All you see are the benefits of a fixed currency, then you talk about how gold led us to the situation we are in. Why would bitcoin be so different? Because it is cheaper to transact in bitcoin than in real gold? The story is not so simple. There is currently a hard limit on the amount of data each block can have; this leads to rising transaction prices. Bandwidth usage for bitcoin is horribly inefficient; this leads to higher transaction prices and fewer people serving the network which means less competition which is never a good thing when it comes to prices. Most people will argue, "well then there will be a banking layer on top of bitcoin! This solves everything!" Except then fractional reserve and digital/paper money becomes easy. And people will accept it because interest rates will be lower. High tx fees and high interest or low tx fees and low interest?

Although there is not much study into the topic, I think that fractional reserve had a significant impact several centuries ago in bringing about the merchant/middle class. Suddenly, the productivity of people was able to be utilized not because there hadn't been enough money prior, but because the money was not being allocated (invested) efficiently. This can be seen in every economic depression. The supply of money didn't disappear during the great depression, it was just nowhere to be found in the hands of the general populace. Prior to FRB, the vast majority of the world's peoples were slaves, serfs, or some other low caste. Why is that? Because gold stayed in vaults or kings and emperors controlled their fiat.

So bitcoin is at stage 1 of gold: making kings, pharaohs, and what have you. But I see no real reason why it would veer from the same path. And that same path leads to present-day economics where banks have amassed the entirety of all the wealth in the world and loan it back to us on their terms. They pay the politicians to write laws that benefit them. They control the media.


Who says the people with the new money will be any better than those with the old? Hopes and wishes?


You forget about the gigantic industry called lending. The goldrich couldn't introduce more money either, yet many of the wealthiest of wealthy families from several hundred years ago are still the wealthiest of wealthy families today. If there is no way to produce new currency, then you must borrow it at interest. This of itself is not necessarily the biggest problem; the biggest problem always arises when those with the money decide to stop lending. Then everything melts down and the richest of rich profit handsomely off the misery of others.


I don't see how a stable value guarantees no risk. Is this a comment toward my proposal? People still would have to accept the value of a thing.


I think that anyone who thinks gold was a better currency than fiat does not know their history. They are both bad. And with the perfect information available to us via a cryptocurrency, it is an awful shame that the creators of bitcoin sought to emulate it so closely. I think, like Friedman and other monetarists, like Hayek and other Austrians, that inflation only occurs when the supply of money exceeds demand. There are two flaws with central bank policy: 1) New money goes to those who already control the wealth (banks), 2) the central bank has little idea what the real demand for currency is or how to put currency where it is needed. Both of these problems are fixed in the Decrits proposal. It also gets rid of the need for FRB and the potential vanishing money that comes along with that. And I think, given that it becomes reality, the general population will be much more willing to use a currency that rewards trade rather than old/new wealth. It would be a direct competitor to bitcoin, and bitcoin would lose because it will have to convince people to buy in to the same old shit. When people have a choice in the matter, this will work until you run out of stupid people.

If it isn't me, it will be someone else, and bitcoin will be a long-term losing proposition for the vast majority of people.

Sorry, but I'm going to correct some of your English mistakes because it's starting to bug me as they are really bad for someone who seems to have a fairly good grasp of the language. "Trade" not "triad". I don't think that anyone has called bitcoin a ponzi scheme in this thread, though I could be wrong and I don't feel like checking.


Distills, Austrian (it's from Austria not Australia). And I'm getting tired of Austrian economics being used to back bitcoin. Mises specifically may have liked the idea of deflation, but Hayek for example, did not. It is not a matter of deflation = austrian and inflation = keynes. This is deceptive and tired. Most of Austrian economics has to do with government (and ergo central bank) policy. Not even all of them can agree on fractional reserve banking.

So yes, Austrians would agree that bitcoin is good because it is free market. Austrians would not (universally) agree that bitcoin is good because it is deflationary. Austrian = free market, Keynes = central bank policy. Just because bitcoin is a free market currency does not mean it is some ideal, Austrian wet dream of a perfect currency. And arguments that favor bitcoin should compare bitcoin to a potential free market competitor, not fiat. ("Could bitcoin be better than it is?" not "Is bitcoin better than fiat?")


You spelled it wrong. Again you associate a fixed supply of money with Austrian and an inflating one with Keynes. Austrians would be quite happy with regional bank currency competition I think, which without a doubt inflates the money supply. The statement I bolded is akin to saying "there were no money controllers in the gold world." That is an incredibly naive point of view that flies in the face of facts about both gold and bitcoin.


You make the premise that bitcoin is sound money, but you offer nothing to back this up with. The topic of this thread is that, hey, maybe it isn't so sound. Ignoring that and assuming that it is defeats any point of discussion. You've won the thread without even trying (except, you didn't).


"Furthermore, [Cantillon] posited that the original recipients of new money enjoy higher standards of living at the expense of later recipients." Isn't that precisely what has happened with bitcoin? And will continue to happen for each new market that adopts bitcoin? The only time this wouldn't be the case (where bitcoin inflates the existing supply via entering markets) would be when bitcoin is used as currency in almost all transactions around the world. And when or if that is ever the case, you fall back to "who controls the money supply?" And that will of course be the bitcoin bankers, just like the gold bankers. And the cycle of shit money continues because bankers control the money rather than the people.


How does stability give hoarders charity? I don't follow that at all.

The overall scheme is a fixed commodity currency with intent for extreme deflation to support any modest market expansion.


I assume by "one of those" you mean one of the alternatives provided by you. I would point out that you did not mention the "ease-in, ease-out" option which was a popular different option and has been mentioned in the past and in the recent threads. But beyond that, my proposal would most similarly apply to part 4, but it isn't worth my time to go into the argumentative or logical fallacies presented there, except this one:

"Now I simply don't think that something bad for individual users, but good for the economy would catch on without any government or group backing it."

How can something good for the economy not be good for the individual? Is it not the individuals that make up the economy? If not, what does? This is a logical fallacy unless you can prove to me that something other than the individuals make up the economy. If you want to argue an actual point, feel free, but no one wins an argument because their statement says they're correct.


I am only going by the context of the discussions you have recently partaken in. You say "Okay so lots of noobs are whining about how unfair Bitcoin is to the early adopters and that in fact this is such a big problem it may limit Bitcoins potential", but contextual clues can only bring me to believe you are referring to those recent threads. Did we really need yet another thread on early adopters? Or is this just an easy point for you to defend because economic understanding is outside your realm of expertise?


"Why Satoshi did minting RIGHT:
1. Because Satoshi created it and without him it wouldn't exist"

That is circular fucking logic, moron.


Don't make a premise for an argument unless you can back it up with logic.


I don't need to counter a fallacy with anything.


Appeal to consequences.


Because it means you aren't appealing to reason. If I want to deal with religious fervor I can go to church.


No, it means you're spewing rhetoric.


AGAIN if you presented logical arguments I would have something worth attacking. You have serious trouble with this, though, and would rather champion bitcoin like a religion.


What does this have to do with getting in early? You can't even follow your own train of thought.


Ergo, "what's one more thing that isn't fair?" Rationalization


Ad hominem


If by "attacking" you mean, "pointing out flaws in logic", then you are absolutely correct. I can't discuss your emotions in any logical way. I can't make an argument to disprove your premise because it is based on emotion rather than logic. But think of the children!

Does he print out a new one every time you screw up?

The recent threads have had nothing to do about early distribution, but the inability to be economically viable because of the overall scheme of the currency. Red herring.


Begging the question.


Appeal to emotion.


Cherry picking. False analogy.

How do the stakes come into play with this? This is only POW difficulty and I'm not seeing how this is energy efficient long-term, but I haven't read the code.

Mark, while the sentiment is nice, I doubt any legislation will be written strictly defining bitcoin, it will be something that can be applied to any cryptocurrency. Laws are always written much more broadly than necessary, this is an issue that comes up very frequently, at least in the states.

The flaws of bitcoin, of course.

Nothing worth noting.

Yes let's make fun of someone for not speaking English as a first language. Hilarious.

Your wish is my command

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN0oqKUk7kY - spanish
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kPNz0tdlj0 - german
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSUJqb33Sd8 - portuguese (or it could be esperanto)

:shrug: what you said is open to interpretation, what I said was open to interpretation ("heavily")


I don't think bitcoin is ponzi. I think bitcoin has brought a lot of good things into the world. But the pyramid structure of the currency is not one of them.


When people foam at the mouth to obvious concerns like the OP and are incapable of rationally discussing that hey, maybe there IS something wrong with this scenario, then yes, I find it hard to believe. Because if you were generally interested in the well being of people, you would be able to rationally discuss these issues.


Proving that increasing the money supply increases the money supply does not prove either:

1) That inflating the money supply is bad (there are many better arguments)
or
2) That a fixed currency is good

Haven't we gone over some basic logic syllogisms before?


Why must you resort to a strawman? I have a link for a freakin alternative cryptocurrency in my sig, how could I possibly disbelieve in cryptocurrency?

You got me. I award you one internet point.


Now respond to that post or I will remove your internet point.

Most of the "new value" you mention is actually "old value" to a "new currency". And you are right, no one can be robbed through monetary inflation (then again, this is totally untrue, $30 to $2 anyone???)--they will be robbed via monetary deflation.

I am only going by what you said:


Just because you rationalize it doesn't mean you didn't say it.


Right, "facts" being "what I and people who agree with me post on a message board backed by nothing but our own opinions".

There is no point in arguing bitcoin economics with people like DeathAndTaxes, Realpra, or evoorhees. They are heavily invested in this system and it is in their best interests to make sure that the wool stays pulled down.

Ah thanks for clarifying. I was not familiar with FNF and only quickly skimmed the FAQ.

But the gist is you're apologizing for the fact that bitcoin has its faults and that people will see that it isn't as revolutionary as it sounds. If bitcoin can't deflate in a stable manner, then fiat will be seen as more stable, and people will not store wealth in bitcoin as anything other than a risky investment. If bitcoin can't deflate in a stable manner, what incentive is there for people to "invest" in it? Why not just invest in gold instead? Oh because you can send money cheaply (then use it when you need to send money, like WU)? Because you can "fight the man" by getting in at the bottom of a pyramid and hoping more will do the same after you?

There is not much upside to anyone who wants the utility of a cryptocurrency that has had 50% of its money given away already who doesn't already have a vested interest. There will be competitors, and they will cause bitcoin stagnation at best, inflation at worst. Deflation is far from guaranteed. Once people realize that, what advantage does bitcoin have at all?

another one is http://freedomboxfoundation.org/


The internet will not remain centralized for long.

This is the flaw of a closed supply. Even if everybody on earth was given 1 BTC, wealth will trickle its way up to those that lend or what have you, which in itself is not a problem, the problem is that the closed supply means that manipulation is much easier. So once someone gets ahold of a large part of the supply, they can manipulate it to make themselves even more and more wealthier. The same problem as gold. The same problem that is "baked in" to fiat currencies because the people with the gold influence the politicians to write the laws. Otherwise why would any government be silly enough to give up its right to produce currency, yet almost every single country in the world has done so. (Though admittedly many have done it by force of the influence of the more powerful countries.)


So ^this is often the response. "Bitcoin wasn't particularly meant to be revolutionary, just a cheap way to send money."

See my signature for a palatable solution to having an unbounded supply that has significant protection against inflation and could actually replace fiat currency.