|
If the IMF try and destroy bitcoin 100 new alts will spring up.
But let's not forget there are *some* good folks at the IMF, let's try and win over 51%
|
|
|
|
Our startup will be calling the mBTC a "bit", and using the symbol below. Let the market decide. Would your mother rather own a "mBTC" or a "Bit"? a mBTC is a just a group of letters to a layman. A Bit is something that gives life to the unit. If bitcoins were called oTDC's, or "OogleToadcoins, how interested would a layman be in owning them, as opposed to branding them "bitcoins"? Because to a layman, you might as well call a MilliBitcoin an OogleToadcoin. Sometimes I think we live with tunnel vision in bitcoin land, in ignoring the larger picture. So unless our goal is to remain an exclusive club and disregard laymen, I think "bit" is the logical choice.  Also, there is a perfect unicode symbol that already exists (U+0180) ƀLower case b is genius ... |
|
|
|
Throwing in a few cents, The real Question is more, how equity increases in bitcoin will affect the currency over deflationary effects although I agree that deflation through lost wallets is a big question mark in bitcoin over time  And will definitely affect interest rates Also may settle an Austrian Economics Vs Keynesian Economic question once and for all (Can Dream XD) As long as we live though bitcoin will be inflationary https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supplyUsing the graph chart we can illustrate that Block Reward Era BTC/block Year Start BTC BTC Added End BTC BTC Increase End BTC % of Limit 0 1 50.00 2009 0 2625000 2625000 infinite 12.500% 52500 1 50.00 2010 2625000 2625000 5250000 100.00% 25.000% 105000 1 50.00 2011 5250000 2625000 7875000 50.00% 37.500% 157500 1 50.00 2012 7875000 2625000 10500000 33.33% 50.000% 210000 2 25.00 2013 10500000 1312500 11812500 12.50% 56.250% 262500 2 25.00 2014 11812500 1312500 13125000 11.11% 62.500% 315000 2 25.00 2015 13125000 1312500 14437500 10.00% 68.750% 367500 2 25.00 2016 14437500 1312500 15750000 9.09% 75.000% 420000 3 12.50 2017 15750000 656250 16406250 4.17% 78.125% 472500 3 12.50 2018 16406250 656250 17062500 4.00% 81.250% 525000 3 12.50 2019 17062500 656250 17718750 3.85% 84.375% 577500 3 12.50 2020 17718750 656250 18375000 3.70% 87.500% 630000 4 6.25 2021 18375000 328125 18703125 1.79% 89.063% 682500 4 6.25 2022 18703125 328125 19031250 1.75% 90.625% 735000 4 6.25 2023 19031250 328125 19359375 1.72% 92.188% 787500 4 6.25 2024 19359375 328125 19687500 1.69% 93.750% Because the monetary base of bitcoins cannot be expanded, the currency would be subject to severe deflation if it becomes widely used. Keynesian economists argue that deflation is bad for an economy because it incentivises individuals and businesses to save money rather than invest in businesses and create jobs. The Austrian school of thought counters this criticism, claiming that as deflation occurs in all stages of production, entrepreneurs who invest benefit from it. As a result, profit ratios tend to stay the same and only their magnitudes change. In other words, in a deflationary environment, goods and services decrease in price, but at the same time the cost for the production of these goods and services tend to decrease proportionally, effectively not affecting profits. Price deflation encourages an increase in hoarding — hence savings — which in turn tends to lower interest rates and increase the incentive for entrepreneurs to invest in projects of longer term. Why do you think the monetary base of bitcoin cannot be expanded? The protocol may change one day. Also IOUs in bitcoin off-chain would increase the money supply. |
|
|
|
Of course you are right. There is also risk of borrower default and it must be factored into interest rate. If you lend to 100 different people and expect 10% to default you need to charge ~10% interest just to cover that loss. That lower bound interest is not affected by inflation/deflation rate (you can't go with interest below expected default rate). What is tricky is that in deflation you actually have more chance for default, because borrower nominal income falls over time.
Your confusing risk premium in an individual loan with core interest rates, risk-free loans such as government bonds still carry interest. govt. bonds are not risk free, there is tail risk |
|
|
|
Hi,
I have searched the forums and haven't found a satisfactory discussion, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Question:How do banks get more coins to pay interest rates if no new money is produced?
Further explanation:
Let's say we have 21M bitcoins and a free-market economy based on them. Everyone has some of those bitcoins and are exchanging them with each other for services and goods. Now, if I am a bank, how do I get more money to pay my lenders? I understand that the things you can buy with your coins grows overtime, but how do you get more money itself? If everyone lends to everyone (like kind of what happens today), then we would want the number of coins to grow, or someone would not be able to get enough to pay back, despite being able to purchase more stuff (his intrinsic wealth growing). On a further note, even a 1% interest would be actually compounded by the deflationary trend, making it quite lucrative. Is it possible that negative or zero interest would be lucrative (just to keep your money safe?)
Perhaps my questions are simplistic, but then again so is my knowledge in economics.
Thanks for reading
Borrowers earn coins by providing goods and services to the lenders, which is paid from the interest received. This happens until the debt is fully repaid or partially canceled. Note that a short squeeze can be applied onto the borrower if the lender keeps hold of the interest. The result is that the borrower must scramble to make a repayment or default, in a secured or unsecured way. |
|
|
|
Do you think this is the way to go, or will it be unnecessary bureaucracy? |
|
|
|
Peter Vessenes appears to be the Limited Partner behind Bitcoinica. Tihan has worked hard to keep the identity of the LP secret (There is a shell company in Barbados called the Wendon group) most likely to avoid any liability leaving Bitcoinica customers who had funds there royally screwed. One year later not a single customer has seen their coins returned. And we are talking many tens of thousands of BTC and USD here. I will avoid anything that has his name attached to it like the plague. And yes, that includes the Bitcoin Foundation. Reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=196150Good catch. |
|
|
|
What if government would just stop collecting taxes. Imagine how simpler life would be. No bureaucracy, no vat, way less officials, nobody fighting money laundering, way simpler economy and businesses without traps. In exchange government would simply print as much money as they need and spend for education, health care and everything they wish. Its that simple. What do you think? Not yet The main portion of budget goes in money distribution. Govts. are pretty inefficient at doing this. But until we find a better way they will have a dominant position here. The idea is that technology makes life easier for gov. so they can work with big surpluses to fund communal projects such as infrastructure, education etc. They may be some bad actors, but I genuinely believe the vast majority have shared goals. It's up to us to show how this technology can help society... |
|
|
|
I was wondering that, I'm into Bitcoin since 2012 but didn't actually read it.
I read it once a week. Always get something new. |
|
|
|
I'm still kicking myself for not getting in on it when it launched. I think it has good prospects for long term success.
That being said, it is still an abstract currency, even less backing it than fiat. I like what it's doing, I'm surprised by it's current valuation, and I think it has great potential. But it's far too early to tell. Makes for great poker, though.
All currencies have an abstract component. In fact perhaps the majority of currency is abstract. Bitcoin is a revolution because it has utility based on an NxN matrix, where N is the number of people. Other systems have an NxM matrix, where M is the number of notaries (read banks). The number of notaries is minuscule vs the number of people. So bitcoin can be true money, like cash. And have a network effect 1000s or even millions of times bigger than legacy money. I agree. But I'm a geek. You still have to overcome the perception by rather a lot of rubes morons citizens suckers people that national Fiat is real money. Even Gold has SOME abstraction to it, though it physically exists. Don't get me wrong. I'm in favor of this. I intend to promote it. I just think it's too early to call. Yes I agree. Currency gains trust through track record. Fiat has been around decades to bitcoin's years. There's nothing wrong with trusting fiat. But fiat can be more easily gamed than crypto leading to a black swan where fiat requires a moratorium and bitcoin remains standing. I see bitcoin as more robust than fiat, there doesnt seem to be any event that could derail it, other than the crypto being broken. |
|
|
|
I'm still kicking myself for not getting in on it when it launched. I think it has good prospects for long term success.
That being said, it is still an abstract currency, even less backing it than fiat. I like what it's doing, I'm surprised by it's current valuation, and I think it has great potential. But it's far too early to tell. Makes for great poker, though.
All currencies have an abstract component. In fact perhaps the majority of currency is abstract. Bitcoin is a revolution because it has utility based on an NxN matrix, where N is the number of people. Other systems have an NxM matrix, where M is the number of notaries (read banks). The number of notaries is minuscule vs the number of people. So bitcoin can be true money, like cash. And have a network effect 1000s or even millions of times bigger than legacy money. |
|
|
|
|
it's hard to value and valuations overshoot
i dont think ripple should have a higher total market cap than bitcoin at this point
but there's not much float in circulation so you'll see an exaggerated price until that gets released
|
|
|
|
|
magic internet money
actually james joyce described money as solidified energy, which is my favourite definition of money
bitcoin is *exactly* that
|
|
|
|
There could be any number of things that cause Bitcoin to be unsuccessful in the near or distant future. Will Bitcoin prevail?
unless the crypto breaks bitcoin is safe satoshi seemed to think that was decades away, by which time we'll be living in a new world ... |
|
|
|
From http://www.cnbc.com/id/100774151: But Peter Vessenes, chairman and executive director of the Bitcoin Foundation, was unfazed by the Liberty Reserve crackdown.
"The U.S. put out guidance recently through the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and we've been following up on that guidance and crushing bad actors," he said in an interview with CNBC Asia. "We're seeing a bit of a sweep right now," he said. http://youtu.be/KbjQ1PeAbegYou may not like peter, but it's perhaps more conducive to a conversation to be civil. If by "we", he means The Bitcion Foundation, it would seem to be positioning itself as a kind of bitconi regulatory body in the United States. The question remains as to who determines 'bad' and 'good' actors. It seems that peter wants to do this, by introducing certifications (paid) etc. This is a form of centralization that may not benefit bitcoin in the US, time will tell. A logical conclusion is that people like Satoshi would not be considered legit without paying the foundation, which seems to go against the grain of the original project concepts. I have huge respect for Gavin, but it remains to be seen whether the foundation is going to be positive for bitcoin in the U.S. That said, I do believe bitcoin is currently too U.S. centric, so it may end up being a plus ... |
|
|
|
Yay or Nay?
Illegal we do immediately, unconstitutional takes longer  |
|
|
|
Eventually at most only 21 million coins for 6.8 billion people in the world if it really gets huge.
But don't worry, there are another 6 decimal places that aren't shown, for a total of 8 decimal places internally. It shows 1.00 but internally it's 1.00000000. If there's massive deflation in the future, the software could show more decimal places.
If it gets tiresome working with small numbers, we could change where the display shows the decimal point. Same amount of money, just different convention for where the ","'s and "."'s go. e.g. moving the decimal place 3 places would mean if you had 1.00000 before, now it shows it as 1,000.00.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=44.msg267#msg267seeAlso https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=220322.0The majority of the community is in favor of this.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
