Bitcoin Forum
January 19, 2018, 09:49:34 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
  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 85 86 ... 93 »
701  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: ppcoin transaction fees on: October 03, 2012, 04:24:16 AM
I am not trying to waste your time, I am imploring you take these types of things seriously rather than dismissing them and waiting until something becomes a problem. Having the primary developer being only worried about the here and now with no regard to the future reeks of a pump and dump, and oh yeah, loses my respect*. I agree with you to some extent that the bitcoin devs are too strict on the hardfork because NOW is the time to do such things, not when there are embedded applications that will have to be replaced.

* - I'm sure you don't care, but you are pretty easy to bait
702  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: ppcoin transaction fees on: October 03, 2012, 01:28:44 AM
The tragedy of the commons only refers to the unreliability of altruistic component of the network.

Uh the word rational is in the first sentence.

Quote
What I am saying is that even rational nodes would not try to sabotage the protocol because the gain is too little. Not many people are going to modify code, rebuild or download risky builds just to save a few pennies.

It's not sabotage when it is a perfectly legitimate use of the protocol. Wishful thinking. As I've said, you can't predict the future and you don't know how big or how little the gain may be. It's very unlikely that all nodes will do this, but even when some do it causes delayed transactions and puts added pressure on altruistic nodes.

Quote
If you don't believe me, then please explain to me why after 4 years bitcoin network still processes fee-free transactions happily? All my fee-free bitcoin transactions are processed without a hiccup.

Do I really need to explain this to you? Because this question is just begging to get a witty retort that may or may not involve senior software developers and how much they make and if money has a direct correlation with the Dunning-Kruger effect.
703  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: ppcoin transaction fees on: October 02, 2012, 11:02:54 PM
  • Cost of transaction processing may be too low to be any incentive for rational minters to exclude transactions (network consists of altruistic, rational, malicious participants).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
704  Economy / Economics / Re: Fascinating information on saving vs. consumption on: October 02, 2012, 10:57:41 PM
I realize that we have inflation because private banks create credit, though I disagree that we would see increased volatility if it were not for central banks. The volatility we see in stock markets, commodities prices, real estate prices are exactly because of our monetary system. Houses rising 10% per year isn't price stability. Without a centrally managed currency I think we would, after a settlement period, see more stability, without the opaque interference of a central bank.

I am only referring to the inflation rate, not the economy as a whole. Obviously inflation rate targeting doesn't work well for very much other than keeping the (CPI) inflation rate reasonable. You made the assumption that because the inflation rate stays low every year that the deflation rate could stay low every year in an unmanaged money supply.

Quote
Several Japanese corporations have chosen to buy out foreign firms because of their increased financial strength. Off the top of my head I can think of Sony buying ST Ericsson's half of SonyEricsson, and a large Swiss pharmaceutical company was recently taken over by a Japanese counterpart.

As I said, they are not going on a spending spree in Japan. Smiley

Quote
Again, I'm not talking about bitcoin here. If people "leaving the currency" isn't a sign of endorsement I don't know what is. The entire purpose of money is to leave it when you feel you have too much, and increase your holdings when you feel you have too little. That's the very reason we use money.

I thought you are supposed to invest when your time preference is low. Leaving your currency for another because of a recent appreciation trend is just a zero sum transfer of wealth. Your original currency depreciates, the new one appreciates. Nobody is better off except for those that know when, or got lucky, to ride the wave at the right time. But if you control a significant portion of a money's supply, the ability to create these waves is much easier and makes recycling money via investment much less appealing. Perhaps most of the waves are just by bad economic luck, but the opportunity for easy wealth transfers is much more prominent with a deflationary money. Central banking was supposed to stop this, I guess?? At the nice return to banks of being able to create credit from thin air. But then the problem still happens because banks control 90% of the money supply and the fed creating more and giving it to them doesn't do anything.
705  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: Update on the PASCAZI’s situation and Bitcoin on: October 02, 2012, 09:31:43 PM
As you may recall, we at Mt.Gox/Tibanne started back in 2011 to use any resources at our disposal to keep “Bitcoin” out the reach of people interested in profiting for it without bringing back anything in compensation to the community.

like dark pools?
706  Economy / Economics / Re: Fascinating information on saving vs. consumption on: October 02, 2012, 09:24:24 PM
If businesses can't adjust to falling prices then sure, they will fail in an environment with falling prices. No surprises there. I'm sure we could get used to it again, it's not rocket science. Prices go down a bit every year instead of up a bit every year.

The "a bit" part is a pretty big assumption. If bitcoin were pervasive throughout the world economy, sure "a bit" could happen. Prices only go up "a bit" every year because central banks have finally figured out that they need to target the inflation rate rather than anything else (or unemployment when things go extremely out of whack, like now). Without a central bank and without even the basic ability to mine more gold by opening up more mines, the deflation rate can only be volatile. Assuming there is somehow a market for credit in this volatile economy, any insolvency could be absolutely disastrous with magnificently far-reaching consequences.

Quote
Wrt. to your second point, how many places have you looked? Many Japanese corporations have recently gone on a shopping spree, because their savings currency has appreciated significantly vs USD/EUR.

They aren't going on a shopping spree in Japan. If bitcoin were pervasive, this doesn't work. If it isn't pervasive, it means people are leaving the currency and causing inflation to counteract some of the deflation. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of deflation's success.
707  Economy / Economics / Re: Fascinating information on saving vs. consumption on: October 02, 2012, 07:42:06 AM
Here is a simple illustration, on how FRB destroys an individuals wealth, save corn, deposit the corn in said bank. Use the receipt as money; have the bank use RFB to multiply the receipt. Everyone collect your corn from said bank when the economy contracts, my corn is gone, it is not there, I had corn - I now don't have corn it was stolen?

This is not how modern FRB works. If I deposit $1000 at a bank, the bank deposits $100 with the central bank and can now loan $900 out. It can't loan out $10,000. Many types of deposits, including savings accounts, have no reserve at all. Under your scenario they could loan out an infinite amount of money, but the reality is they can only loan out the amount deposited (minus the reserve if it is required). Yes there is the money multiplier effect where if someone takes the $900 and deposits it at another bank, that bank puts $90 in reserve and can loan out the rest and so on, but all this really means is that the money supply is elastic. When the central bank creates $10B, expect anywhere from $10B to $90B to be created as credit.

It is what it is, and if it weren't for all the other factors involved (the unpaid interest to depositors, the central bank creating more reserves when credit shrinks, the long duration of loans vs. on-demand deposits, etc.) it could function as an honest system. It isn't particularly necessary in a system where more money can just be printed by the central bank, but it is not theft in and of itself.

Quote
We are now as enslaved to FRB as the peasants were to Feudal Kings and warlords in the dark ages.  

We are enslaved to the entire money process. FRB is only one part of it.

Quote
you can't ignore these people, this is the correction also missing from your equation. These people now work for less money but take advantage of the fact that the gap "business man A" left in the economy the economy shrinks down and grows to its former size.

Then deflation is less drastic. I should correct this though, you are right. The amount of goods and services he produces can't be equal to his wealth though, or he is not doing anything productive. If the economy were bigger, it is likely he would sell the business to someone who got a loan, from a bank, then he can remove his entire 1000BTC without causing a shrink in the economy.

Quote
why did it grow?  Maybe people stopped having 8 children and started having 1.7 children and the economy shrank.

I will do an example where it does not matter if the economy grows.

Quote
"Mr. Wealthy businessman Person A" would lose net worth if he was able to exist for 10 years without consuming a morsel of food.

What if he pays USD that he has saved? This is obviously already a fictitious scenario and silly things like this muddle the picture. Bitcoin is always likely to be an alternative currency, so the mindset must be what will people do with an alternative currency. The bare amount of money he needs to survive can be considered inconsequential for a wealthy businessman. The economy shrinking is always a risk no matter what you do with your money. The only way you could hedge your bets slightly is to invest at interest, which of course might course might counteract the shrinkage, but these are the unpredictable things of macroeconomics.

What is predictable is that in a growing or stable economy, it is far more profitable to hoard than save (invest). Considering that bitcoin doesn't need to "grow", it only needs to "absorb" the already existing economy, the opportunity for growth is insane.

Quote
This doesn't bother me* if your wealth is generated by contributing to the economy it should be reworded proportionately to the contribution the market affords it.

It doesn't bother you that the power of the limited supply commodity gave a couple of individuals the ability to change the world for the far worse? It seems like you are just spewing another line without any regard to the implications. Whatever, I'm done banging my head against the wall on this subject.
708  Economy / Economics / Re: Deflation and Bitcoin, the last word on this forum on: October 02, 2012, 12:11:23 AM
A "hoarder" must either spend the money eventually or not. If not, then it really is the broken window fallacy. All that's happened is the hoarder has produced. If the hoarder does spend the money, all they've done is defer consumption because they preferred future consumption to present consumption.

No, all they haven't done is deferred consumption, because deferring consumption typically means investing in a regular economy. Whether it's with a very low interest rate via a savings account or via 401ks or what have you, the money does not leave the supply. You can pick through the thread I posted, but all of it is from Hayek. So am I supposed to trust you over an economic nobel prize winner?

Quote
You can't assume a fixed inflation rate and then look at how the market will respond to it. That's not how markets work. If the inflation rate is 8%, it's 8% for a reason. And when people react to that inflation rate, their reaction will affect that rate.

I don't know where I've assumed any fixed inflation rate.

Quote
Also, you have to be very careful when you compare the type of inflation or deflation that most economics works are talking about to what happens in the Bitcoin economy. Inflation usually refers to governments printing and spending money, not new money being created in exchange for a service. And deflation usually refers to a reduction in the amount of money in existence, not an increase in demand for a fixed supply.

No, I don't have to be careful, because you know what I meant and so does the rest of the economic world. Deflation has never referred to a reduction of the amount of money in existence. It was a term that came by well after inflation meant price inflation. If you have to redefine the word every time you make an argument, perhaps you are being a bit dense for the sake of density. Hayek decided to let this go whereas Mises could not.
709  Economy / Economics / Re: Deflation and Bitcoin, the last word on this forum on: October 01, 2012, 11:23:00 PM
I think that one can make a very strong case that there is a big difference between saving and hoarding: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=110708.0

And that hoarding is good for the hoarder, bad for the rest: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112269.msg1224110#msg1224110

But if you guys want to give up on Austrian economics and stick with bitcoinomics, that's fine.
710  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: ppcoin transaction fees on: October 01, 2012, 10:12:01 PM
Here are the minimal gains:

1) 0 joules > X joules (as markm said) - probably not a very big one as I think CPUs will outdo network growth in this area, but ECDSA verification is a very slow operation
2) faster block prop > slower block prop
3) less incentive to actually participate in the network via bandwidth costs which I think will always be a problem (this especially applies to PoS which very likely won't be pooled)

I think it's a bit more forward-thinking to address these concerns rather than dismissing them as minimal. It is hard to predict the future.

Plus you didn't answer if the 1c tx cost was hard-coded or can be changed by the protocol. If it's hard-coded, that's an awfully blunt-force way to set the tx fee. What if 1c is $1 in the future? A hard fork would be required to be competitive with other currencies.
711  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: ppcoin transaction fees on: October 01, 2012, 09:47:29 PM
I am only putting my honest opinion of the work. If you cannot take it or think the type of work in ppcoin does not worth the amount I estimated, I would say that's probably a good indication that you are not anywhere close to a true professional level.

As I said, learn to take a joke, brah. Besides, after only being interested in your project and asking honest questions, the reply I got from you was a pompous one in a different thread. You haven't set the bar very high.

PS - There was a miner a short while back that had a significant amount of hashing power but included no transactions. There is a very real downside to including transactions and that is network propagation speed. There is an orphaned block in bitcoin every couple dozen blocks or so, so this is a very real disincentive to including transactions. However, I think you might have mentioned something somewhere about coin-days-destroyed being a factor, but I can't be bothered to remember if I am right or not, and you haven't really responded to the concerns of the thread over taking my comment personally.
712  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: ppcoin transaction fees on: October 01, 2012, 09:31:52 PM
Ohnoes the invisible carrot on the invisible stick, again. Learn to take a joke, brah, or don't fuel the fire.
713  Economy / Economics / Re: A Resource Based Economy on: October 01, 2012, 03:51:06 PM
Trade is about ruggedness and self-reliance
714  Economy / Economics / Re: A Resource Based Economy on: October 01, 2012, 03:48:49 PM
Sorry, sorry, money is about ruggedness and self-reliance.
715  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: ppcoin transaction fees on: October 01, 2012, 03:42:47 PM
This also raises the issue of what kind of consensus on tx fees could possibly be reached if they are irrelevant to miners. Is the tx fee hardcoded? If so, how can that possibly work when you have no idea what a ppcoin is worth? Perhaps another $100k in development costs are required to find the solution.
716  Economy / Economics / Re: A Resource Based Economy on: October 01, 2012, 03:37:23 PM
I think that they most of the cheap labor parts of the world would be for a much rougher ride than the west if ties were severed.  Their economies are geared towards trade, not domestic needs, and I don't think they have the capital to change direction as easily as we could.  It would be bad, but my stone age comment was more hyperbole than a specific prediction.

Here you go throwing that capital word around again. What form of capital is it that you think that China or whomever cannot do without that only western society can provide?

Quote
P.S.  Hong Kong was under British rule until very recently.  Great example of local development.

whoas really? How about South Korea and Japan? Were they under US rule until very recently? Or did they advance into the information age at pretty much the exact same time as western society?

Quote
How are payroll taxes and VAT not hidden?  Payroll taxes are money that is gone before you possess it.  It isn't something you have and then get taken away, it is just a number on the stub.  The emotional attachment is different, even if you are intellectually aware of them.  VAT is hidden by being rolled into the prices of things.

So every tax is hidden because the government no longer knocks on your door for property taxes. Got it.

Quote
I'm not sure which specific beneficial effects you are looking for me to list.  Do you want me to say that people with smaller governments are more rugged and self reliant?  I think that they are, and I think that those are virtues.

I am not looking for anything specific. I want to know what you think the beneficence of less taxation is, since this is apparently the side effect of "sound" money. Apparently it's ruggedness and self-reliance. Strange how those don't seem to be economic-related virtues yet money is all about economics.
717  Economy / Economics / Re: A Resource Based Economy on: October 01, 2012, 02:50:07 PM
Yup. You have some good points, but you need to tone it down. Even Marx (at times) said the Capitalist is in an unenviable position in our system (probably he was wrong about this too, though). Also, as grondilu said, what you're talking about is only some part of the picture. It probably dominates your view because it's the most comprehensible part, as it at least includes some kind of planning.

My original reply was to grondilu implying that anyone who wants a better society is a communist. And flat out stating that to do so would be stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, yet when as it comes to production, society clearly runs on the opposite. It is such a narrow world-view, and on a board all about fixing one of the biggest problems of society (the broken system of money). It aggravates the shit out of me because it seems to make it obvious to me that people like bitcoin only because they think it will make them one of the wealth-stealers, and that's ok.

Quote
In other words, you won't be able to invent some planned system that will make power foci go away. Doesn't matter whether you try to drive money or even private property out. Power focus might be impossible to get rid of even with a bottom up revolution, unless we somehow reach a state of Deleuzian body without organs, which isn't at all desirable for any of us.

It isn't about a planned system. It's about identifying where the problems are and doing something about it. Obviously the more natural the better. While I'm not particularly fond of the idea of a resource-based economy, that does not mean that it is not worth discussion or that it needs to be dismissed as communism.


I would say that they make mistakes, and if they are slow to accept and correct their mistakes, the correction can be harsh.  If we use government to actively avoid having to face that correction, it will be even more harsh when it hits.

Sounds like you almost accept the Keynesian view of what causes the business cycle. The austrians think it's all about money and specifically credit. I dunno, it's hard to say when you blame it on "they".

Quote
Capital is not money.  Nothing I said in that section was about money.  And again, you are the one saying that lack of invested capital is a moral issue.  Calling someone immature is only condescension if you believe that it is immoral to be young.

You believe that asia or whatever outsourced areas are incapable of providing for society without "capital investment". Yet, as we have seen, this is usually a much stronger effect of things like communism and a lack of democracy on their society rather than a lack of investment from western countries. Roll Eyes You seem to imply that they would be incapable of doing such things on their own, even though, say, Hong Kong flies completely in the face of this argument. You asked the question if insufficient capital was a moral issue. I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. I certainly did not say it.

Quote
If you don't think that hidden taxes = more taxes, I doubt that I'll be able to convince you.  It seems like a pretty obvious thing, considering that every government everywhere throughout history has tried to hide taxes from the taxed.  Inflation, payroll withholdings, VAT, etc...

lol how are payroll taxes and VAT hidden? I didn't say that hidden taxes didn't imply more taxes, I implied that unhiding them would just cause a rise in the obvious ones. You think government will be defunded, but you just assume this to be true without any evidence. And you never answered what the result would be. Not even the hope of smaller government. Change in taxation is not a change in society, it's a change in taxation. What beneficial effects are you hoping for? Do you see that I am trying to get at the root, not the superficial?

Quote
Please tell me, with as much precision as you can muster, that percentage of new income should have gone to the top 1%.  Heh, I find it funny that the article doesn't say top 1% by what measure.  Height?  Popularity?  Before you linked it, did you bother clicking through to the study itself to see what the author was talking about?  Or did you just start frothing at the mouth at the inequality that you didn't understand?

Am I supposed to take you seriously at all?
718  Economy / Economics / Re: A Resource Based Economy on: October 01, 2012, 05:39:44 AM
The only point you've made here is mine.  You produce something that is not directly valuable to you, and then you trade it to someone else to whom it is more valuable than anything else you could have made, and in return they give you something that is more valuable to you than the effort you put into producing that thing for them.

What does this have to do with the business cycle then? Everybody up and down the line of production just has a mass bout of stupidity every now and then? This is just a natural side effect of capitalism?

Quote
Are you saying that insufficient capital investment is a moral issue?  That pointing it out is the same as calling them inferior people?

LOL here you go defending the production of money. You claimed they'd be "back in the stone age by Friday" without western investment. Do you not realize how condescending that is? Would Americans be "back in the stone age" without Wall Street?

Quote
The primary benefit is de-funding governments by making taxes explicit.

And what does making taxes explicit do other than raise the number of complaints about taxation? What does this solve? What would you like it to solve? Making taxes explicit is not some recipe for reduced taxation, after all.

Quote
I don't really give a fuck about the distribution of wealth, and find the notion of equality in such a thing nonsensical.

Obviously. I'm quite sure the lords and landowners of feudalism had no problem with it either. Note that I said "distributed more equally" not "distributed equally". Do you get the difference? You know that that "distribution" does not mean "taxing and handing out equally", right? Why don't you give a fuck about the distribution of wealth? You are perfectly content with the situation of the homeless and those that live in poverty? It's their fault, right? It's totally sane that 93% of the new income in the economy in 2009-2010 went to the top 1%, right? Even though a significant portion of those people were heavily involved in the massive economic collapse? All you care about is explicit taxes, after all.
719  Economy / Economics / Re: A Resource Based Economy on: October 01, 2012, 03:55:15 AM
What is unnatural about a society being unable to afford that which it produces?  Try this on.  If merely producing something is as valuable as the product produced, wouldn't it make more sense to produce something else instead?  Something that is worth more than the value of the effort that went into production maybe?  Isn't that the whole point of production?

Did you forget about the value of trade? Economics 101. Trade costs little to nothing yet it increases the wealth of both parties to it.

Quote
They would be back in the stone age by Friday, I suspect.  We'd be fine.  Ask yourself why they are in such fierce competition to be our "bitches".

Oh hey look the condescension of billions of people. Not at all unlike the mentality of Wall Street.

What is the result, in your opinion, of "sound money"? Is it beneficial to society? If so, what benefits will society reap? Will wealth be distributed more equally? Will government have less power? What is the result that you clamor for yet scoff at when I mention the inefficiency of society? I am intensely curious.
720  Economy / Economics / Re: A Resource Based Economy on: October 01, 2012, 01:50:26 AM
You replied to my post, but I feel like I jumped into the middle of a completely different conversation.

Because through your ignorance you think that the sides are actually reversed and things like welfare cloud this massive disconnect. Or, at least, that's the best I can gather from LOL.

Quote
There are many ways that the rich can avoid looters, being politically active is only one of them.  But yeah, in general I see government as the problem.  And by "government", I don't mean "government", I mean "you and me".

Political activism does not write laws, money writes laws. Political activism very, very rarely gets politicians elected; money gets politicians elected. "You and me" are a big part of the problem because most of "you and me" are completely uneducated as to what the problem is. So a "LOL" comment when I point out an incredible and simple societal disconnect in the "wealthiest country in the world" leads me to believe that you are totally cool with being uneducated as to what the problems with society are. I am not saying that the food that should be thrown out should be given away for free, I am saying that the fact that such a stupid side-effect of this economy exists means there is something wrong with the system. 99% of the 99% of OWS didn't even know what the fuck the problem is, just that there is a problem.

Quote
I'm not sure that I want to let you draw me into a discussion of the business cycle.  Parts of it seem natural, and parts seem artificial.  Without honest money on a global scale, it is hard to be sure about any of it.

What is natural about a society being unable to afford that which it produces?

Quote
I will say that cheap labor benefits from us, just like we do from them.  Division of labor, theory of trade, key concepts from economics 101.

The question was not who benefits, the question was how long would the collapse take when they decide to stop being the bitches of western society? They are going to eventually wake up and realize that producing money does not produce wealth, but producing money is the majority of what western society does. It is not a sustainable enterprise when there are no more people to walk over.
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 85 86 ... 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!