The Future of Money?

[danherbias07]

The idea of central bank controlled cryptocoins has been around for a while. I fail to see that these coins pose any serious risk for the valuation of Bitcoin or precious metals and I don't think such a concept will be successful.

The reason for this is pretty simple: Even if such a coin is constructed under the umbrella of the IMF it still doesn't represent a real valuable asset, because it is subject to political influence. There are also many questions regarding its creation. For example how should the coin be mined - should every country mine its own stash or will there be fixed quotas allocated to each country? How would all countries of the IMF even be able to form a consensus?

An IMF coin will never constitute a real asset like gold or Bitcoin, because it's not functioning as a incorruptible natural resource. Instead an IMF coin would be some kind of "meta-fiat" used as backing for fiat.

ya.ya.yo!

I fully agree with this. When it is subject to the control and influence of a certain big institution, then can be a big problem as it is not offering what a decentralized cryptocurrency can offer. This is a central idea behind the success of Bitcoin and if you pulled it down then you have nothing at the end of the tunnel.

Satisfying thoughts which is true. Problem is if something is owned by someone there is a big possibility that someone could stain it. Even the owner itself could make evil works when he sees a big profit in it. That is why many are trying so hard to make an altcoin. A lot of money is into it unlike bitcoin.

Indeed mate.. and hopefully this would not happen in bitcoin community to get a full controlled by a certain institution like government or any private sectors because if it does definitely there would be a lot of changes for us and there would also some activities that can be more beneficial for them.

Ohhh benefits. They will sure love it. Creating chaos in their newly created coins just for their own good. This could be done with all those popping up alternative coins. That is why everything that is under control by someone is not good and there are a lot scattering out there.

[funkenstein]

And this is exactly the reason why Bitcoin may not be suitable for real economy as an ultimate means of exchange

Since in real economy money should be created (and destroyed as well) based on the needs of the economy, and not according to some set in stone algorithm. I don't mean to say that fiat is ideal, but in exactly this respect it beats Bitcoin hands down. Whoever is going to challenge this point (and I guess there will be a lot of such), think first what is the primary function of money. And once you get to it, you may come to understand as well that the amount of money to fulfill this function in the most optimal way depends on the size of the economy, which is not fixed and may expand as easily as contract

This is rank nonsense.  

If you are going to say "based on the needs of the economy I need the right to produce new currency and give it the people I feel like it"...  then we are going to say, on what basis is it that you get to issue the new currency and not us?  What if we don' t like your choice of when and where to issue the currency?  Giving individuals the power to create new monetary tokens in private is pure idiocy.  Look what happens.  The well intentioned are quickly driven out by the "more practical folk". 

[cjmoles]

True that bitcoin can be a universal online currency but that will have to pass to the process to be able to attract people for adoption. It has not been regulated yet and maybe we should look on that first on how to treat that.

Not been regulated yet??  It's the most regulated type of currency in the world by a huge margin.  Every money creation event and every transaction are public and audited by everyone.  Regulations specify EXACTLY how much can be created, and when.  Imagine trying to get fiat mongers to submit to this kind of regulation.  Lol, right?  

And this is exactly the reason why Bitcoin may not be suitable for real economy as an ultimate means of exchange

Since in real economy money should be created (and destroyed as well) based on the needs of the economy, and not according to some set in stone algorithm. I don't mean to say that fiat is ideal, but in exactly this respect it beats Bitcoin hands down. Whoever is going to challenge this point (and I guess there will be a lot of such), think first what is the primary function of money. And once you get to it, you may come to understand as well that the amount of money to fulfill this function in the most optimal way depends on the size of the economy, which is not fixed and may expand as easily as contract

I disagree.  Our current fractional reserve systems simply "kick the ball down the road," so to speak.  They manipulate value tremendously in ways which do not represent the true state of production.  Bitcoin, on the other hand, is immutable and more closely correlated to the dynamics of "real world" commerce where the markets determine its value. Bitcoin's structure opposes fiat's structure, which is controlled by small groups of bankers who manipulate value with the sole intent of moving the markets to squeeze more wealth out of an unsuspecting population....bitcoin is the solution to the problems associated with fractional reserve banking....However, I don't think we're quite there yet....but, at the rate we're going, we will be there soon.

[BlokF4No27]

One might say that bitcoin is one of the pioneers of the future money. With sophisticated systems I am confident future technologies will continue to develop the bitcoin.

[Bitmate]

One might say that bitcoin is one of the pioneers of the future money. With sophisticated systems I am confident future technologies will continue to develop the bitcoin.

I just hope the current developers can listen to the good advices from the community, otherwise it is bad for bitcoin.

[Mario274]

One might say that bitcoin is one of the pioneers of the future money. With sophisticated systems I am confident future technologies will continue to develop the bitcoin.

I just hope the current developers can listen to the good advices from the community, otherwise it is bad for bitcoin.

I also believe that Bitcoin is stable cryptocurrency. But I do not believe that it will replace the Fiat. The government will not allow

[cjmoles]

One might say that bitcoin is one of the pioneers of the future money. With sophisticated systems I am confident future technologies will continue to develop the bitcoin.

I just hope the current developers can listen to the good advices from the community, otherwise it is bad for bitcoin.

I think that the direction the community is forcing the technology to pursue is heading in a different direction than the philosophy that triggered its development intended.  The developers aren't the only entity responsible for guiding its course.  I think that community greed guides its course more than was anticipated....Bitcoin came to being from the thinking that the internet had the potential to bring about social and political change....privacy, autonomy, and personal security were the primary motivations that triggered the movement....are those the primary motivations now?  Or, is the primary motivation greed?  We all share the "decentralized" responsibility here.

[hurain]

One might say that bitcoin is one of the pioneers of the future money. With sophisticated systems I am confident future technologies will continue to develop the bitcoin.

I just hope the current developers can listen to the good advices from the community, otherwise it is bad for bitcoin.

I think that the direction the community is forcing the technology to pursue is heading in a different direction than the philosophy that triggered its development intended.  The developers aren't the only entity responsible for guiding its course.  I think that community greed guides its course more than was anticipated....Bitcoin came to being from the thinking that the internet had the potential to bring about social and political change....privacy, autonomy, and personal security were the primary motivations that triggered the movement....are those the primary motivations now?  Or, is the primary motivation greed?  We all share the "decentralized" responsibility here.

yes i am also agree with it, it can really be a fact that the interested of the people is now changing and in future they may be giving importance to online trading and shopping therefor bitcoin can be their first choice an it can really effect the fiat currency.

[Zadicar]

One might say that bitcoin is one of the pioneers of the future money. With sophisticated systems I am confident future technologies will continue to develop the bitcoin.

I just hope the current developers can listen to the good advices from the community, otherwise it is bad for bitcoin.

I think that the direction the community is forcing the technology to pursue is heading in a different direction than the philosophy that triggered its development intended.  The developers aren't the only entity responsible for guiding its course.  I think that community greed guides its course more than was anticipated....Bitcoin came to being from the thinking that the internet had the potential to bring about social and political change....privacy, autonomy, and personal security were the primary motivations that triggered the movement....are those the primary motivations now?  Or, is the primary motivation greed?  We all share the "decentralized" responsibility here.

yes i am also agree with it, it can really be a fact that the interested of the people is now changing and in future they may be giving importance to online trading and shopping therefor bitcoin can be their first choice an it can really effect the fiat currency.

Its still really depends though on what people would refer regarding into this. We cant really avoid the fact the people will surely choose the most convenient and most accesible in terms of online transactions and other things which are commonly happen on online world. They could able to see the potential of bitcoin regarding with this but i think future of money(paper) will still exist no matter how big changes would have made.

[Caladonian]

One might say that bitcoin is one of the pioneers of the future money. With sophisticated systems I am confident future technologies will continue to develop the bitcoin.

I just hope the current developers can listen to the good advices from the community, otherwise it is bad for bitcoin.

I think that the direction the community is forcing the technology to pursue is heading in a different direction than the philosophy that triggered its development intended.  The developers aren't the only entity responsible for guiding its course.  I think that community greed guides its course more than was anticipated....Bitcoin came to being from the thinking that the internet had the potential to bring about social and political change....privacy, autonomy, and personal security were the primary motivations that triggered the movement....are those the primary motivations now?  Or, is the primary motivation greed?  We all share the "decentralized" responsibility here.

yes i am also agree with it, it can really be a fact that the interested of the people is now changing and in future they may be giving importance to online trading and shopping therefor bitcoin can be their first choice an it can really effect the fiat currency.

Its still really depends though on what people would refer regarding into this. We cant really avoid the fact the people will surely choose the most convenient and most accesible in terms of online transactions and other things which are commonly happen on online world. They could able to see the potential of bitcoin regarding with this but i think future of money(paper) will still exist no matter how big changes would have made.

for sure. local currency will not be replace in any aspects paper money still the most used currency
inside a country we cant change that in anyhow many things will need to discuss about that.

[mirakal]

One might say that bitcoin is one of the pioneers of the future money. With sophisticated systems I am confident future technologies will continue to develop the bitcoin.

I just hope the current developers can listen to the good advices from the community, otherwise it is bad for bitcoin.

I think that the direction the community is forcing the technology to pursue is heading in a different direction than the philosophy that triggered its development intended.  The developers aren't the only entity responsible for guiding its course.  I think that community greed guides its course more than was anticipated....Bitcoin came to being from the thinking that the internet had the potential to bring about social and political change....privacy, autonomy, and personal security were the primary motivations that triggered the movement....are those the primary motivations now?  Or, is the primary motivation greed?  We all share the "decentralized" responsibility here.

yes i am also agree with it, it can really be a fact that the interested of the people is now changing and in future they may be giving importance to online trading and shopping therefor bitcoin can be their first choice an it can really effect the fiat currency.

Its still really depends though on what people would refer regarding into this. We cant really avoid the fact the people will surely choose the most convenient and most accesible in terms of online transactions and other things which are commonly happen on online world. They could able to see the potential of bitcoin regarding with this but i think future of money(paper) will still exist no matter how big changes would have made.

for sure. local currency will not be replace in any aspects paper money still the most used currency
inside a country we cant change that in anyhow many things will need to discuss about that.

Paper money is very easy and simple to use, you cannot replace that with online online currency as majority of the population in this world are not yet into online, these people are already contented with paper money as it's convenient to them to transact at any time.

[Qartersa]

One might say that bitcoin is one of the pioneers of the future money. With sophisticated systems I am confident future technologies will continue to develop the bitcoin.

I just hope the current developers can listen to the good advices from the community, otherwise it is bad for bitcoin.

I think that the direction the community is forcing the technology to pursue is heading in a different direction than the philosophy that triggered its development intended.  The developers aren't the only entity responsible for guiding its course.  I think that community greed guides its course more than was anticipated....Bitcoin came to being from the thinking that the internet had the potential to bring about social and political change....privacy, autonomy, and personal security were the primary motivations that triggered the movement....are those the primary motivations now?  Or, is the primary motivation greed?  We all share the "decentralized" responsibility here.

yes i am also agree with it, it can really be a fact that the interested of the people is now changing and in future they may be giving importance to online trading and shopping therefor bitcoin can be their first choice an it can really effect the fiat currency.

Its still really depends though on what people would refer regarding into this. We cant really avoid the fact the people will surely choose the most convenient and most accesible in terms of online transactions and other things which are commonly happen on online world. They could able to see the potential of bitcoin regarding with this but i think future of money(paper) will still exist no matter how big changes would have made.

for sure. local currency will not be replace in any aspects paper money still the most used currency
inside a country we cant change that in anyhow many things will need to discuss about that.

Paper money is very easy and simple to use, you cannot replace that with online online currency as majority of the population in this world are not yet into online, these people are already contented with paper money as it's convenient to them to transact at any time.

But I think you still have to consider that the world is moving away from paper to paperless transactions. If this would happen, then paper money also follow suit. You don't necessarily use bitcoins for online transactions (though you need internet for transactions in bitcoins). You can deal with someone in the real world and deal with him using bitcoins by transfering the BTC to his wallet and getting whatever you paid for in person or physically.

[uname]

One might say that bitcoin is one of the pioneers of the future money. With sophisticated systems I am confident future technologies will continue to develop the bitcoin.

I just hope the current developers can listen to the good advices from the community, otherwise it is bad for bitcoin.

I also believe that Bitcoin is stable cryptocurrency. But I do not believe that it will replace the Fiat. The government will not allow

You got it right, bitcoin has a very good market cap and investors are keep on trusting it because they can see that it has a bright future. But we may not know if it will make the fiat money replaced by it or else it will be just considered as another form of currency which can be used for different transactions for real.

I think although bitcoin will have a stable price I think it will not be able to make fiat replaceable. major currencies will always be on fiat to any time, and may bitcoin will be the only option in the future

[deisik]

And this is exactly the reason why Bitcoin may not be suitable for real economy as an ultimate means of exchange

Since in real economy money should be created (and destroyed as well) based on the needs of the economy, and not according to some set in stone algorithm. I don't mean to say that fiat is ideal, but in exactly this respect it beats Bitcoin hands down. Whoever is going to challenge this point (and I guess there will be a lot of such), think first what is the primary function of money. And once you get to it, you may come to understand as well that the amount of money to fulfill this function in the most optimal way depends on the size of the economy, which is not fixed and may expand as easily as contract

This is rank nonsense. 

If you are going to say "based on the needs of the economy I need the right to produce new currency and give it the people I feel like it"...  then we are going to say, on what basis is it that you get to issue the new currency and not us?  What if we don' t like your choice of when and where to issue the currency?  Giving individuals the power to create new monetary tokens in private is pure idiocy.  Look what happens.  The well intentioned are quickly driven out by the "more practical folk"

I guess you might want to think again

I'm not going to say that, and there is no need to speak for me, either. There was no talk about who has the right to produce new money and then distribute it, and this is what your post comes down to. This is an entirely different question. If you want to somehow challenge the point I made, you should address exactly what I said. Since you seem to heavily miss my point (this is understandable since you are obviously hellbent against anything connected with fiat), I can repeat again, in other words. Money is used as an intermediary in the exchange of goods and consumption of services, and since the amount of goods as well as the volume of services tend to change over time, the amount of money should change accordingly

I disagree.  Our current fractional reserve systems simply "kick the ball down the road," so to speak

Same as above. What exactly do you disagree with?

[funkenstein]

I guess you might want to think again

I'm not going to say that, and there is no need to speak for me, either. There was no talk about who has the right to produce new money and then distribute it, and this is what your post comes down to. This is an entirely different question. If you want to somehow challenge the point I made, you should address exactly what I said. Since you seem to heavily miss my point (this is understandable since you are obviously hellbent against anything connected with fiat), I can repeat again, in other words. Money is used as an intermediary in the exchange of goods and consumption of services, and since the amount of goods as well as the volume of services tend to change over time, the amount of money should change accordingly

Thank you, this is exactly the point I wish to disagree with.  

Yes, money is used as an intermediary and a unit of account in the exchange of goods and the consumption of services.  Yes, amount of goods and amount of services can fluctuate.  But why does this mean the amount of units available should change?  This does not follow in any sense, rather it is the converse statement that makes sense:  the quantity of the monetary unit available should NOT change.    

The absolute quantity of the price is not important..  what is important is that the money remains sound, i.e. nobody has the right to create it from nothing, and of course: the relative costs of one good to another (price of beer vs. average salary for example).  The utility of an exchange commodity (money) is based on the supply NOT changing, it is based on markets being able to come to reasonable price discovery in that unit without malfeasance and forced disequilibrium.  

The idea that more beer produced means there needs to be more monetary tokens distributed is..  well where on earth did it come from?  Basic economics suggests that an increase in the supply with equal demand should lead to a lower price.  You don't need more tokens, you need smaller prices.    

Seriously, industry producing more means that I should be able to issue monetary tokens for my friends?  Does that sound reasonable to you?  

[deisik]

I guess you might want to think again

I'm not going to say that, and there is no need to speak for me, either. There was no talk about who has the right to produce new money and then distribute it, and this is what your post comes down to. This is an entirely different question. If you want to somehow challenge the point I made, you should address exactly what I said. Since you seem to heavily miss my point (this is understandable since you are obviously hellbent against anything connected with fiat), I can repeat again, in other words. Money is used as an intermediary in the exchange of goods and consumption of services, and since the amount of goods as well as the volume of services tend to change over time, the amount of money should change accordingly

Thank you, this is exactly the point I wish to disagree with. 

Yes, money is used as an intermediary and a unit of account in the exchange of goods and the consumption of services.  Yes, amount of goods and amount of services can fluctuate.  But why does this mean the amount of units available should change?  This does not follow in any sense, rather it is the converse statement that makes sense:  the quantity of the monetary unit available should NOT change

I guess you understand what this will lead to?

If you don't, I'll try to explain. I will talk about goods only but everything is equally applicable to services as well. Let's assume that the amount of money is constant. If the amount of goods increases that would necessarily lead to price deflation, i.e. you will be able to buy more goods with the same amount of money (or a unit of money will buy more goods). If the amount of goods decreases, that would necessarily lead to price inflation, i.e. you will be able to buy less goods with the same amount of money (or a unit of money will buy less goods). Both of these cases will cause imbalances in the economy simply because the changes in the value of money (i.e. how much a unit of money can buy) in real life don't propagate instantaneously through the economy

That would lead, for example, to some people getting unwarranted advantages over other people since they could either buy goods cheaper than they should or refrain from buying goods dearer than they should

[funkenstein]

I guess you understand what this will lead to?

If you don't, I'll try to explain. I will talk about goods only but everything is equally applicable to services as well. Let's assume that the amount of money is constant. If the amount of goods increases that would necessarily lead to price deflation, i.e. you will be able to buy more goods with the same amount of money (or a unit of money will buy more goods). If the amount of goods decreases, that would necessarily lead to price inflation, i.e. you will be able to buy less goods with the same amount of money (or a unit of money will buy less goods). Both of these cases will cause imbalances in the economy simply because the changes in the value of money (i.e. how much a unit of money can buy) in real life don't propagate instantaneously through the economy

That would lead, for example, to some people getting unwarranted advantages over other people since they could either buy goods cheaper than they should or refrain from buying goods dearer than they should

Thanks for helping me talk through this line of argument. 

You suggest that if the amount of some good increases (increased production), the price in terms of a static money supply would decrease.  And of course the inverse, if the amount of the good decreases, the price in terms of a sound money unit will go up.  I have claimed that these are natural things that should be embraced as part of free market price discovery, providing signals to producers and consumers.  Are you also suggesting that some new distribution of monetary units (in any way) could somehow be appropriate in either of these cases?  I really don't see that at all, so I would appreciate some discussion of how that could in any way help with existing price signaling, or in any way whatsoever.   

Bear in mind that I am not arguing that private issuance of monetary tokens is corruptible and leads to gross inefficiencies and malinvestment, which is clearly true but is a separate issue.  I am just saying that there is no economic reason for such issuance to exist - even if somehow managed by a benevolent monarch.  If you can come up with some reason, please do state it clearly, I'd be happy to learn something new. 

Making the price of a good vs. a monetary unit stable even in the event of that good being more (or less) available is an economic problem, not something to be desired.  Right?   

 

[BobK71]

If you don't, I'll try to explain. I will talk about goods only but everything is equally applicable to services as well. Let's assume that the amount of money is constant. If the amount of goods increases that would necessarily lead to price deflation, i.e. you will be able to buy more goods with the same amount of money (or a unit of money will buy more goods). If the amount of goods decreases, that would necessarily lead to price inflation, i.e. you will be able to buy less goods with the same amount of money (or a unit of money will buy less goods). Both of these cases will cause imbalances in the economy simply because the changes in the value of money (i.e. how much a unit of money can buy) in real life don't propagate instantaneously through the economy

That would lead, for example, to some people getting unwarranted advantages over other people since they could either buy goods cheaper than they should or refrain from buying goods dearer than they should

Why are fluctuating prices a bad thing?  If there is an over-supply of something, prices going down would dis-incentivize production, as they should.

The important issue is not whether prices change, but what causes them to change.  If the cause is market-based, it should be healthy and/or self-correcting.  The problem with central planning of money is that prices are changed system-wide not for market reasons but due to what is ultimately market manipulation to benefit the elites.

For example, an ounce of gold used to buy a nice tailored suit when it was worth $22.  Today that gold will still buy that suit, but try buying it with $22.  Over the decades, prices always go up, because the elites generally make monetary policy too loose, to allow themselves to receive unearned wealth and power from issuing public and bank debt.

An even more damning example is central-planning-driven deflation.  All financial crises happen because (A) too much paper wealth of a certain kind has been issued and propped up (indirectly) by state power, and (B) markets have lost faith in the value of that paper.  To alleviate the economic pain after the financial bust, what central banks can do is to generate massive inflation.  (This in effect would acknowledge past mistakes and start anew.)  But what they do is to generate just enough inflation to keep the political system stable, but never enough to avert major pain.  This was what led to the Great Depression and Great Recession, plus countless examples outside the US.

The reason is that massive inflation would expose the long-term working of their system to public opinion and ultimately cause savers to go to non-state-issued money, like gold, in which case the elites will lost most of their future power.  The adopted policy contradicts the elites' own moral code of 'alleviating pain at all cost,' as propagated by modern mainstream economists.  Apparently, such a code is only good for justifying policies aimed at prolonging asset bubbles by any means, including deception, during the period of asset inflation.

[deisik]

I guess you understand what this will lead to?

If you don't, I'll try to explain. I will talk about goods only but everything is equally applicable to services as well. Let's assume that the amount of money is constant. If the amount of goods increases that would necessarily lead to price deflation, i.e. you will be able to buy more goods with the same amount of money (or a unit of money will buy more goods). If the amount of goods decreases, that would necessarily lead to price inflation, i.e. you will be able to buy less goods with the same amount of money (or a unit of money will buy less goods). Both of these cases will cause imbalances in the economy simply because the changes in the value of money (i.e. how much a unit of money can buy) in real life don't propagate instantaneously through the economy

That would lead, for example, to some people getting unwarranted advantages over other people since they could either buy goods cheaper than they should or refrain from buying goods dearer than they should

Thanks for helping me talk through this line of argument. 

You suggest that if the amount of some good increases (increased production), the price in terms of a static money supply would decrease.  And of course the inverse, if the amount of the good decreases, the price in terms of a sound money unit will go up.  I have claimed that these are natural things that should be embraced as part of free market price discovery, providing signals to producers and consumers

You are just claiming that without giving any viable explanation why it is so. Obviously, this won't work. I have provided the logic behind as well as example why keeping monetary base constant would be detrimental. You did nothing to substantiate your claims. Further, there is nothing that would prevent a free market price discovery if the total amount of goods is balanced with the amount of money in circulation. In fact, that mechanism would work even better. You seem to be erroneously implying that the relative values of goods against each other should remain the same...

There is nothing that would support that point

Are you also suggesting that some new distribution of monetary units (in any way) could somehow be appropriate in either of these cases?  I really don't see that at all, so I would appreciate some discussion of how that could in any way help with existing price signaling, or in any way whatsoever

Once again stop speaking for myself. I'm suggesting nothing in this regard. This is a separate question

Why are fluctuating prices a bad thing?  If there is an over-supply of something, prices going down would dis-incentivize production, as they should

Basically same as above. You also implicitly suggest that the relative values of goods are somehow fixed while they are not

[funkenstein]

I have provided the logic behind as well as example why keeping monetary base constant would be detrimental.

Hmm, I have gone through the thread again and I don't see that.  This is what I'm asking for, as I don't get it.  How could keeping the monetary base constant be detrimental to anything? 

 

Are you also suggesting that some new distribution of monetary units (in any way) could somehow be appropriate in either of these cases?  I really don't see that at all, so I would appreciate some discussion of how that could in any way help with existing price signaling, or in any way whatsoever

Once again stop speaking for myself. I'm suggesting nothing in this regard. This is a separate question

OK now I am confused.  New distribution of monetary units (or destruction of them I suppose) is the only way one can not "keep the monetary base constant", right?  I wasn't trying to raise a separate question, sorry for the confusion.