Bitcoin Forum
September 20, 2019, 03:11:27 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Grand Unified Monetary Theory  (Read 3474 times)
Etlase2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798
Merit: 1000


View Profile
October 06, 2012, 09:21:33 PM
 #21

Having "intrinsic" value (which basically just implies that money is a commodity rather than fiat) was another one of the "prices" we had to pay to eliminate counter-party risk, but Bitcoin manages to eliminate it without paying that price.

The intrinsic value of gold doesn't "cost" you anything to use it as currency, it's included in the value in trade. If you want to talk about the cost of mining it, you can hardly disassociate that from bitcoin. And if you imply government is a counter-party to every transaction with fiat, surely the "early adopters" are as well.

1568992287
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1568992287

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1568992287
Reply with quote  #2

1568992287
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Roger_Murdock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 342
Merit: 250



View Profile
October 06, 2012, 11:30:56 PM
 #22

Having "intrinsic" value (which basically just implies that money is a commodity rather than fiat) was another one of the "prices" we had to pay to eliminate counter-party risk, but Bitcoin manages to eliminate it without paying that price.

The intrinsic value of gold doesn't "cost" you anything to use it as currency, it's included in the value in trade. If you want to talk about the cost of mining it, you can hardly disassociate that from bitcoin. And if you imply government is a counter-party to every transaction with fiat, surely the "early adopters" are as well.

I mean that it's a "cost" in the sense that you traditionally had to use something with intrinsic value (i.e. a commodity) in order to guarantee scarcity despite the fact that the commodity might lack other features that make for a good money. I'm not sure what you mean about "early adopters" creating counter-party risk.  If you accept fiat in exchange for goods and services, you have to worry about the issuer cranking up the printing presses (thereby siphoning value away from your money).  If you accept Bitcoins, you don't have to worry about "early adopters" just giving themselves more coins because they can't do that.
Etlase2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798
Merit: 1000


View Profile
October 06, 2012, 11:44:11 PM
 #23

I mean that it's a "cost" in the sense that you traditionally had to use something with intrinsic value (i.e. a commodity) in order to guarantee scarcity despite the fact that the commodity might lack other features that make for a good money.

Ah, that is much more clear then and I agree with you.

Quote
I'm not sure what you mean about "early adopters" creating counter-party risk.  If you accept fiat in exchange for goods and services, you have to worry about the issuer cranking up the printing presses (thereby siphoning value away from your money).  If you accept Bitcoins, you don't have to worry about "early adopters" just giving themselves more coins because they can't do that.

You do have to worry about them crashing the market and dissolving any idea of bitcoin actually being a store of wealth though. The end result is no different from cranking up the printing presses. And at least politicians are somewhat accountable for monetary problems--admittedly to a very small degree--but bitcoin users are accountable to no one.

Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 1000


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
October 07, 2012, 05:44:08 PM
 #24


He WAS indeed talking about practicality and in his eyes these big coins were bad money as they would not flow easily through society.
It has nothing specific to do with theft, it applies to all uses of the currency.


IMO, these stones were not the currency, it was the knowledge of who owns them that is the currency. Not really much different than gold-backed notes (which do, indeed have their own issues).

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 1000


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
October 07, 2012, 05:49:01 PM
 #25


Gold also has an intrinsic value. You can use it to make jewelry or electronics.

I can make jewelry from macaroni too.

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
BobbyJo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 358
Merit: 250



View Profile WWW
October 07, 2012, 06:28:26 PM
 #26

Golds value does not stem from how useful it is.  It comes from the confidence people have in it.  This is why in a crisis the value of Gold shoots up!

Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 1000


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
October 09, 2012, 04:20:56 PM
 #27

Golds value does not stem from how useful it is.  It comes from the confidence people have in it.  This is why in a crisis the value of Gold shoots up!

Just because gold doesn't have much intrinsic value doesn't mean it doesn't have value as a fairly stable storage of wealth. Of course, if there's a bubble (and I believe there is) and it bursts pretty badly, all bets are off.

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
BobbyJo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 358
Merit: 250



View Profile WWW
October 10, 2012, 08:39:11 PM
 #28

That depends.  Bubble or no bubble, Gold is internationally recognised as a safe haven when the economy tanks and its tanking right now as bad if not worse than the thirtys, so I dont think youll see a serious drop in the gold price (long term) for the next 5-10 years!!

mobodick
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840
Merit: 1000



View Profile
October 11, 2012, 04:01:15 PM
 #29


He WAS indeed talking about practicality and in his eyes these big coins were bad money as they would not flow easily through society.
It has nothing specific to do with theft, it applies to all uses of the currency.


IMO, these stones were not the currency, it was the knowledge of who owns them that is the currency. Not really much different than gold-backed notes (which do, indeed have their own issues).

Well, if it was the knowledge of the possession that was the currency then that makes the currency super portable and thus practical.
So that would be exactly what he ment by portability. Stones would be impractical to use as a currency and would prevent it from being used widely in everyday life.
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 1000


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
October 11, 2012, 04:32:26 PM
 #30


Well, if it was the knowledge of the possession that was the currency then that makes the currency super portable and thus practical.
So that would be exactly what he ment by portability. Stones would be impractical to use as a currency and would prevent it from being used widely in everyday life.


Yes. It was my understanding that the posting of the picture of the stone coins was made as a counter to the portability requirement. The stones themselves were red-herrings (which actually would possibly be portable enough to be used as currency but would probably violate the previously undisclosed "must not smell of fish" requirement).

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
BitcoinNational
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1008


Join The Blockchain Revolution In Logistics


View Profile
October 28, 2012, 06:01:07 AM
Last edit: October 28, 2012, 06:46:07 AM by BitcoinNational
 #31

    Grand Unified Monetary Theory? That would be the essence of money:
    Money is information. That's all it is. Who owes what to whom.

    ARISTOT-cratic MONEY

    • Durability - metal or info store Value over time, data integretity over time
    • Portability - REGISTRY transport, ONLINE transfer
    • Divisibility - fractional base unit

    • Protection against market failure -  there is nosuch thing, trust/faith/belief that market is True & Fair & Transparent
    • Intrinsic Value - there is nosuch thing, value is set at market spot discovery
    • Protection against loss- cross investments/hedge
    • Protection against theft - crypto encoded
    • Ease of exchange (liquidity) - market goods /money changers /security options

    Quote

    The 21 million Bitcoins can currently be divided into 2.1 quadrillion Satoshis, and theoretically near-infinitely.
    • 21,xxx,xxx Bitcoins
    1==$11
    • 21x,xxx,xxx dimeBitcoins
    2==$1.10
    • 2,1xx,,xxx,xxx centBitcoins
    3==$0.11
    • 21,xxx,xxx,xxx microBitcoins
    4==$0.01 ... 3 microBitcoins per EARTHLING
    • 21x,xxx,xxx,xxx
    5==$0.001 ... 30 microBitcoins per EARTHLING
    • 2,1xx,xxx,xxx,xxx
    6==$0.0001 ... 300 microBitcoins per EARTHLING
    • 21,xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx 100,000mB/BTC
    7==$0.000.01 ... 3000 microBitcoins per EARTHLING
    • 21x,xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx million/BTC
    8==$0.000.001 ... 30000 microBitcoins per EARTHLING
    • 2,1xx,xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx 10million/BTC
    9==$0.000.000.1 ... 300,000 Satoshis?? per EARTHLING ... translation ... 3000.00 mean balance // 100.00 per day $FLOW

    Protection against counterfeit
    • As a 128-bit ECDSA key pair, a Bitcoin key is nearly impossible to counterfeit; and this protection can be extended if this ever changes.


    Protection against accounting failure
    • The Bitcoin network is the largest supercomputer in existence, and would require either 51% control of this network, or extensive, coordinated internet failure to break.


    [/list]

                    ▄██▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
               ▄████▄▄▄▄▄██████████████▄
             ▄████████████████▄▄▄███████
           ▄█████████████████████████████
         ▄████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀███████████████▄
       ▄████████▀█▀███▀        ███████████
     ▄████████▀███             ███████████
    ▄███████▀████                ██████████▄
    ███████████▀                  ██████████
     ██████▄████                   ██████▄███
      ██████▄████                 ▄█████████
       ██████▄████              ▄██████████
        ██████▄█████▄▄▄▄▄     ▄████████▀
         ██████▄████████████▄████████▀█▀██▀
          ██████████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████▀█▀██▀
           ██████████████████████▀█▀█▀
             ▀▀▀▀▀▀███████████▀▀▀▀
                          ▀██▀▀
    ─────────────────
    Revolutionized.  ──


    █████████████████████████
    ██ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██
    ██ █████████████▀█████ ██
    ██ ███ ▀█████▀      ▀█ ██
    ██ ███     ▀▀      ▐██ ██
    ██ ███▌            ███ ██
    ██ ████▌          ▄███ ██
    ██ ██████       ▄█████ ██
    ██ ████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████ ██
    ██ ███████████████████ ██
    ██▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██
    ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀





    █████████████████████████
    ██ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██
    ██ ████████████▀▀▀████ ██
    ██ ████████▀▀     ████ ██
    ██ █████▀    ▄▀  ▐████ ██
    ██ ██▀     ▄▀    ▐████ ██
    ██ ████▄▄ █▀     █████ ██
    ██ ██████ ▄▄█   ▐█████ ██
    ██ ████████████ ██████ ██
    ██ ███████████████████ ██
    ██▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██
    ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
    .WHITEPAPER.
    ANN Thread
    Reddit

    █████
    ██
    ██ █
    ██ █
    ██ █
       █

      ─────────────  Join
    SMARC token ICO

    █████
       ██
     █ ██
     █ ██
     █ ██
     █
    Richy_T
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1344
    Merit: 1000


    1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


    View Profile
    October 28, 2012, 02:50:57 PM
    Last edit: October 28, 2012, 03:03:46 PM by Richy_T
     #32

    • Divisibility - fractional base unit

    This one makes no sense to me. You just define the base unit as the minimal fractional base unit (so the cent instead of the dollar etc). If your currency is infinitely sub-divisible then it's pretty much a null statement.

    In short, your currency is either infinitely divisible or it's not.

    1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
    mobodick
    Hero Member
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 840
    Merit: 1000



    View Profile
    October 28, 2012, 04:37:59 PM
     #33

    • Divisibility - fractional base unit

    This one makes no sense to me. You just define the base unit as the minimal fractional base unit (so the cent instead of the dollar etc). If your currency is infinitely sub-divisible then it's pretty much a null statement.

    In short, your currency is either infinitely divisible or it's not.

    You keep forgetting that these rules are about practicality.
    Bitcoin is far more finely dividable than any currency ever in existance.
    There is no requirement for divisibility beyond usability.
    Richy_T
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1344
    Merit: 1000


    1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


    View Profile
    October 28, 2012, 06:52:49 PM
     #34

    • Divisibility - fractional base unit

    This one makes no sense to me. You just define the base unit as the minimal fractional base unit (so the cent instead of the dollar etc). If your currency is infinitely sub-divisible then it's pretty much a null statement.

    In short, your currency is either infinitely divisible or it's not.

    You keep forgetting that these rules are about practicality.
    Bitcoin is far more finely dividable than any currency ever in existance.
    There is no requirement for divisibility beyond usability.


    It's probably more about the wording than the implementation. "Fractional base unit" seems to imply things that are irrelevant to the point. I get the idea, I just think it should be worded differently.

    Let's say for a second that The Satoshi was the base unit and not the BTC and that the bitcoin protocol was immutable such that it could not be more finely divided. The Satoshi is still such a small unit (currently) that it would be a useful currency. Alternately, let's say the dollar deflated massively (lol) such that a dollar would buy you a mansion. There is still the fractional base unit of a cent but what could you use to buy a loaf of bread?

    The requirement should probably be "Fine gradations of value" or something similar.

    1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
    mobodick
    Hero Member
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 840
    Merit: 1000



    View Profile
    October 28, 2012, 07:39:00 PM
     #35

    • Divisibility - fractional base unit

    This one makes no sense to me. You just define the base unit as the minimal fractional base unit (so the cent instead of the dollar etc). If your currency is infinitely sub-divisible then it's pretty much a null statement.

    In short, your currency is either infinitely divisible or it's not.

    You keep forgetting that these rules are about practicality.
    Bitcoin is far more finely dividable than any currency ever in existance.
    There is no requirement for divisibility beyond usability.


    It's probably more about the wording than the implementation. "Fractional base unit" seems to imply things that are irrelevant to the point. I get the idea, I just think it should be worded differently.

    Let's say for a second that The Satoshi was the base unit and not the BTC and that the bitcoin protocol was immutable such that it could not be more finely divided. The Satoshi is still such a small unit (currently) that it would be a useful currency. Alternately, let's say the dollar deflated massively (lol) such that a dollar would buy you a mansion. There is still the fractional base unit of a cent but what could you use to buy a loaf of bread?

    The requirement should probably be "Fine gradations of value" or something similar.
    Well, you can divide a cent into still smaller units.
    And in fact this has often happened in the past.
    The only requirement is that it is sufficiently divisable to be usefull.
    You should see the word 'divisable' from your own point of view. Is the currency divisable enough for you to use it in the current economy.
    It is not nessesary that it is finely grained (like bitcoin).
    Richy_T
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1344
    Merit: 1000


    1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


    View Profile
    October 28, 2012, 09:06:52 PM
     #36


    Well, you can divide a cent into still smaller units.
    And in fact this has often happened in the past.
    The only requirement is that it is sufficiently divisable to be usefull.
    You should see the word 'divisable' from your own point of view. Is the currency divisable enough for you to use it in the current economy.
    It is not nessesary that it is finely grained (like bitcoin).

    Sure. I guess I'm just hung up of "fractional base unit".

    1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
    Pages: « 1 [2]  All
      Print  
     
    Jump to:  

    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!