 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
|
1
|
Economy / Economics / Re: EUR might drop below USD
|
on: February 22, 2015, 08:14:47 AM
|
^ thought America had all those already. One common army. One general economic policy, with some variations among states. And very few major banks. But that doesn't necessarily lead to Nazi Germany if the EU did it. And I agree with him. Europe should do it. Without it, it will end up balkanized by other major powers.
One fatherland security, one operation paperclip, one federal prison system, one national stasi agency. Yes, people of north america, uniformed gang members who claim to represent a "United States" would like to see your papers please. They are just following orders. Oh and don't kid yourself: There is basically only one counterfeiting cartel. |
|
|
|
|
2
|
Economy / Economics / Re: Dirty coins
|
on: February 21, 2015, 01:18:28 AM
|
But I still have control of that dirty output. How can I prove everyone that I won't spend it?
It sits there unspent. That's the best you can do. All your payments to others are untainted. |
|
|
|
|
3
|
Economy / Economics / Re: Lyth0s' Economic Troubles Thread
|
on: February 20, 2015, 11:27:41 PM
|
News 2/17/15Cybercriminals have stolen up to $1 billion since late 2013 from banks across 30 countries, including the U.S., Russia, Europe and China, a computer security company says in the latest report to draw a red circle around the financial sector as a vulnerable target for hackers.
The majority of brokerages (88%) and financial advisers (74%) said they “have experienced cyberattacks directly or through one or more of their vendors.” But only a small portion of the more than 100 firms surveyed — 15% of broker dealers and 9% of advisers — guarantee they’ll reimburse clients for losses related to a cyberattack, the Securities and Exchange Commission found.
Wow, it's nice to hear some good news for a change. Keep up the good work boys! |
|
|
|
|
4
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Why the Recent Bitcoin Crash is Normal?
|
on: February 20, 2015, 11:24:05 PM
|
Crash from 1200$ seems pretty normal to me if you consider it a tulip like bubble that has popped once and for all.  Crash from $32 seems pretty normal to me if you consider it a tulip like bubble that has popped once and for all. (heard circa late 2012) |
|
|
|
|
5
|
Economy / Economics / Re: Dirty coins
|
on: February 20, 2015, 11:22:52 PM
|
Not entirely true, as that unspent output need never be touched. I can move my other coins which I had in this address to another which is now clean, without touching the dirty dust that you sent me.
It's not necessarily dust. Also, I thought we were marking addresses and not individual outputs. There's no way to "mark" an address on the block chain, other than by sending it coin, that is, creating an unspent output to that address. The owner of the address however never has to touch that output. In some sense the address is marked, but the owner hasn't spent the "dirty" money there and doesn't have to. He can just leave it and never touch it if he/she so chooses, and still have normal access to the rest of his/her funds. |
|
|
|
|
6
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: How many bitcoins do I need to retire in 20 years?
|
on: February 20, 2015, 11:19:13 PM
|
What do you mean "retire"? Can't you do that for free anytime you want?
he mean no more work, just an happy life i would say 1M dollar at least You can do that already for almost nothing if you have a couple friends. Just chill, you don't need 1M dollar to do nothing. But why would you want to do nothing anyway? Oh I know, maybe by "work" you mean something that somebody else wants you to do but you don't really want to do so much yourself apart for some financial gain? |
|
|
|
|
7
|
Economy / Economics / Re: EUR might drop below USD
|
on: February 16, 2015, 11:40:39 PM
|
|
It's been there before. They are both trading for just a bit over 4 millies. I expect volatility in inter-fiat markets to continue increasing.
|
|
|
|
|
8
|
Economy / Economics / Re: Dirty coins
|
on: February 16, 2015, 11:37:26 PM
|
Even without a mixing service, there is no way to prevent somebody from sending you tainted coins.
Yes, this is also an important point. Just picture the following scenario: —Hey, I want to pay you —No way, your coins are related to the recent hack! —I already sent them to your address. U MAD BRO? It might be ridiculous, but it's totally possible. What will you do then, now that you yourself are tainted too? WoW, nice. I mean evil. Just send a few coins to some reputable exchanges/services and done. Pure evil. Not entirely true, as that unspent output need never be touched. I can move my other coins which I had in this address to another which is now clean, without touching the dirty dust that you sent me. |
|
|
|
|
10
|
Economy / Economics / Re: The fatal flaw of Real Bills Doctrine
|
on: February 16, 2015, 11:31:44 PM
|
Banks don't want debt slaves they want a booming economy where they can create more loans
Banks don't want anything, as they are not actors or living beings. People who hide behind the names of banks do whatever they want to and use the structure of the banks to help them for whatever purposes they have in mind. |
|
|
|
|
11
|
Economy / Economics / Re: Semantics of "fiat"
|
on: February 14, 2015, 02:18:50 AM
|
|
While we're on the topic of semantics here what is this thing "government" you guys are talking about? Just another corporation right? A bunch of people working together in their own interests and trying to hide behind a name? Or is there a lot of other important stuff hidden in that word relating to specific business interests?
|
|
|
|
|
12
|
Economy / Economics / Re: Lyth0s' Economic Troubles Thread
|
on: February 12, 2015, 02:12:38 PM
|
|
Negative interest rates are pretty cool and all. However I want to see even more fiat accounting innovation.
We aren't using the whole complex plane here people! Imaginary interest rates are the next big thing, you heard it here first .
|
|
|
|
|
14
|
Economy / Economics / Re: Semantics of "fiat"
|
on: February 12, 2015, 02:09:09 PM
|
|
Good points Amspir, I mostly agree.
However while we are talking semantics I will point out that the idea of "intrinsic value" is inherently flawed. There is no such thing. Value always depends on context, it's definition is in what you can get for it from another person.
For an extreme example: When dying of thirst, I will give you all I own for a cup of water. When drowning, I will give you all I own to take some water away.
Another nice quote of relevance I came across today: "The only true form of wealth is that produced by the soil" - Frederick the Great
|
|
|
|
|
16
|
Economy / Economics / Re: Semantics of "fiat"
|
on: February 12, 2015, 02:12:05 AM
|
|
When discussing semantics, I believe the etymology is often more important than quoting modern authorities.
...from Latin, fiat "let it be done" (used in the opening of Medieval Latin proclamations and commands), third person singular present subjunctive of fieri be done, become, come into existence," used as passive of facere "to make, do"
One could certainly argue that the 50 coins in the genesis block were created by fiat. Indeed, "fiat lux" is a famous phrase from Genesis, the name alone suggests such a comparison. It is harder however to make that argument for coins mined today. Nobody has the power to issue new coins by fiat, they come according to schedule.
|
|
|
|
|
17
|
Economy / Economics / Re: Semantics of "fiat"
|
on: February 09, 2015, 01:16:57 PM
|
I'm the long run USD is based on work. Its backed by ...
Sorry but you have been fooled. Virtual and physical USD are both issued by fiat. You will never get your work, which is why nobody holds large quantities of either physical or virtual USD unless absolutely forced to. Paper never can be "backed" by anything other than promises which will eventually be broken. |
|
|
|
|
18
|
Economy / Economics / Re: The fatal flaw of Real Bills Doctrine
|
on: February 08, 2015, 09:21:08 AM
|
The one who can issue money, can of course buy up the whole economy in the end. Whether this is by "backed" money, or "thin air" money doesn't really matter. The only advantage of "backed" money is that there will always be some finite supply of it, if the backing asset is a collectible, such as land or gold.
My analysis shows that backed money is indeed "out of thin air": As long as you have some spare asset, you can always issue money backed by them to buy more asset, and once you get more asset, you can issue more money, so the quantity of money that you can issue is only limited by the total available asset that you can buy in the whole world To stop this kind of madness, it should be illegal to issue money backed by assets. If money can only be created by work or paying equal amount of valuables (for example exchange electricity for mining bitcoin), then that money will not create seigniorage I agree with you 100%. "Backed" is a word which simply means "I am lying to you". Even if well intentioned, it is an unverifiable, unstable, and a sure-to-fail situation. Perhaps we should look to various alt-coin producers who are showing us the truth about this kind of language. |
|
|
|
|
19
|
Economy / Economics / Re: Semantics of "fiat"
|
on: February 08, 2015, 09:08:02 AM
|
The defining characteristic of fiat is zero (or effectively zero) cost of production. Hence, bitcoin is not fiat. "Commodity money" is a redundancy, as any tradeable good, including money, and yes proof of hash work, is a commodity. In particular, money is an exchange commodity.
I'm not arguing that bitcoin is not modeled after a commodity, but the "value" is virtual. If I hand you a paper wallet with an address and a private key on it, you can't use it for anything else other than scanning the key and spending it on something with a seller that will give you something for it in trade. With gold you can use it in building electronics that need non-corrosive conductors, oil can be used to run your car, rice can be eaten. Bitcoin's only value is that it can be traded for something of value which started when the first person ordered someone else a pizza for bitcoin. You seem to be saying that there is no difference between a fiat currency and a commodity. That is one way to look at things, because you could argue that a post-Nixon US dollar has value as a commodity because the US government accepts it to pay your taxes and keep you out of jail. You are right that both public coins and fiat currencies only have value as exchange commodities, nothing else. The difference is that the latter has zero cost of production while the former takes energy to produce. Fiat currencies can be issued "by fiat" in any quantity. Public coins are issued through an energy intensive and publcly monitored manner. Personally I call everything a commodity that is traded for, but I'm not sure on the etymology of that word. Cheers! |
|
|
|
|
