|
3787
|
Other / Meta / Re: The forum is now a liability.
|
on: June 26, 2011, 06:51:40 PM
|
Yes it is, as many people have noted many times already in this Meta forum. I feel it should be unlinked from the bitcoin.org page and moved to another domain (bitcoinanarchy.org?  ). Bitcoin.org (the "official" site) should have a tech support/development forum at most. Two months ago I would never have believed I'd support this idea. Now I think it's best. This whole thing needs to be exported somewhere else (hell?) and a new forum with essentially two sections needs to be made: Serious Bizness and Please Help Me. Both need to be heavily moderated. Serious Bizness should probably be a whitelisted post area. |
|
|
|
|
3788
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Camp BX Hacker / Compliance Security Audit
|
on: June 26, 2011, 06:44:06 PM
|
3. Do you have an automated system for instant withdrawals and deposits of bitcoins from/into the system via unique, 24 hour disposable wallets like Mt. Gox?
I prefer a dedicated, but cycle-able, deposit address like bitcoin-central does. This lets me deposit without going to the site, or let someone pay to it for me. Minor thing though. I'm really impressed, very classy. |
|
|
|
|
3789
|
Economy / Economics / Re: Hoarding == Investing?!
|
on: June 26, 2011, 06:33:59 PM
|
Let's assume the whole world uses a currency with 100% fixed money supply, e.g. Bitcoin in 2150.
Is saving these Bitcoins exactly the same as investing into a hypothetical basket composed of world stocks + real estate + commodities + ...?
I think yes, because both simply mean storing wealth by forgoing immediate consumption. Then traders should arbitrage away any changes in the demand for money, and this "world wealth index" should flatline. While real wealth increases or decreases, nominal wealth will stay constant. Bubbles in individual markets could still happen, but arguably smaller and/or less often.
Short term credit with negligible risk of default will be available for almost 0% interest rates.
Longer loans will reflect time preferences, which cannot be captured by simply saving cash.
This is an intuitive approach that a fixed monetary base is compatible with optimal economic growth, without redistributive effects.
Bullseye. This has a nice implication about what is profitable to do. Anything that beats the average return of the economy is worth letting go of money in order to get the resources for. Anything worse than average costs you. |
|
|
|
|
3792
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Gox wouldn't be getting hammered right now, if they had allowed open orders
|
on: June 26, 2011, 04:38:01 PM
|
you need a backend that supports auctions to resolve opening orders and determine the opening price.
my guess is they don't so they had no choice.
I don't think so. From what I understand, the backend just matches the lowest offer with the highest bid, ties broken by age of the order. This can work with open books. You just keep the book matching process shut off until the market opens. ok you could do that but if you only match by order you have 100 different opening prices and "unfair" trades, i.e. I don't get best price just because the better order (for me) was entered after my order. You always get what you entered or better. This is only 'unfair' like when you bid 40 and someone puts in an ask at 35, you could have sold at 35, and someone did, but not you because you put in 40. |
|
|
|
|
3793
|
Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: The Vault (Non-Fractional Reserve BTC Banking)
|
on: June 26, 2011, 12:06:23 PM
|
As some members have mentioned, that introduces the trust based model of operation. In Satoshi's whitepaper he addresses that Bitcoins operates free of that paradigm.
I do believe it can be applied to Bitcoins for people who wish to trust The Vault with their BTC.
However I myself would not use it as I would rather be responsible entirely for my BTC.
The paper talks about not requiring trust. If you have some trust take advantage of it obviously. |
|
|
|
|
3794
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why are you going back to MtGox?
|
on: June 26, 2011, 12:04:47 PM
|
It's peculiar how stable the rates have been since MtG went down.  Certainly seems in line with the assertions that it was infested with pump-and-dump teams, dark-pool artists, and other market manipulators, whose scamming party was unexpectedly disrupted...  IMHO, the fewer people go back to MtG, and the more other exchanges discover rates regardless of the MtG price, the better for Bitcoin in the long term...  I bet it would be even more stable if you froze every single bitcoin. And how about you look at actual data. The last 5 days of mtgox was 13.5 - 18. TH last 5 days was 8 - 17.5 |
|
|
|
|
3799
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why are you going back to MtGox?
|
on: June 26, 2011, 11:15:19 AM
|
I'd like to hear peoples reasons for going back to MtGox. In my opinion, their handling of the situation has been haphazard at best. It seems they've been very disingenuous about the exact circumstances of the break in. With other exchangers out there, what is pushing people back to MtGox?
Biggest volume, no fees, better security than they had before. |
|
|
|
|
3800
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoins interest rates possible?
|
on: June 26, 2011, 11:13:36 AM
|
|
You don't need to be able to increase the money supply in order to have interest. You can have more debt than money and it can all get paid back. Of course even if you couldn't pay back all debt plus interest without growing the money supply you could still have it, you'd just have defaults.
I loan you $8, you owe me $10 with interest, you buy a bucket from me for $6, you wash my car, I give you $5, you pay me back $5. Later you wash my car again and I pay you $5, you pay me $5 and the debt is gone. You can have unlimited debt on any amount of base money. There never needed to be more than $8 in this 'economy'
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
(besides parsing HTML—ouch).
