the noun. So stfd and stfu. Thanks.
680  Economy / Economics / Re: Grand Unified Monetary Theory on: October 06, 2012, 11:44:11 PM
I mean that it's a "cost" in the sense that you traditionally had to use something with intrinsic value (i.e. a commodity) in order to guarantee scarcity despite the fact that the commodity might lack other features that make for a good money.

Ah, that is much more clear then and I agree with you.

Quote
I'm not sure what you mean about "early adopters" creating counter-party risk.  If you accept fiat in exchange for goods and services, you have to worry about the issuer cranking up the printing presses (thereby siphoning value away from your money).  If you accept Bitcoins, you don't have to worry about "early adopters" just giving themselves more coins because they can't do that.

You do have to worry about them crashing the market and dissolving any idea of bitcoin actually being a store of wealth though. The end result is no different from cranking up the printing presses. And at least politicians are somewhat accountable for monetary problems--admittedly to a very small degree--but bitcoin users are accountable to no one.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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 ... 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!