1. So now I have a logical question: why print some amount onto unloaded coins in the first place if you can load them without limitation?
2. What is the point creating a non-denomination coin (so not printed with some amount), if you can load the E-series (they're printed with some amount though) with any amount already?
What I mean: the functionality of empty printed 1/100 and 1/10 coins and non-denomination coin is exactly the same. Am I right? And if so, is it just optical reason (printed amount/not printed amount) what matters?
1. The purpose of the unloaded coins is to allow Denarium to sell coins in the U.S. They cannot sell loaded coins to people in the U.S. because of U.S. regulations. If you are in the U.S. and you want a coin, you buy the unloaded coin and load it yourself. 2. Keep in mind that a different amount can be loaded on the L-series coin, too. |
|
|
|
Your video is basically about inflation. It doesn't really matter what the miners do with their bitcoins. The key is that the number of bitcoins is increasing.
the increase of number of coins is directly correlated with what mienrs will do with them, so it matter, if miners decide to not dump anything then it's pointless to talk about the increase of the numbers of bitcoin, because they are the one that produce those new coins... There is no reason to distinguish miners from other people in the market. When a miner decides to hold or sell their coins, it's just like anyone else deciding to hold or sell their coins, as far as supply and demand are concerned. It should be noted that the sale of bitcoins doesn't remove money from the Bitcoin market as Jason said because the same amount of money is added by the person that buys them. |
|
|
|
What's the point of physical coins? Just something pretty to collect?
Something pretty, valuable, and interesting to collect. Yes. That's all. |
|
|
|
I'm pretty-blah-blah new to bitcoin, especially bitcoin mining. ...
After doing a lot of (i mean A LOT) research about bitcoin mining i still cannot figure it out...
So the conclusion is, i don't really understand what people say about mining ...
If you don't understand it, you should not invest in it. It doesn't get any simpler than that. There are many factors involved, but you might be able to make enough to pay for your cheap electricity now, but to make enough to also pay for the equipment depends primarily on the future difficulty. Do not use that calculator. It does not account for a rising difficulty. Use this one instead: https://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/calculator |
|
|
|
|
I can't find equivalent information for the global monetary base, so I'll stick to U.S. only.
TL;DR: If BTC completely replaced USD today, then each bitcoin would be worth about $278,000, or potentially much less.
The monetary base is dollars issued by the Federal Reserves and is about $4 trillion. Other money supply values include varying degrees of fractional reserve banking. Assuming that Bitcoin is subject to FRB just like the dollar, then switching BTC for USD would mean that the 14.4 million BTC currently in existence would be worth about $4 trillion, and each bitcoin would be worth about $278,000.
However, the price of something depends on supply and demand. In this case "supply" is not the same as "money supply", primarily because velocity is a factor. Assuming that Bitcoin is a more efficient currency than the dollar, then the velocity would be higher, and the supply (as opposed to money supply) would be higher, and the value would be lower.
|
|
|
|
1. You will need a time limit. That is a problem. For what? There is already a block interval of ~10 minutes. That doesn't have to change. In the current system, the first miner to find a hash gets the block and the interval is on average 10 minutes. However, in your system, I assume you need to compare hashes and/or transaction quantities until a particular time is reached and then accept the best. Is it possible to synchronize time in a decentralized system? 2. Who wins, the person with the lowest hash value or the person with the most transactions? In keeping with the current consensus rules, the block with the most transactions should take priority. 3. Or is it the lowest hash value per transaction? That will only encourage miners to fill up blocks with "fake" transactions. No. The idea is not about hashing transactions individually but it is possible for a block to contain only one transaction. It probably happened a few times in the very beginning but it would only ever happen again if Bitcoin dies out. My point was that if the block with the most transactions wins, then a miner will fill the block with "fake" transactions in order to have more transactions than anyone else. Anyway, after reading your proposal again, it seems like you are suggesting that each miner gets to generate one and only one hash. That raises the issue of how to determine whether or not two hashes were produced by the same miner. One of the beauties of Bitcoin, is how it has side-stepped this issue. |
|
|
|
mining doesn't influences the highest price. but influences the lowest, because under an x price the mining costs more than the mined coins.
Please explain how it puts a lower limit on the price. If the cost of mining is higher than the value of the mined coins, what exactly causes the price to rise? How does the cost of mining prevent people from selling for a lower price or encourage people to pay more? ... if the cost of mining increases sufficiently ..., they will simply stop producing. ... ... Well, then producers will have to offer their bitcoin at increasingly higher prices in the market just to break even. ... You have contradicted yourself. First you wrote that if the cost rises, then miners stop mining. Then you wrote that if the cost rises, they continue to mine but they hold the coins, waiting for a higher price. I agree with your first statement, that if costs exceed value, miners will stop mining. But, your second statement assumes that miners are operating as an informal cartel in which they agree to restrict supply of bitcoins in the market. I hardly think this is a realistic assumption. First, mined bitcoins are only a small part of the market. A mining cartel would have very little influence on the price. Second, miners have to pay their bills regardless of what happens to the bitcoin price. Many miners don't have the luxury of sitting on their coins waiting for a higher price. Miners don't control the market, they are controlled by it. It is irrelevant if miners are only a small percentage of the stock of bitcoins, because it is only producers who consistently offer them to the market at all times. oil producers are only a small part of the oil market. wheat farmers are only a small part of the wheat market. And yet marginal cost = marginal product = selling price, always and everywhere. Read an economics text book if this still confuses you (it is hard to wrap your mind around, I know!). I can give you some good recommendations. Your second point point about not sitting on them is precisely why they offer them for sale in the market as they are produced. They are not speculating, they are in the business of producing them and immediately selling them. I never assert that miners hold on to coins waiting for a better price. You can't compare oil and wheat markets with bitcoin markets because oil and wheat are consumed and bitcoins are not. In the bitcoin market, every holder of bitcoins is a producer, not just miners. Thank you for your recommendation, but I am well-versed in economics. I am not disputing, "marginal cost = marginal product = selling price, always and everywhere." I am simply pointing out that selling price determines marginal cost for miners and not the other way around because miners have no more control over prices than anyone else. As to the second point. If the current price is $249 and the miner offers it at $260, they are by definition holding their coins, waiting for a better price. |
|
|
|
|
First, the "source" of the random number is not important here. It takes the same amount of energy regardless of what it is based on.
Beyond that, a few things that need to be worked out:
1. You will need a time limit. That is a problem.
2. Who wins, the person with the lowest hash value or the person with the most transactions?
3. Or is it the lowest hash value per transaction? That will only encourage miners to fill up blocks with "fake" transactions.
|
|
|
|
mining doesn't influences the highest price. but influences the lowest, because under an x price the mining costs more than the mined coins.
Please explain how it puts a lower limit on the price. If the cost of mining is higher than the value of the mined coins, what exactly causes the price to rise? How does the cost of mining prevent people from selling for a lower price or encourage people to pay more? ... if the cost of mining increases sufficiently ..., they will simply stop producing. ... ... Well, then producers will have to offer their bitcoin at increasingly higher prices in the market just to break even. ... You have contradicted yourself. First you wrote that if the cost rises, then miners stop mining. Then you wrote that if the cost rises, they continue to mine but they hold the coins, waiting for a higher price. I agree with your first statement, that if costs exceed value, miners will stop mining. But, your second statement assumes that miners are operating as an informal cartel in which they agree to restrict supply of bitcoins in the market. I hardly think this is a realistic assumption. First, mined bitcoins are only a small part of the market. A mining cartel would have very little influence on the price. Second, miners have to pay their bills regardless of what happens to the bitcoin price. Many miners don't have the luxury of sitting on their coins waiting for a higher price. Miners don't control the market, they are controlled by it. |
|
|
|
|
I like your videos. I have a few comments.
Your video is basically about inflation. It doesn't really matter what the miners do with their bitcoins. The key is that the number of bitcoins is increasing.
Day traders are not relevant. Day-trading is a zero-sum game (ignoring external factors). For every trader that makes money, there is a trader that loses the same amount of money.
|
|
|
|
mining doesn't influences the highest price. but influences the lowest, because under an x price the mining costs more than the mined coins.
Please explain how it puts a lower limit on the price. If the cost of mining is higher than the value of the mined coins, what exactly causes the price to rise? How does the cost of mining prevent people from selling for a lower price or encourage people to pay more? |
|
|
|
Halving will not have any effect on price. There will be 3/4 of all coins in rotation already. It will only have effect on difficulty...
a maximum of 1800 coins will be dumped only per day in comparison with 3600 of today, which is 500k+ less to absorb, how is this not significant? 1800 coins per day out of 100's of thousands of coins traded per day is insignificant, but the inflation rate is reduced from 8% to 4%, and that should have a small long term effect -- perhaps 4%. as i see it a reduction of 50%(from 8 to 4) is equal to an increase(of the price in the long term) of 100% so 4% is not right, unless you think that right now we have a 2% effect on the market.... Does your logic also work when there are nearly 21 million bitcoins and the halving goes from 2 satoshis down to 1 satoshi? When the halving goes from 1 satoshi to 0 satoshis, would the 100% decrease cause a 200% increase or an infinite increase in the price? |
|
|
|
Furio, In your list, can you please note whether the coins are pre-funded, buyer-funded, DIY, or are not wallets. It would be helpful to know these things at a glance. Personally, I'm not interested in DIY coins because they have no resale value once assembled, or non-wallets because they are not really physical bitcoins. Also, here is another for your list: PaperSafe, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1049428.0 It's a buyer-funded paper wallet with a great design and lots of interesting features. |
|
|
|
Halving will not have any effect on price. There will be 3/4 of all coins in rotation already. It will only have effect on difficulty...
a maximum of 1800 coins will be dumped only per day in comparison with 3600 of today, which is 500k+ less to absorb, how is this not significant? 1800 coins per day out of 100's of thousands of coins traded per day is insignificant, but the inflation rate is reduced from 8% to 4%, and that should have a small long term effect -- perhaps 4%. |
|
|
|
It is a stupid article that is based on this one line in an article about fake ids: Typically people are asked to pay between $100 and $200 via pre-paid credit cards, wire transfers or Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
Contrary to the coinyoo article's FUD, the article by the Federal Reserve is relatively positive.Here is the original article published by the Federal Reserve: What Community Bankers Should Know About Virtual CurrenciesSummary: Launched in 2009, Bitcoin is currently the largest and most popular virtual currency. However, many other virtual currencies have emerged over the past several years, such as Litecoin, Dogecoin, and Peercoin. Meanwhile, even more virtual currencies are being developed; one of these is Dash (formerly Darkcoin), .... Another new and specialized virtual currency is DopeCoin, ...
Accordingly, opportunities abound for community banks to provide services to entities engaged in virtual currency activities. Eventually, it is also possible that community banks may find themselves holding virtual currency on their own balance sheets.
Compliance Risk
... The most significant is compliance risk, a subset of legal risk. ...
Reputational Risk
Another important risk for community banks to consider is reputational risk. ...
Credit Risk
How should a community bank respond if a borrower wants to specifically post bitcoins or another virtual currency as collateral for a loan? ... In this case, caution is appropriate. Bankers should carefully weigh the pros and cons of extending any loan secured by bitcoins or other virtual currencies
Operational Risk
... Holding virtual currency presents some operational challenges for a financial institution. ...
Conclusion
... Banks need not turn away this business as a class, but they should consider the risks of each individual customer. ...
|
|
|
|
i know about that. and my issue is not with the amount. i don't like to be forced to pay for something that should be free in the first place...
You don't think the people that make Multibit deserve to be compensated for their work? Imagine your boss saying to you, "the work you do should be free, so don't expect me to pay you." |
|
|
|
- Fractional Reserve Banking
...
Fractional Reserve Banking is possible with Bitcoin and I think it is even a likely outcome. Your explanation is wrong. - Financial Control
Another problem becoming more noticeable with the current financial system is your complete lack of control over funds. There are so many different financial instruments available to choose from, but if you take a step back you’ll realize that none of them offer you complete control or unlimited access. Whether it’s a Gold ETF, government issued bond, stock in a corporation, or even numbers on a screen representing your bank balance, it’s not truly under your control. As we saw with Cyprus many depositors had their money absconded or as we’re currently seeing with Greece the banks are issuing capital controls and limiting ATM withdrawals down to $60 per day. When the system is running smoothly you don’t think about these things much, but when there’s a crisis it becomes painfully obvious that you have zero control over your financial outcome.
The examples you gave (gold ETF, bonds, ...) are unrelated to your ability to control your own bitcoins. - Infrastructure Costs
...
A Bitcoin-based financial system will not be free. The costs of the infrastructure will be equivalent. It might even be more. |
|
|
|
|
Worthless article. It basically says nothing beyond the paragraph above. Don't bother.
|
|
|
|
|
I have donated [a large amount of] BTC to Wikileaks, [a small amount of] BTC to Ross Ulbricht's defense fund, and [a small amount of] BTC to Burt Wagner's defense fund (in today's BTC).
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
