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

[79b79aa8d5047da6d3XX]

Hoarding is simply the same as saving. Savings are what makes capitalism a viable economic model. Inflation is a stealth tax from those who have last use of new money (the poor, middle class) to the pockets of those who have first use of new money (the banks, wealthy, government).

It is not quite so simple. Standard economists worry that if inflation becomes too low (or if there is deflation), incentive to hoard increases and incentive to invest drops, which could lead to negative growth, the bête noire of capitalism.

[solex]

Hoarding is simply the same as saving. Savings are what makes capitalism a viable economic model. Inflation is a stealth tax from those who have last use of new money (the poor, middle class) to the pockets of those who have first use of new money (the banks, wealthy, government).

It is not quite so simple. Standard economists worry that if inflation becomes too low (or if there is deflation), incentive to hoard increases and incentive to invest drops, which could lead to negative growth, the bête noire of capitalism.

There is merit to the argument that inflation should match real GDP, rather than remain near zero, with deflationary effects. Even gold "inflates" as the stockpile grows from mining. Bitcoin will inflate at a greater rate than the world real GDP growth rate for some years yet. And if Bitcoin deflationary effects ever proved a constraint on GDP in a Bitcoin economy, then there is always Litecoin etc to take up the slack.

Also, those standard economists may well be in "academic capture" and parrot the view that serves their employers (central banks, government) best.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/18/regulatory-and-academic-capture/

[mooncake]

It is not quite so simple. Standard economists worry that if inflation becomes too low (or if there is deflation), incentive to hoard increases and incentive to invest drops, which could lead to negative growth, the bête noire of capitalism.

There is inflation because there is money. The purpose of money primarily is to facilitate trade. That is not to say trade cannot happen without money. Money just makes trading easier.

From that perspective, there is no reason for inflation at all. This is because money is just an intermediary for the exchange of goods.

Now, on the argument that deflation leads to negative growth, that is true to a certain extent but mostly because the basis of growth is consumption, to the extent of excessiveness, regardless of factors like environmental degradation which may lead to our eventual extinction because of climate change for example.

Capitalism when driven by greed will lead to our eventual demise because there is no limit to greed. The only way out is to realise this before it is too late.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[marcus_of_augustus]

Hoarding is simply the same as saving. Savings are what makes capitalism a viable economic model. Inflation is a stealth tax from those who have last use of new money (the poor, middle class) to the pockets of those who have first use of new money (the banks, wealthy, government).

It is not quite so simple. Standard economists worry that if inflation becomes too low (or if there is deflation), incentive to hoard increases and incentive to invest drops, which could lead to negative growth, the bête noire of capitalism.

The situation you refer to is only possible in a domain where there is an artificially enforced monopoly on the money supply, e.g. central bank, totalitarian capital controls, etc.

Free markets rapidly fill shortages of goods, monetary or otherwise, and correct mispricing.

[Wekkel]

Hoarding is simply the same as saving. Savings are what makes capitalism a viable economic model. Inflation is a stealth tax from those who have last use of new money (the poor, middle class) to the pockets of those who have first use of new money (the banks, wealthy, government).

It is not quite so simple. Standard economists worry that if inflation becomes too low (or if there is deflation), incentive to hoard increases and incentive to invest drops, which could lead to negative growth, the bête noire of capitalism.

The situation you refer to is only possible in a domain where there is an artificially enforced monopoly on the money supply, e.g. central bank, totalitarian capital controls, etc.

Free markets rapidly fill shortages of goods, monetary or otherwise, and correct mispricing.

Can't let that happen, can we?

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[acsalles]

Hoarding is simply the same as saving. Savings are what makes capitalism a viable economic model. Inflation is a stealth tax from those who have last use of new money (the poor, middle class) to the pockets of those who have first use of new money (the banks, wealthy, government).

It is not quite so simple. Standard economists worry that if inflation becomes too low (or if there is deflation), incentive to hoard increases and incentive to invest drops, which could lead to negative growth, the bête noire of capitalism.

Agree... On the other hand, negative growth is in fact what we desperately need to reduce the consumption of resources and reduce of polution and waste on planet earth.

[JayJuanGee]

WOW





VERY MARKETCAP!!

Finally, it was about time. Those goddamn manipulators couldn´t hold it down any longer!  

Fair price for a fair coin!

Wow, it seems like i´m a USD billionaire right now!  

Dont sell your Doge for $400. Its a beartrap. Wait for $10,000.

That chart appears to be from last December 2013 or January 2014... there was some kind of glitch in the charts, and that was the first time that I had heard about Doge coin...

[JayJuanGee]

But it is true: I did sell all my BTC to invest in XRP, months ago.  And I have been doubling my XRP holdings every day since then, as I did before with BTC.

Ah that explains so much.

I dumped the 200,000 ripple i was given in January for 5.5 bitcoins (at the time around $4000 I think). That same ripple today is worth about 2.8 bitcoins, or $1000 ish.

Ripple holders .... the only people who've done worse than btc holders this year

Also I doubt you're doubling your holdings everyday, or you'd quickly run out of cash http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_and_chessboard_problem

There are a large number of alt-coins that have done worse than BTC in the last year - probably, quite a few of them that was sufficiently in existence in the last year has done worse than bitcoin in the last year... it would be easier to count the ones that did NOT do worse than BTC in the last year than to count the ones that did do better than BTC.

[MrPiggles]

But it is true: I did sell all my BTC to invest in XRP, months ago.  And I have been doubling my XRP holdings every day since then, as I did before with BTC.

Ah that explains so much.

I dumped the 200,000 ripple i was given in January for 5.5 bitcoins (at the time around $4000 I think). That same ripple today is worth about 2.8 bitcoins, or $1000 ish.

Ripple holders .... the only people who've done worse than btc holders this year

Also I doubt you're doubling your holdings everyday, or you'd quickly run out of cash http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_and_chessboard_problem

There are a large number of alt-coins that have done worse than BTC in the last year - probably, quite a few of them that was sufficiently in existence in the last year has done worse than bitcoin in the last year... it would be easier to count the ones that did NOT do worse than BTC in the last year than to count the ones that did do better than BTC.

shhhhh, i'm just feeding the troll

[JayJuanGee]

The last paragraph in my quote above is not mine, of course; it was inserted by @walsoraj.

A weird sense of humor, or the desperation of a bag-holder?  

But it is true: I did sell all my BTC to invest in XRP, months ago.  And I have been doubling my XRP holdings every day since then, as I did before with BTC.

Considering I am one of your alt accounts, technically you wrote it.

Not a bag holder. Just trying to help.

I can only imagine how much xrp you now have considering you were long suspected to be The Great Manipulator with tens of thousnds of btc.

Sorry about that, sometimes my other personalities get on my nerves.  Never mind.

My holdings are easy to compute: I learned about bitcoin ~350 days ago, and I have been doubling my hoard every day since then. 

I am not the Great Manipulator, of course.  Watashi-wa Nakamoto Satoshi-san desu, but don't tell that to anyone.

You do NOT make any sense - because you cannot double zero... as you already assert your BTC holdings to be zero.. so why be so smug and make such an illogical statement regarding your supposedly engaging in an impossible task to double zero?

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[raid_n]

What you say may be true. But bitcoin's value proposition lies in those few lines of code. And that is why they will never be changed.

Bitcoin was meant to be an e-payment method (decentralized, trutless, etc.).  A fixed bitcoin supply is not necessary for that goal.  Indeed, bitcoin is being used in that role, in spite of still having 10%/year inflation (and even higher in the past).  And dollars and euros work fine as payment methods, in spite of their "horrendous" 1-2%/year inflation rate.

Thus, the argument that "raising the emission limit would destroy the value of bitcoin" does not sound convincing.  Hoarders would be very unhappy, of course.  Miners, however, may someday find it advantageous, especially by the time they are expected do depend on transaction fees instead of block rewards.  Block reward is steady and predictable, whereas fees depend on transaction volume -- which will probably shrink substantially if fees became mandatory.   People who use bitcoin for payments may not care, or may prefer block rewards because they provides "free" transactions.

It has been argued that, if some miners tried to change the protocol, the rest of the network would stick to the old one.  However, this correction mechanism has never been tested, and it seems difficult to predict what would happen, in all possible scenarios.  (After all, it was "proved", with the same certainty, that altcoins would die as soon as they were born.)  What if those "some miners" had 70% of the hash rate?  What if a large subset of the users became convinced that the change was necessary for the health of the network, or got some immediate benefit from it (such as no-fee transactions)? What if payment processors and merchants accepted only the "new" bitcoin?  

(By the way, some bitcoiners seem to be trying to convince people to adopt bitcoin by telling them that money sucks.  I sense a problem with that marketing strategy: it seems that many people have used money sometime in their lives, and may even have enjoyed the experience -- unlikely as that may sound.  )

I have to side with Jorge here. It is unlikely that coin emission will change in recent times but it is not impossible.
Ultimately you cannot enforce what rules people subscribe to. The mere existence of altcoins proves that multiple rule sets can concurrently exist.
And no one should fool themselves that only one coin will ever be accepted by retailers. If it is trivial to integrate bitcoin, it is trivial to integrate other coins.

The proposition that only bitcoin can and will survive comes from selfish motives. You only need to believe in that if you want its value to be extremely high.
There is enough room for multiple cryptocurrencies and they can and will come and go as technology changes.

Does it really matter if I pay something in btc, ltc, doge, nxt or ether? If the design and security of the protocol is sound (which I am not advocating here for many of the so called bitcoin 2.0 alts, the verdict is still open) and enough people use and accept it it is "good enough".

Arguments on the network effect only work to a certain degree. An analogy would be to claim that something like Facebook or Google will be the sole existing service simply because it has the biggest network.

[_biO_]

Arguments on the network effect only work to a certain degree. An analogy would be to claim that something like Facebook or Google will be the sole existing service simply because it has the biggest network.

Alt coins need to offer something pretty good to overcome the network effect of bitcoin. So far, they don't. And with sidechains on the horizon, it's possible "real" altcoins never will.

[raid_n]

Arguments on the network effect only work to a certain degree. An analogy would be to claim that something like Facebook or Google will be the sole existing service simply because it has the biggest network.

Alt coins need to offer something pretty good to overcome the network effect of bitcoin. So far, they don't. And with sidechains on the horizon, it's possible "real" altcoins never will.

The irony is that they don't. Or would you honestly claim that for Litecoin there is any real improvement.
All it takes is regional acceptance on a larger level to make a coin relevant for people in that area.

We can argue all we want about if, in the long term, these alts have merit but the reality is that they exist and some have quite respectable market caps for offering very little innovation.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[yraskk]

WOW





VERY MARKETCAP!!

Finally, it was about time. Those goddamn manipulators couldn´t hold it down any longer!  

Fair price for a fair coin!

Wow, it seems like i´m a USD billionaire right now!  

Dont sell your Doge for $400. Its a beartrap. Wait for $10,000.

That chart appears to be from last December 2013 or January 2014... there was some kind of glitch in the charts, and that was the first time that I had heard about Doge coin...

That's only a dream to see price of dogecoin to 400$, I make a big rotfl while I'm sitting on my chair  . For bitcoin that is much probability that price will reach 800$ very soon 

[prophetx]

Arguments on the network effect only work to a certain degree. An analogy would be to claim that something like Facebook or Google will be the sole existing service simply because it has the biggest network.

Alt coins need to offer something pretty good to overcome the network effect of bitcoin. So far, they don't. And with sidechains on the horizon, it's possible "real" altcoins never will.

The irony is that they don't. Or would you honestly claim that for Litecoin there is any real improvement.
All it takes is regional acceptance on a larger level to make a coin relevant for people in that area.

We can argue all we want about if, in the long term, these alts have merit but the reality is that they exist and some have quite respectable market caps for offering very little innovation.

lmao those are not respectable market cap... $100m? lmao..... this must be comedy hour on bitcointalk

[raid_n]

lmao those are not respectable market cap... $100m? lmao..... this must be comedy hour on bitcointalk

If you already have your mind set on what you want to believe that is your thing.

I see a future where cryptocurrencies are used for all kinds of things, can be traded on p2p exchanges (a working algorithm for exchanging different cryptocurrencies that are based on blochchains exists)
and there are different coins for different usage scenarios.
An MMO could base its ingame currency on a cryptocurrency and in that community it makes sense to use it. Why would you want or need bitcoin for this, especially if you can easily exchange one for the other on exchanges.

But you go on believing that bitcoin will reach world dominance.
I simply find it a very narrow vision of the future