Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[JorgeStolfi]

Bitcoins are issued by miners, who pay to keep the network secure. Thus making bitcoins valuable. There are no freebies.

Even miners who sell immediately are making a profit that comes entirely from people who buy bitcoins expecting to profit from them by that mechanism I described.

Miners who mined long ago and held, as well as the early adopters who bought thousands of coins for nearly nothing, are just like the issuers of private money who keep some of their issuance to spend when it has been accepted as currency by other people.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[DonQuijote]

Bitcoins are issued by miners, who pay to keep the network secure. Thus making bitcoins valuable. There are no freebies.

Even miners who sell immediately are making a profit that comes entirely from people who buy bitcoins expecting to profit from them by that mechanism I described.

Miners who mined long ago and held, as well as the early adopters who bought thousands of coins for nearly nothing, are just like the issuers of private money who keep some of their issuance to spend when it has been accepted as currency by other people.

Are you the professor Jorge Stolfi? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Stolfi)

[gentlemand]

Are you the professor Jorge Stolfi? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Stolfi)

He is. The real deal is in da house.

[bluemoon]

If a large group adopts bitcoin now, at the current price or at a higher price, they would be sharing their wealth with the early adopters in proportion.

For example, if Greece adopted bitcoin, and 9 million BTC were circulating there with a value equivalent to 10'000 USD/BTC, then Satoshi's 1 million BTC would allow him to buy 10 billion USD worth of Greek property.  Greece then would become 10 billion USD poorer.

That is why no sane government should allow privately issued money: the people who issue it take wealth from those who use it.

...

If Satoshi traded his (according to your example) $10 billion worth of bitcoin with Greeks for their property, they would not be any poorer because they'd have all that bitcoin in exchange. They might even be better off since by entering into the transactions they would have increased bitcoin's adoption and hence its value.

Yours is a false argument because your conclusion assumes bitcoin is worthless, which assumption is inconsistent with your premise that bitcoin is circulating with a value of $10,000/BTC.

[madmat]

Good thing there is no such thing as a sane government

There are few already, and the list seems to be slowly growing. 

Find the list below:

[DonQuijote]

Are you the professor Jorge Stolfi? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Stolfi)

He is. The real deal is in da house.

haha ok 

[JorgeStolfi]

If Satoshi traded his (according to your example) $10 billion worth of bitcoin with Greeks for their property, they would not be any poorer because they'd have all that bitcoin in exchange. They might even be better off since by entering into the transactions they would have increased bitcoin's adoption and hence its value.

Yours is a false argument because your conclusion assumes bitcoin is worthless, which assumption is inconsistent with your premise that bitcoin is circulating with a value of $10,000/BTC.

Bitcoins (or any currency) are not wealth, they are tokens that people can exchange for wealth with other people.

When you are measuring the wealth of one person or company, it is correct to include any currency that they own, because currency is so easily exchanged for other wealth with other people or companies. 

But when you are measuring the wealth of a country or of a planet, you cannot include the currency that its inhabitants own, unless they can easily exchange it all with people outside the country or planet. 

In that example, before Satoshi spent his stash, the Greeks owned a lot of houses and land, and 9 million bitcoins.  After Satoshi's buying spree, they would own a lot fewer houses and land, and 10 million bitcoins.  Unless they can use that 1 M bitcoins to buy 10 billion USD worth of stuff from people outside Greece, they will be poorer by 10 billion USD.

[Asrael999]

http://news.sky.com/story/1500824/seven-million-may-have-been-hacked-in-us

Every single current and retired US federal employee may have had their personal information stolen in last week's hack attack, it has been claimed.

and people worry about getting their bitcoins stolen.....

[derpinheimer]

http://news.sky.com/story/1500824/seven-million-may-have-been-hacked-in-us

Every single current and retired US federal employee may have had their personal information stolen in last week's hack attack, it has been claimed.

and people worry about getting their bitcoins stolen.....

Yes, it's a far more reasonable concern..
 These people will be protected. Lose your bitcoin and you're sol.

[Bicmac1973]

It may well be possible that the greece public will adapt BTC as an unofficial currency for everyday use.

If a large group adopts bitcoin now, at the current price or at a higher price, they would be sharing their wealth with the early adopters in proportion.

For example, if Greece adopted bitcoin, and 9 million BTC were circulating there with a value equivalent to 10'000 USD/BTC, then Satoshi's 1 million BTC would allow him to buy 10 billion USD worth of Greek property.  Greece then would become 10 billion USD poorer.

That is why no sane government should allow privately issued money: the people who issue it take wealth from those who use it.

When the government issues more money, the government is taking wealth from its citizens, so it is just another tax.  It may be a stupid kind of tax, but people tolerate it because the government is supposed to give that wealth back as public services. 

When the banks issue more money through fractional reserve lending, they are taking that wealth for themselves.  Citizens should not tolerate that, but most do not understand what is going on.  I have only a foggy notion myself...

I agree that widespread adoption of Bitcoin could cause damage the greek national economy, if it's not already a total loss. But people will act simply on self-interest and could gain huge profits. They do so, because banks, governments and all other economical actors do the same. And that may also be the reason, why many citizen accept that behaviour.

Bitcoin could get the preferred capital flight vehicle in Greece and it could be very hard to control. That may be good for Satoshi, who- and whereever he/she is.

[Fatman3001]

Bitcoins are issued by miners, who pay to keep the network secure. Thus making bitcoins valuable. There are no freebies.

Even miners who sell immediately are making a profit that comes entirely from people who buy bitcoins expecting to profit from them by that mechanism I described.

Miners who mined long ago and held, as well as the early adopters who bought thousands of coins for nearly nothing, are just like the issuers of private money who keep some of their issuance to spend when it has been accepted as currency by other people.

Of course, miners need to stay profitable. That's part of the security. It wouldn't be worth much if the whole system was shut down every summer or Christmas. But not everyone who buys bitcoins expect to make a profit. There are a lot of speculators in bitcoin now, but a a growing number of people use bitcoin for money/wealth transfer. Most notably in your neighboring country, Argentina. Your assumption is that it's a zero sum game. A pyramid-like structure. But if there is wealth creation in the network itself, if Bitcoin has utility, then that assumption is wrong.

Regarding early adopters. It's not called socialist-coin. Yes, there will be concentration of money. There always is. But that is not freshly minted coins. The market is aware of them and will gradually take them into account as the Bitcoin-economy grows in reach and sophistication.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[bluemoon]

If Satoshi traded his (according to your example) $10 billion worth of bitcoin with Greeks for their property, they would not be any poorer because they'd have all that bitcoin in exchange. They might even be better off since by entering into the transactions they would have increased bitcoin's adoption and hence its value.

Yours is a false argument because your conclusion assumes bitcoin is worthless, which assumption is inconsistent with your premise that bitcoin is circulating with a value of $10,000/BTC.

Bitcoins (or any currency) are not wealth, they are tokens that people can exchange for wealth with other people.

When you are measuring the wealth of one person or company, it is correct to include any currency that they own, because currency is so easily exchanged for other wealth with other people or companies. 

But when you are measuring the wealth of a country or of a planet, you cannot include the currency that its inhabitants own, unless they can easily exchange it all with people outside the country or planet. 

In that example, before Satoshi spent his stash, the Greeks owned a lot of houses and land, and 9 million bitcoins.  After Satoshi's buying spree, they would own a lot fewer houses and land, and 10 million bitcoins.  Unless they can use that 1 M bitcoins to buy 10 billion USD worth of stuff from people outside Greece, they will be poorer by 10 billion USD.

Wealth comprises those assets people value and people can value bitcoin just as they can value other currencies, gold, art, houses or anything else.

It is not necessary that in order to include their currency in their measure of wealth people must be able easily to exchange all their currency with people outside their country or planet. It is only necessary that at the margin they can exchange a part of their currency for something they value more highly: currency has value as a means of exchange and it does not matter with whom they exchange it. A more freely exchangeable currency will, all other things being equal, clearly be superior (more valuable) than a less freely exchangeable currency, but the idea that the whole currency must be exchangeable with people outside the country or planet is false: it is enough that you can find one person willing to transact with you.

If Greeks choose to exchange property for $10 billion of bitcoin they are not obviously poorer by $10 billion, unless you presuppose no one wishes to exchange anything for bitcoin any more so soon after it becoming worth $10,000/BTC. There is no obvious reason to make that supposition; it would be an arbitrary assumption. Apart from anything else, there is no obvious reason why bitcoin could not become a means of exchange for dealing with Greeks if Greeks valued them.

[klee]

http://www.thestreet.com/story/13184525/2/recent-bitcoin-silence-could-be-golden-for-investors.html

[kenbytes]

Just reached $231 on Bitfinex... does this mean we might see $250 by the end of the month?  Exciting times!

[Andre#]

Bitcoins are issued by miners, who pay to keep the network secure. Thus making bitcoins valuable. There are no freebies.

Even miners who sell immediately are making a profit that comes entirely from people who buy bitcoins expecting to profit from them by that mechanism I described.

Miners who mined long ago and held, as well as the early adopters who bought thousands of coins for nearly nothing, are just like the issuers of private money who keep some of their issuance to spend when it has been accepted as currency by other people.

Are you the professor Jorge Stolfi? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Stolfi)

OMG, he has a Wikipage!

In late 2013 Jorge took an active interest in the economics of cryptocurrencies. He became extremely skeptical about its underlying soundness and chances of success, and has been advising the Brazilian public against investment in bitcoin while spending much of his time trolling the bitcointalk forums.

 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[ssmc2]

Chart buddy, you're the one.

You make Bitcoin so much fun.