The economic model behind Bitcoin is flawed

[maku]

What is the point of discussion of this now? Is not that we can change basic principles of bitcoin now anyway. There might be better economic systems out there, I am not questioning it.
But bitcoin is still FAR superior to current FIAT system, and that is what matter for me. To all who think that bitcoin is not good - maybe someday you will earn Nobel Prize for your own economic system.

[deisik]

What is the point of discussion of this now? Is not that we can change basic principles of bitcoin now anyway. There might be better economic systems out there, I am not questioning it.
But bitcoin is still FAR superior to current FIAT system, and that is what matter for me. To all who think that bitcoin is not good - maybe someday you will earn Nobel Prize for your own economic system.

In what aspect(s) is it superior to a balanced (read not being constantly abused) fiat system? In that it encourages saving? But without an underlying asset having value of its own (like gold), it will eventually turn into an outright Ponzi, if not already...

Are you one of the early adopters or just hope not to be the last to jump off the train when it finally derails?

[1aguar]

a balanced (read not being constantly abused) fiat system?

In my opinion, a balanced system can only exist in the absence of usury.
What do you think a balanced system would look like?
How do you propose to bring about a balanced fiat system?
How will the people acquire control of the money? How can it be taken from the central bankers who will NOT give it up voluntarily?
I personally cannot see the system coming to balance when so much wealth and power is held by so few. I think we must democratize currencies and cryptography while eschewing all private credit and usury systems, then we can realize the vision of the founding fathers:
"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry
"Bank-paper must be suppressed, and the circulating medium must be restored to the nation to whom it belongs." - Thomas Jefferson
"But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money and control credit." - Sir Josiah Stamp 1920 - Director of Bank of England
More Quotes Here
Bitcoin is backed by the credit of those who accept it (i.e. demand it). The people who DO accept bitcoin are giving it value by driving the demand; I am convinced that these people will always exist, so therefore bitcoin is an asset with value of its own.

[deisik]

a balanced (read not being constantly abused) fiat system?

In my opinion, a balanced system can only exist in the absence of usury

Does ZIRP cut it?

What do you think a balanced system would look like?
How do you propose to bring about a balanced fiat system?
How will the people acquire control of the money? How can it be taken from the central bankers who will NOT give it up voluntarily?

This won't cut it either. Even if you somehow managed to remove control over the monetary system from the hands of the few (the central bankers) and give it to the many (the people), the control would still eventually end up in the hands of the few, since the masses are ignorant, but the chosen (lol) are corrupt. The problem is ironically aggravated by the fact that the masses can't even accept their ignorance as a fact of life which is actively used against them for the sake of the few...

“Every woman must learn to rule the state” by Lenin was a flattery toward the masses and an example of just that

[deisik]

I personally cannot see the system coming to balance when so much wealth and power is held by so few. I think we must democratize currencies and cryptography while eschewing all private credit and usury systems, then we can realize the vision of the founding fathers:
"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry
"Bank-paper must be suppressed, and the circulating medium must be restored to the nation to whom it belongs." - Thomas Jefferson
"But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money and control credit." - Sir Josiah Stamp 1920 - Director of Bank of England
More Quotes Here

All those distinguished people are either idealists or just have an agenda (like Lenin), sorry

[deisik]

I personally cannot see the system coming to balance when so much wealth and power is held by so few. I think we must democratize currencies and cryptography

And Bitcoin, the money "for the masses", is an epitome of wealth inequality itself, though all its "wealth" is fake and illusionary, indeed (all those who are eager to discuss or refute this walk here)...

How are you going to "democratize" it?

[deisik]

Bitcoin is backed by the credit faith of those who accept it (i.e. demand it). The people who DO accept bitcoin are giving it value by driving the demand; I am convinced that these people will always exist, so therefore bitcoin is an asset with value of its own

Any ponzi works like that, and faith (or credit, in your terms) is not a lasting asset, let alone it's not inherent to Bitcoin, not its intrinsic feature which can't be taken away from it to declare it as having value of its own. Unless you make it into a religion of sorts...

But you have tight competition in the field, lol

[USB-S]

Bitcoin is backed by the credit faith of those who accept it (i.e. demand it). The people who DO accept bitcoin are giving it value by driving the demand; I am convinced that these people will always exist, so therefore bitcoin is an asset with value of its own

Any ponzi works like that, and faith (or credit, in your terms) is not a lasting asset, let alone it's not inherent to Bitcoin, not its intrinsic feature which can't be taken away from it to declare it as having value of its own. Unless you make it into a religion of sorts...

But you have tight competition in the field, lol

Well we have the USD which only value is given by peoples faith and gold as well. Every money ever created is a ponzi scheme if you think about it. Why do we let people we don't trust run this ponzi, why not a protocol that everyone could inspect and review. We know exactly what it does and how it works. You can't really say the same about fiat.

[deisik]

Bitcoin is backed by the credit faith of those who accept it (i.e. demand it). The people who DO accept bitcoin are giving it value by driving the demand; I am convinced that these people will always exist, so therefore bitcoin is an asset with value of its own

Any ponzi works like that, and faith (or credit, in your terms) is not a lasting asset, let alone it's not inherent to Bitcoin, not its intrinsic feature which can't be taken away from it to declare it as having value of its own. Unless you make it into a religion of sorts...

But you have tight competition in the field, lol

Well we have the USD which only value is given by peoples faith and gold as well. Every money ever created is a ponzi scheme if you think about it. Why do we let people we don't trust run this ponzi, why not a protocol that everyone could inspect and review. We know exactly what it does and how it works. You can't really say the same about fiat.

With a little change (not every money, but fiat only) this is what I say myself, lol. The strength of a fiat currency is a mirror of the strength of the state behind it. In a sense, it is a derivative from the power and might of the state. It lives only as long the state exists. When the state weakens (for whatever reason), it deliberately weakens its currency in an effort to postpone its collapse and ultimate destruction...

But the faith is subjective while the power of the state objective

[deisik]

Why do we let people we don't trust run this ponzi, why not a protocol that everyone could inspect and review. We know exactly what it does and how it works. You can't really say the same about fiat.

There are two major issues with that. First, even if the Bitcoin protocol were set as a law of nature, this wouldn't by any means make it perfect per se. In fact, this whole topic is about that it is actually far from being perfect (or just good enough, lol), mildly speaking. Second, it is not set by nature, but what is made by humans can be unmade by humans too. So why should I trust it?

Why should I trust my real wealth to a relatively small group of people who control Bitcoin and who could kill it if they chose to?

[USB-S]

Why do we let people we don't trust run this ponzi, why not a protocol that everyone could inspect and review. We know exactly what it does and how it works. You can't really say the same about fiat.

There are two major issues with that. First, even if the Bitcoin protocol were set as a law of nature, this doesn't by any means make it perfect per se. In fact, this whole topic is about that it is actually far from being perfect (or just good enough, lol), mildly speaking. Second, it is not set by nature, but what is made by humans can be unmade by humans too. So why should I trust it?

Why should I trust my real wealth to a relatively small group of people who control Bitcoin and who could kill it if they chose to?

But you do that with fiat don't you? The people running things most likely don't wan't anything bad to happen to the system just because they're at the top, that's human nature. 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.

[deisik]

Why do we let people we don't trust run this ponzi, why not a protocol that everyone could inspect and review. We know exactly what it does and how it works. You can't really say the same about fiat.

There are two major issues with that. First, even if the Bitcoin protocol were set as a law of nature, this doesn't by any means make it perfect per se. In fact, this whole topic is about that it is actually far from being perfect (or just good enough, lol), mildly speaking. Second, it is not set by nature, but what is made by humans can be unmade by humans too. So why should I trust it?

Why should I trust my real wealth to a relatively small group of people who control Bitcoin and who could kill it if they chose to?

But you do that with fiat don't you? The people running things most likely don't wan't anything bad to happen to the system just because they're at the top, that's human nature. 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.

I expected that you would raise this issue, lol. No, I don't. But in fact this is irrelevant, for two things. First, fiat (unlike Bitcoin) is neither meant nor actually thought as a long-term store of value. It is meant and used as a means of exchange, but being a means of exchange is antagonistic to being a store of value in the long run. Thereby it cannot be trusted by definition...

So whoever decides to store their wealth as fiat is shooting themselves in the foot... with a cannon, wtf

[deisik]

Second (and it is an entirely separate issue), even if you store your wealth in anything (Bitcoin included) but fiat, or even turn your wealth into capital to work as an investment (your own personal enterprise), you still have the same state behind your back, which could strip you of your wealth (or your life, for the record) just as easily as it could strip money of its value (in fact, even more easily, for your own personal insignificance, wtf)...

Ultimately, it all boils down to whether you trust (lol) the state you happen to live in

[catch.me.if.you.can]

Money That Rots - Freicoin & Demurrage

Sylvio Gesell's idea from a hundred years ago has been tested with success, then it was shut down by the Austrian government. One modern rendition of the idea is Freicoin based on Bitcoin, but with demurrage (i.e. rotting). Its one of the most compelling ideas ever in economics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWQbN40XypI

[deisik]

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

[deisik]

Money That Rots - Freicoin & Demurrage

Sylvio Gesell's idea from a hundred years ago has been tested with success, then it was shut down by the Austrian government. One modern rendition of the idea is Freicoin based on Bitcoin, but with demurrage (i.e. rotting). Its one of the most compelling ideas ever in economics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWQbN40XypI

Demurrage means depreciation of money over time at an arbitrarily set fixed rate (just like Bitcoin is set to appreciate by halving). You can do exactly the same by just printing more money. I can't possibly conceive how the former can be better than the latter, since in the case of printing more money you are, at least, free to choose how much more to print...

Did I miss anything of substance?

[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 mean it removes all boundaries we currently have with money and our banking system.(a bit exaggerated, but that's the idea) Our current monetary system took at least several hundred years to evolve, with each passing year the fundamental goals of this system get forgotten, Intentionally or not.

We're in a point in time where pretty much every investment option could go to shit with the collapse of any of the big currencies. After you take away gold and silver from the equation, you're left with pretty much nothing. Like you said you could run a store but if state doesn't like you you're fucked.

However bitcoin is pretty hard to shut down, even when there's war raging on. I mean you'd need to shut down the entire electrical system for that to happen.

[deisik]

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

[deisik]

I mean it removes all boundaries we currently have with money and our banking system.(a bit exaggerated, but that's the idea) Our current monetary system took at least several hundred years to evolve, with each passing year the fundamental goals of this system get forgotten, Intentionally or not

What boundaries does it remove if it doesn't function as money in the first place, i.e. doesn't remove its most important boundary so far? It is like saying that being able to SMS anyone (who has a cell phone at least) "removes all boundaries we currently have with money and our banking system". This statement makes no sense, until we somehow start using SMSes as a means of payment...

Though, most likely, it is impossible altogether, and that problem would be its prior "boundary"

[Slark]

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