The economic model behind Bitcoin is flawed

[deisik]

The problem with current economic system is that it is "system of debt". I system of debt one of the two parties is always the slave. Is is an architecture of money where you have no control.
An architecture of money where every interaction is mediated by a third party that has absolute control over your money.
Bitcoin is fundamentally different because in bitcoin system, you don't own anyone anything, and no one owes you anything

Okay, I have a coin, say a quarter (25 cents). Whom do I owe exactly and what? Who is a slave of whom?

[1715365787]

1715365787

[1715365787]

1715365787

[1715365787]

1715365787

[criptix]

OP is a wannabe economic expert who needs to earn 10 cent per post.
We gotta believe his words that he cant backup with arguments and facts.

You are hero member and dont even know why bitcoin has intrinsic value.

For gods sake delete your account.

[USB-S]

However bitcoin truly isn't perfect, but what is? You could nitpick about anything and everything, the only thing bitcoin is in my opinion a better and superior alternative to fiat.

As I stated in my opening post, the Bitcoin economic (monetary) model itself is flawed. Fiat money is damaged heavily by people who use and abuse it, but as a model it is still superior to that of Bitcoin and closer in its application to the abstract idea, or concept, of money as such. In fact, the Bitcoin monetary model is anachronistic economically...

It is not a step ahead, it is two steps back actually

How is that so? The idea of a global exchange token, which is scarce and can be moved around freely within it's network? Or the part that it's capped and this idea alone lures in new adopters to this massive ponzi? Or the concept of having a fundamentals set in stone(like the US amendments)?

I have already explained it earlier. The Bitcoin economic model is based on the concept of money as a store of value. But without functioning as a means of payment (i.e. mediating trade in goods), it cannot reach the goal of being money, since the function of preserving value is secondary to this primary function. But given that it has no value of its own (like gold, homes, etc), it is technically no more than a kind of Ponzi...

I have specifically emphasized that its model is economically decrepit and obsolete, but that part you decided to omit

However Rai stone stones were used as a viable payment on the island of yap, If they achieved to make that happen, then why should bitcoin be worse off doing the same thing? I myself bough a steam game recently with bitcoins. Functions just like a better than a credit card.

However we need to change the consensus about the store of value, by making it more lucrative to merchants and consumers, which will most likely happen in the future. I'd just give it more time.

[deisik]

I have already explained it earlier. The Bitcoin economic model is based on the concept of money as a store of value. But without functioning as a means of payment (i.e. mediating trade in goods), it cannot reach the goal of being money, since the function of preserving value is secondary to this primary function. But given that it has no value of its own (like gold, homes, etc), it is technically no more than a kind of Ponzi...

I have specifically emphasized that its model is economically decrepit and obsolete, but that part you decided to omit

However Rai stone stones were used as a viable payment on the island of yap, If they achieved to make that happen, then why should bitcoin be worse off doing the same thing? I myself bough a steam game recently with bitcoins. Functions just like a better than a credit card

And so what? I don't quite understand what you are trying to say. I guess there should be nothing either wrong or bad if Bitcoin did the same thing, i.e. became a means of payment like Rai stones or Cypraea shells. The main issue is it doesn't, and it cannot be called money until it does (on a commercial scale). A copy of a game you pay for with Bitcoin costs the developer nothing (the game is already there)...

Try to buy a new car from a car-maker for Bitcoin

[USB-S]

I have already explained it earlier. The Bitcoin economic model is based on the concept of money as a store of value. But without functioning as a means of payment (i.e. mediating trade in goods), it cannot reach the goal of being money, since the function of preserving value is secondary to this primary function. But given that it has no value of its own (like gold, homes, etc), it is technically no more than a kind of Ponzi...

I have specifically emphasized that its model is economically decrepit and obsolete, but that part you decided to omit

However Rai stone stones were used as a viable payment on the island of yap, If they achieved to make that happen, then why should bitcoin be worse off doing the same thing? I myself bough a steam game recently with bitcoins. Functions just like a better than a credit card

And so what? I don't quite understand what you are trying to say. I guess there should be nothing either wrong or bad if Bitcoin did the same thing (i.e. became a means of payment). The main issue is it doesn't, and it cannot be called money until it does (on a commercial scale). A copy of a game you pay for with Bitcoin costs the developer nothing (the game is already there)...

Try to buy a new car from a car-maker for Bitcoin

http://www.coindesk.com/lamborghini-mclaren-bitcoin/
Soon.

[deisik]

I have already explained it earlier. The Bitcoin economic model is based on the concept of money as a store of value. But without functioning as a means of payment (i.e. mediating trade in goods), it cannot reach the goal of being money, since the function of preserving value is secondary to this primary function. But given that it has no value of its own (like gold, homes, etc), it is technically no more than a kind of Ponzi...

I have specifically emphasized that its model is economically decrepit and obsolete, but that part you decided to omit

However Rai stone stones were used as a viable payment on the island of yap, If they achieved to make that happen, then why should bitcoin be worse off doing the same thing? I myself bough a steam game recently with bitcoins. Functions just like a better than a credit card

And so what? I don't quite understand what you are trying to say. I guess there should be nothing either wrong or bad if Bitcoin did the same thing (i.e. became a means of payment). The main issue is it doesn't, and it cannot be called money until it does (on a commercial scale). A copy of a game you pay for with Bitcoin costs the developer nothing (the game is already there)...

Try to buy a new car from a car-maker for Bitcoin

http://www.coindesk.com/lamborghini-mclaren-bitcoin/
Soon.

Published on January 30, 2014. How soon exactly?

Last year [that is, 2013], Lamborghini Newport Beach promised to accept bitcoins, but it later emerged that the dealership required buyers to convert their bitcoins into dollars – which doesn't exactly qualify as a bitcoin deal

I concur, it doesn't quite qualify as a bitcoin deal, lol

Now, however, it is offering its vehicles through Eggify

I tried to follow the link but it's dead, though

[USB-S]

I have already explained it earlier. The Bitcoin economic model is based on the concept of money as a store of value. But without functioning as a means of payment (i.e. mediating trade in goods), it cannot reach the goal of being money, since the function of preserving value is secondary to this primary function. But given that it has no value of its own (like gold, homes, etc), it is technically no more than a kind of Ponzi...

I have specifically emphasized that its model is economically decrepit and obsolete, but that part you decided to omit

However Rai stone stones were used as a viable payment on the island of yap, If they achieved to make that happen, then why should bitcoin be worse off doing the same thing? I myself bough a steam game recently with bitcoins. Functions just like a better than a credit card

And so what? I don't quite understand what you are trying to say. I guess there should be nothing either wrong or bad if Bitcoin did the same thing (i.e. became a means of payment). The main issue is it doesn't, and it cannot be called money until it does (on a commercial scale). A copy of a game you pay for with Bitcoin costs the developer nothing (the game is already there)...

Try to buy a new car from a car-maker for Bitcoin

http://www.coindesk.com/lamborghini-mclaren-bitcoin/
Soon.

Published on January 30, 2014. How soon exactly?

Last year [that is, 2013], Lamborghini Newport Beach promised to accept bitcoins, but it later emerged that the dealership required buyers to convert their bitcoins into dollars – which doesn't exactly qualify as a bitcoin deal. Now, however, it is offering its vehicles through Eggify

Yes, it doesn't qualify as a bitcoin deal, lol

So you classify something as a meas of exchange you need to be able to buy a car with it? Some people are able to live solely off of bitcoins, by never touching fiat. That just proves how effective it is. There are a lot of workarounds in the bitcoin ecosystem for every problem one may face.

[deisik]

So you classify something as a meas of exchange you need to be able to buy a car with it? Some people are able to live solely off of bitcoins, by never touching fiat. That just proves how effective it is. There are a lot of workarounds in the bitcoin ecosystem for every problem one may face.

Not at all. First of all, I meant a commercial scale of trades. Cars are like that (large scale production). And then almost everyone has an idea of what a car is and how much it costs, lol

I just want to see things in their real pristine light, stripped of all hype and bullshit, wtf

[deisik]

Some people are able to live solely off of bitcoins, by never touching fiat. That just proves how effective it is. There are a lot of workarounds in the bitcoin ecosystem for every problem one may face.

Further, I don't think it proves anything per se. If the seller of goods immediately converts the proceeds into fiat, how would it change the matters? What is the difference between the buyer converting bitcoins into fiat before the purchase or the seller doing the same right after?

I think this is all six of one and half a dozen of the other, wow

[1aguar]

The problem with current economic system is that it is "system of debt". I system of debt one of the two parties is always the slave. Is is an architecture of money where you have no control.
An architecture of money where every interaction is mediated by a third party that has absolute control over your money.
Bitcoin is fundamentally different because in bitcoin system, you don't own anyone anything, and no one owes you anything.

You can learn more from this awesome video: Documentary: The Bitcoin Gospel - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zKuoqZLyKg&feature=youtu.be&t=224

The Fed is the source of credit. Credit is no different from faith (credibility), so the Fed has created a monetary religion that controls the barter economy. Fortunately, anyone can barter with bitcoin or any other commodity without the need to participate in a deceptive religion.

[1aguar]

Usury is when the state uses the peoples' assets and keeps them ignorant about how to access their own value.

[deisik]

Usury is when the state uses the peoples' assets and keeps them ignorant about how to access their own value.

Could you expand more on that, namely, what you mean by accessing the value of assets? I don't get it

[1aguar]

Usury is when the state uses the peoples' assets and keeps them ignorant about how to access their own value.

Could you expand more on that, namely, what you mean by accessing the value of assets? I don't get it

I am so glad that you asked. There is A LOT of misinformation surrounding this topic and the monetary system in general, so I will summarize my understanding and I hope that those who read will educate themselves enough to formulate a response.

First, you have to understand the entire context around HJR 192 and the 14th Amendment.
Second, you need to be aware of the nature of the SS Card: it is a promissory note.
Finally, you need to stand as a fiduciary over that SS account and utilize (or liquidate) that note.

Required reading:
Wizard of Oz ….The “Coded” Movie of what really happened to America
http://www.whale.to/c/wizard_of_oz1.html
HJR 192 Overview, it seems to contain some misunderstanding about "Trust" but this is a good place to start
https://iuvdeposit.wordpress.com/hjr-192/
Archive of Documents posted on the Yahoo Group "WeThePeople_Shareholders" (check Yahoo to get the latest documents; it is a work in progress)
http://econcurrent.com/devine/files/37-TreasuryAccount/
Nature of the Dollar (it may also contain misunderstanding about "Trust"):
http://thefederalmafia.homestead.com/letteronmoney.html
Nature of a Bond:
http://stopthepirates.blogspot.com/2014/03/in-order-to-win-in-court-you-have-to.html

If something is hard to understand, you will probably need to use a law dictionary; Ballantine's and Anderson's are recommended.

[z0rg1nc]

Hello guys. In our project (released already) we tried to resolve the problem described here by providing unlimited supply and constant mining complexity. But of course got some new instead, like centralization. Link in the signature. If anybody interested to discuss the concept i'm ready.

[deisik]

Hello guys. In our project (released already) we tried to resolve the problem described here by providing unlimited supply and constant mining complexity. But of course got some new instead, like centralization. Link in the signature. If anybody interested to discuss the concept i'm ready.

What is the economic (monetary) model behind your coin? Or, rather, how is it fundamentally different from a lot of other digital monies out there that have no limit on the number of coins mined?

How the supply of new coins is constrained and on what conditions, if ever?

[z0rg1nc]

Hello guys. In our project (released already) we tried to resolve the problem described here by providing unlimited supply and constant mining complexity. But of course got some new instead, like centralization. Link in the signature. If anybody interested to discuss the concept i'm ready.

What is the economic (monetary) model behind your coin? Or, rather, how is it fundamentally different from a lot of other digital monies out there that have no limit on the number of coins mined?

Well, i haven't checked whole 1500 altcoins, but emission differs from fiat, btc and most alts. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1241229.msg13038013#msg13038013 here is expanded version.

In 2 words - we have constant "production cost" of 1 coin. Constant in terms of cpu time and electricity. So when economy behind requires more currency price of currency goes up, miners enable addition power to get profit, or reduce if there is no need. Mining not necessary for payment processing.

[deisik]

Hello guys. In our project (released already) we tried to resolve the problem described here by providing unlimited supply and constant mining complexity. But of course got some new instead, like centralization. Link in the signature. If anybody interested to discuss the concept i'm ready.

What is the economic (monetary) model behind your coin? Or, rather, how is it fundamentally different from a lot of other digital monies out there that have no limit on the number of coins mined?

Well, i haven't checked whole 1500 altcoins, but emission differs from fiat, btc and most alts. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1241229.msg13038013#msg13038013 here is expanded version.

In 2 words - we have constant "production cost" of 1 coin. Constant in terms of cpu time and electricity. So when economy behind requires more currency price of currency goes up, miners enable addition power to get profit, or reduce if there is no need. Mining not necessary for payment processing.

Thereby, if you have a huge inflow of new miners, the currency would hyperinflate, right?

[z0rg1nc]

Hello guys. In our project (released already) we tried to resolve the problem described here by providing unlimited supply and constant mining complexity. But of course got some new instead, like centralization. Link in the signature. If anybody interested to discuss the concept i'm ready.

What is the economic (monetary) model behind your coin? Or, rather, how is it fundamentally different from a lot of other digital monies out there that have no limit on the number of coins mined?

Well, i haven't checked whole 1500 altcoins, but emission differs from fiat, btc and most alts. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1241229.msg13038013#msg13038013 here is expanded version.

In 2 words - we have constant "production cost" of 1 coin. Constant in terms of cpu time and electricity. So when economy behind requires more currency price of currency goes up, miners enable addition power to get profit, or reduce if there is no need. Mining not necessary for payment processing.

Thereby, if you have a huge inflow of new miners, the currency would hyperinflate, right?

Why would they do it? I guess there are better opportunities to use cpu than mine with rate for example 0.1$month. But price generally will have "low" price, yep. But not hyperinflation, just not profitable to mine for most on the planet

[deisik]

Well, i haven't checked whole 1500 altcoins, but emission differs from fiat, btc and most alts. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1241229.msg13038013#msg13038013 here is expanded version.

In 2 words - we have constant "production cost" of 1 coin. Constant in terms of cpu time and electricity. So when economy behind requires more currency price of currency goes up, miners enable addition power to get profit, or reduce if there is no need. Mining not necessary for payment processing.

Thereby, if you have a huge inflow of new miners, the currency would hyperinflate, right?

Why would they do it? I guess there are better opportunities to use cpu than mine with rate for example 0.1$month. But price generally will have "low" price, yep. But not hyperinflation, just not profitable to mine for most on the planet

Because they would want more coins? If they are worth anything, of course. If they aren't, what's the purpose of your "money" then?

[z0rg1nc]

Because they would want more coins? If they are worth anything, of course. If they aren't, what's the purpose of your "money" then?

You are missing the point. They can worth some value, but it doesn't mean it's more than you spend to get it. As CPU mining of Bitcoin now.