Bitcoin Forum
October 01, 2016, 06:54:19 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.0 (New!) [Torrent]. Make sure you verify it.
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 [42] 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 ... 368 »
821  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BTC less efficient than Visa on: August 13, 2013, 11:04:06 PM
Last week somebody was saying they thought bitcoin is the "most efficient" way to pay, so I crunched some numbers to find out. Summary: it is not.

Discuss.

Your analysis is flawed.  The most "efficient" way to pay has nothing at all to do with the power consumption, but everything to do with the costs of using the system to the consumer doing the paying.  In this context, "efficient" means "cost effective".  There is no doubt at all that Bitcoin is orders of magnitude lower in system costs for the end user than Visa.  I don't even need to demostrate that one.  Bitcoin is also significantly lower than the same metric applied to paper currencies traded in hand, but that comparision needs a bit more explaination.

While bitcoin's total energy consumption seems high, it's also relatively easy to get a pretty reliable estimate of what the system costs to run.  The total costs of running a paper currency system are more difficult to estimate, in part, because so many of those costs are obscured from the users.  Most are paid for by inflation and/or taxes, so users don't bear those burdens anyway; some such costs include (but are not limited to) The costs of manufacturing the paper and printing the currency itself.  The costs of the beauracy required to administer the currency & regulate the banks.  The cost of enforcement of currency related crimes (i.e. counterfitting) that would otherwise be irrelevent under a cryptocurrency, plus all the associated court costs, prison costs, attorneys, and social costs of prosecution; and so on.  And to that, the costs of the people involved in the handling of said currencies (outside of the beauracy); for example, cashiers and managers who must be trusted with such funds and the labor time required to properly manage such funds for every retail store, compounded to every retail businees in the country with a cash machine.  Then there are the armored truck companies, banks and such institutuions that exist for the sole purpose of accumulating, protecting and accounting for other people's money.

And then account for the costs of heating and air conditioning the buildings all those institutions must maintain in order to comfortablely house and employ all those bankers.

And I haven't even touched on the transaction costs that consumers commonly bear directly; such as the gas and time required to travel to a bank on a regular basis to conduct their personal financial business, nor the costs and risks involved in distance commerce using paper based currencies, such as mail order scams or online scams.

There is no such thing as a free lunch, so no matter how the costs of any paper currency are officially paid for, the burden must eventually fall upon the consumers.  The finance industry in the US is now one of the largest industries recorded in the GDP, and by far the largest that does not actually produce a tangible product or offer a free market service of it's own.  If you take the slice of the GDP that is attributed to the finance industry, and that is how much the system costs overall.  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/15/financial-sector-economy_n_1151058.html

Divide whatever number you decide upon there by the current number of American households, and you come up with the appproximate cost of the system for each household per year.  Not exact, mind you, because some people end up bearing more of the burden than others due to the high externalities of the system (by design), but it's a pretty good number since most of the burden falls upon the middle class anyway.  Once you've done that calculation to your own satisfaction, do an estimate concerning how many individual transactions that would actually be per year per household, right down to the candy bar at the corner store for little Jimmey.  That's going to be a pretty high number; but even assuming that all such transactions remained individual, near-time fee paying transactions on the blockchain (an unlikely assumption, but the worst case scenario for our Bitcoin) and times the current minimum fee.  (what is it now, roughly half a cent, right?)  See for yourself which would be cheaper for you individually, and for society collectively.
822  Economy / Services / Re: Bitcoin supported Roku channel on: August 04, 2013, 12:57:55 AM
If any of you guys, who are reading this post without commenting, actually do pursue anything along these lines, please let me know.
823  Economy / Services / Bitcoin supported Roku channel on: August 03, 2013, 10:35:08 PM
I've recently moved, and have moved just beyond the current build-out range of the cable company.  I hate sat tv, sucks during a storm, which is one of the only times I watch tv.  Plus it's expensive.  I know that I need broadband Internet, for my homeschooled kids if nothing else.  So I manage to get broadband out there, to be installed this Friday.  Still, my wife complains that the smallest ones need distractions when the older kids are supposed to be studying.  We've been without tv since the move, and their all a bit ancy.  (personally, I don't really watch much tv anymore) So I do some research, and settle upon a Roku 3.  I do some more research, and discover that the devices support "private channels" that anyone can set up without prior approval from Roku, so long as they have a developer's account and a streaming server to use.  (Roku doesn't actually provide any content for the devices, all content is provided by others)  While many of these private channels are ad supported, or simply fly-by-night projects that die once the developer loses interest; my idea was that of a subscription model, paid for only in bitcoins.  If some talented coders here could put together a "Bitcoin Network" for the Roku, using legally accessible content (I read about one guy that created an unofficial Kahn Academy channel, since all of the Kahn Academy videos are copyleft), the developer could actually make a living maintaining the channel.  Or more than one developer in competition could actually make for some quality programming under the right conditions.  Alternatively, bitcoin supported ads such as Project Wonderful might be another model worth persuing.  Since I don't intend to do this myself, I grant this idea to the forum membership.  If you've got skills, and plenty of freetime, (unemployed coder, perhaps?) see if you can carve yourself out a real income doing this.  If nothing else, I'd like to know if it's possible to actually earn a living providing bitcoin accessible content.  That alone would be worth an article in Bitcoin Mag.
824  Economy / Goods / Re: [WTS] Honey Caramels on: August 02, 2013, 09:12:11 PM

Hah, that's cool! I had no idea this actually existed of 14,13, and a 10 year old. That's pretty awesome.

On the Internet, nobody knows that you're a teenaged entrepreneur!
825  Economy / Economics / Re: Peter Schiff on Bitcoin on: July 23, 2013, 02:50:57 AM
Mish is on the latest Gold Money podcast and he talks about bitcoin towards the end.  He's just like Peter.

Mish is a complete fraud.

Go search the siliconinvestor archives.  You will find posts where he talks about how hard he has to work as an engineer and what a scam it is to be an investment advisor.  That rapidly develops to him creating his own investment company.  You do the math.

He's a fraud because he's honest about it?  Rich Mayberry is pretty darn honest about it also, investing (and advising same) is a crapload easier than teaching middle schoolers economics.  Why the hell do you think that Schiff does it?  Moral obligations?
826  Economy / Economics / Re: Peter Schiff on Bitcoin on: July 20, 2013, 07:58:17 PM
Quote
I'm surprised Peter Schiff still has so many followers, considering there was no hyperinflation in 2012 or 2013, no 5000 or 10000$ gold that he predicted, .. Actually gold and silver both lost a lot of value compared to FIAT, so I don't see him as anything else but a paid p&d troll for hyping up gold price.  

It's true, I think he did get a bit ahead of himself on this one, the problem is that he was trying to predict an exact price movement and that's extremely difficult to do, he's been entirely right about what has been happening in general though, but I think even he underestimated just how far the central banks are willing to go to keep their system running.

Well, Schiff is predominately an Austrian economist, but they don't always see things the same way either.  I've been following the predictions and blogs of both him & Mish for many years, approaching a decade now.  While Schiff has had some misses, Mish has been a freaking oracle.  I know for a fact that Mish has been aware of bitcoin for a number of years, because I pointed it out to him myself, but his first impression was just like mine, very skeptical.  I don't believe that he has ever commented on bitcoin.
827  Economy / Economics / Re: The end is near on: July 19, 2013, 09:17:06 PM
Quote
Selfsufficient communities within Dunbar's Number are always nuclear, related by blood.


While that is generally true, it's not absolutely true.  There have been some very real 'intentional communites' that have come together with only a common idea, and did fine.  Still, your opinion seems valid here, as any community with any staying power is certain to develop said blood relations over time, regardless of how they start out.

Quote

But the civilizing of the homines sapientes destroyed these nuclear communities and replaced them with a Society (organised violence). To rebuild them would be a long, painfull process. Even in this forum you'll find collectivists only: trade-collectivists (homo oeconomicus), education-collectivists, progress-collectivists, capital-collectivists etc., but zero people who are interested in freedom and selfsufficiency.

Once again, you have a strange notion of both "society" and of "collectivists", IMHO.
828  Economy / Economics / Re: The end is near on: July 19, 2013, 08:09:27 PM

The other question that comes to mind.  Why is Z. alone in this?  Isn't there likely a Dunbar number of folks that would join?  Why all the waiting and complaining?  If it is right and better, make it so, and others will recognize that.

There certainly is, but they don't hang around a digital currency forum.
829  Economy / Goods / Re: [WTS] Honey Caramels on: July 07, 2013, 10:26:46 PM
Ordered a 1/4 lb bag of Raspberry Honey Caramels (with my scrap PayPal cash). Smiley Will be ordering more with Bitcoin if it is good!

Oh, they're good.  Downright addictive.

Unless, of course, you're allergic to raspberries.
830  Economy / Economics / Re: The end is near on: July 05, 2013, 04:00:11 AM
Zarathustra is a true believer.  He doesn't come here and make his statements because he needs to convince himself, he comes here because he thinks it's his duty to convince you.  I recommend use of the ignore button to the left.

Yes, that's the difference. Moonshadow is somebody who believes that he is writing to convince himself instead of others.
So funny.

Not quite, I just don't consider it my duty to convince you or anyone else of my position.

Not entirely incorrect, however.  I'm an INTP, and as such I'm ever capable of reassessing my position based on new information, and suffer little due to cognative dissonance.  As such, an INTP can't remain so flexible unless there is some degree of doubt in the validity of his/her position, and I'm no exception.  I have no problem admitting that I don't consider myself perfect, in thought or action.  I've changed my position on some things over the course of my adult life, including my position on economic theories.  That's why I'm an Austrian now, I used to be much more of a classic monetarist.  Although I can't recall holding positions similar to your own at any point in life.
831  Economy / Economics / Re: The end is near on: July 05, 2013, 03:50:38 AM
And there is no harm, or effect, of beliefs like his.

That is far from true, unfortunately.
832  Economy / Economics / Re: The end is near on: July 04, 2013, 01:59:32 PM
Zarathustra is a true believer.  He doesn't come here and make his statements because he needs to convince himself, he comes here because he thinks it's his duty to convince you.  I recommend use of the ignore button to the left.
833  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Capitalism. on: July 01, 2013, 10:44:28 PM
This has devolved into childish fight.  I've had enough of it.  This thread is now locked.

BTW, Crumbs...

You're a dick, and I've not yet seen another side of you.  If you have any redeeming merit, start clinging to that side of yourself.
834  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Capitalism. on: June 29, 2013, 01:17:56 PM
[...]
I know it's possible to disagree with something and still not interfere. However, to me it seems like he's preaching:
"hands-off policy" -- the car is designed to drive itself so you should never touch the steering wheel.
while really practising:
"hands-off approach" -- if you want a stretched spring to recoil back, stop stretching it and let go for now.

^^^Too subtle.  You're arguing against a guy who doesn't understand springs.


Just because you say it, or read it somewhere on the Internet, or listen to some guy who said it in some cute way, doesn't make it so.

I'm finished arguing with idiots about this.  I'm just wasting my time.
835  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Capitalism. on: June 28, 2013, 08:43:14 PM


Since exponential population growth necessitates matching or better economic growth, which, you point out, "can not be sustained indefinitely," either all economic approaches are doomed, or your assumption of continued population growth is bad.  Are you prophesying doom or Huh


Again, you fail.  I said nothing about exponetial population growth.  While that might happen if we manage to get off this rock, it certainly doesn't have to happen.  The natural world all has limits, and humanity isn't really an exception.  If that is "doom" in your eyes, then doom it may be.  But I'm not going to cry over what cannot be avoided, and if we can avoid it (by getting of this rock) nor will I be disappointed to be wrong.

Quote
Quote
To myself, and in this context, 'stable' would mean that the natural 'forces' that result in the business cycle be left alone, so that the magnitude of those oscillations don't have the chance to compound.

What, exactly, are you basing this on?  Other than the colorful allusion to "compounding" oscillations?  As most of us who've driven a car know, bad shock absorbers (oscillation dampers) make for a lousy ride.  Undamped oscillations are typically disastrous.  Armies, when walking on bridges, are made to break march to prevent bridge collapses.  Unchecked parasitic oscillations in electronics cause ringing, or worse, turn entire circuits into oscillators.  Bad model to pick. Smiley


And ham radio operators could never do what they do without a 'stable' oscillation, and a car engine would never go anywhere without it's 'stable' cycles.  An economy is much better compared to a machine in operation than a static construction such as a bridge.

And shock absorbers are not oscillation dampers.  Bumps in the road aren;t oscillations, they don't have a predictable pattern.  Talk about your bad model.

Quote

Quote
And that is what I mean by the 'right' economy.  The one that develops naturally from the people and conditions that are present and develop in the future, without influence of well intended politicos and self-interested powers.  It would be possible for some of those oscillations to be particularly harmful, even to the point of severe social strife, but over the truely long term, such oscillations (by definition) balance out.

See above.

Edit:  "Well-intentioned politicos"?  Really?  I always assumed that politicians were, at least, given ulterior motives, but you feel that they're just ... simpleminded?  Not quite up to the mile-high bar set by the esteemed politicos of this forum? Smiley


I was giving them the enefit of the doubt, because most certainly some of them are basicly 'simple minded' after a fashion, and are often taken advantage of by others.  It's actually an established rule of politics, often called the rule of the Baptists & Bootleggers.  Feel free to look that one up.
836  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Capitalism. on: June 28, 2013, 08:32:16 PM
 No matter how smart Ben may be, which no doubt is smarter than any of us, he doesn't merit that level of authority.

You give him and his like too much credit.  While there is a certain kind of 'smarts' required to obtain and maintain these positions of power, there are many different kinds of 'smarts'.  The kind of 'smart' required to succeed in a social position of power (i.e. politics) is decidedly distinct to the kind of smarts required to analyse a complex economy.  The latter kind of smarts is both rare and humbling, as the end result is usually that, no matter how well you did in school nor how many times your mother told you were so smart, you're not smart enough and you can't be.  And that is the fundamental lesson not taught in economics courses.  Those classes teach the students methods of simplyfying the overal picture, in such a manner as to be able to approximate the massive issue.  But just like chaos theory implies that the choice of direction a butteryfly may take can impact the course of a typhoon halfway around the world and 6 months later, the long tail of data in the economy cannot be rounded off and accurately approximate such a huge and dynamic system for any real timescale.  Oftentimes, the long tail of data isn't even available for analysis.  How do you know what deals that the recycler in Africa makes, if he is not willing to tell you the truth?  What if you never ask?
837  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin is clearly degenerating into anarchy on: June 28, 2013, 06:05:01 PM
Degenerating?

Bitcoin was designed to be a tool for 'anarchy'.  Your choice of words exposes your bias.

EDIT:  Oviously, this is a trolling post thread, intended to evoke a response.  It obviously worked.  Well played.
838  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Capitalism. on: June 28, 2013, 06:01:26 PM

The problem which the Anarchocapitalists is that they want two systems which mutually exclude each other: Anarchy and a progressively increasing economy.


I don't want a progressively increasing economy.  I want the right economy.

OK, let's have a quick look at what that might entail. Say you want a 'stable' economy,

You've already failed the test.

You're obviously not an engineer.
In general terms stable just means feedback loops don't cause exponential growth, decay, or oscillation. Try again, Moon (obviously-a-liberal-arts-major) Shadow Wink

I'm pretty sure you're well aware you're misrepresenting my educational background.

The problem with "stable" is that it is a subjective valuation.  All economies oscillate, it's called the business cycle.  Unfortuantely, there are many people who will make well intended, but ill advised, attempts to suppress that oscillation.  The result of which is that 'forces' become pent up, and create greater havoc when they are finally released 'out of phase'.  Still other people stand to make huge profits from the timing of changes in teh business cycle, and have a perverse incentive to encourage the realses of such 'forces' on their own timescales, thus making things even worse for everyone else.  George Soros famously made an even bigger fortune doing exactly this to England.  To most poeople, 'stable' would mean that an economy grows at or slightly better than the population rate.  By better, most people would say somthing around 2% APR.  The problem is that even 2% annually is an exponential growth rate, and cannot continue forever.  By definition, that which is not sustainable cannot continue indefinately, no matter the best wishes of  anyone.  To myself, and in this context, 'stable' would mean that the natural 'forces' that result in the business cycle be left alone, so that the magnitude of those oscillations don't have the chance to compound.

And that is what I mean by the 'right' economy.  The one that develops naturally from the people and conditions that are present and develop in the future, without influence of well intended politicos and self-interested powers.  It would be possible for some of those oscillations to be particularly harmful, even to the point of severe social strife, but over the truely long term, such oscillations (by definition) balance out.
839  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Capitalism. on: June 28, 2013, 04:39:31 PM

The problem which the Anarchocapitalists is that they want two systems which mutually exclude each other: Anarchy and a progressively increasing economy.


I don't want a progressively increasing economy.  I want the right economy.

OK, let's have a quick look at what that might entail. Say you want a 'stable' economy,

You've already failed the test.
840  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Capitalism. on: June 28, 2013, 04:29:01 PM

The problem which the Anarchocapitalists is that they want two systems which mutually exclude each other: Anarchy and a progressively increasing economy.


I don't want a progressively increasing economy.  I want the right economy.  The best way to have that is to take a 'hands off' approach, because politicos really don't know as much as they think they do.


This makes some sense.  If trade is mutually beneficial, the economy ought to increase.  When it isn't it decreases.  Over time this also includes the non-trading third party that share the environment, which if harmed decreases the economy too, yes?


If by that, you mean real ecological damage, than yes.  In such a case, such 'externalities' do, indeed, negatively effect an economy of any nature or size.  The cavet here is that not all claims of environmental harm are, in fact, harmful.  Burning firewood, for example, isn't actually net harmful, even if human beings in the near environmental space may find it uncomfortable, or even personally harmful.  Inasmuch as fossil fuels are burned for energy, they are not necesarily harmful either.  Burned 'clean' such actions only produce CO2, which itself shouldn't rationally be considered a pollutant.  It's a greenhouse gas, yes, but it's also so difuse in the atmostsphere that it's actuall net contribution to global climate changes is highly debatable on scientific grounds.  But that is a huge tangent.

Quote

 It doesn't seem to necessitate an unsustainable growth or even any growth, and the growth is just a measure of the participant's good faith dealing.

Perhaps the political class needs it to increase to win elections and so may sacrifice long term for the term of the next election important to them.

He can be taught!

"War is the health of the state."
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 [42] 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 ... 368 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!