Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice?

[iamnotback]

Yes lowest relative volatility, and in the future as this changes, we will collective understand that its relative to a conceptual perfectly stable units money. What should we call this unit? The Watt, Celcius, A Newton...?

The ideal fungible money. But not the ideal capital signaling mechanism, per the points I made upthread about the value of knowledge being the actual point of having a money system. My project is about direct exchange of knowledge, the actual senior "money" which can't be captured fungibly. And that is why my project is still valid.

Readers make sure you read the previous page. Very important.

[1714128823]

1714128823

[1714128823]

1714128823

[1714128823]

1714128823

[traincarswreck]

The ideal fungible money. But not the ideal capital signaling mechanism, per the points I made upthread about the value of knowledge being the actual point of having a money system. My project is about direct exchange of knowledge, the actual senior "money" which can't be captured fungibly. And that is why my project is still valid.

No its not the ideal signaling mechanism, I agree.  Rather the markets act as a pricing mechanism, but they need a stable unit of value to function optimally, or in other words it cannot be that the unit is politically corruptible or the power that controls it will control the efficiency of the markets (for the worse).

[iamnotback]

The ideal fungible money. But not the ideal capital signaling mechanism, per the points I made upthread about the value of knowledge being the actual point of having a money system. My project is about direct exchange of knowledge, the actual senior "money" which can't be captured fungibly. And that is why my project is still valid.

No the markets are as a pricing mechanism, but they need a stable unit of value to function optimally, or in other words it cannot be that the unit is politically corruptible or the power that controls it will control the efficiency of the markets (for the worse).

Everything you wrote was correct except the word "No" because you wrote nothing which disagrees with my statement. You apparently still haven't wrapped your mind around the orthogonality of fungible money and non-fungible knowledge capital. C.f. the upthread explanations.

The fungible laborer no longer exists. Fungible money is losing its relevance. Money as an information system, can't signal what it can't buy.

[traincarswreck]

Edited my terrible grammar but kept the "no" in it so you understand perhaps how I meant it to read ;p

[iamnotback]

Edited my terrible grammar but kept the "no" in it so you understand perhaps how I meant it to read ;p

Now I agree.

Question. What is senior, a currency with no debasement or one with a predictable rate of deflation (i.e. reduction of the money supply)?

Seems to me that if all other factors are equal, then deflationary currency is more desirable as the private banks are required to hold less in non-leveraged reserve.

[traincarswreck]

Question. What is senior, a currency with no debasement or one with a predictable rate of deflation (i.e. reduction the money supply)?

It's a correct question.  2 quotes come to mind:

To be quite respectable, in a Gresham-advised sense, money needs only to be AS GOOD as other material commod-ities that might be hoarded.

    There is a problem for the issuer of a currency, whether in coinage, paper, or electronic form, that if this currency (or money) is too good, then it could be exploited by all sorts of parties and interests that might simply wish to safely deposit a store of wealth or even to conservatively invest some assets for future good value. (The word good is used here in terms of comparative value trends, as in good investments.)
    Then, under extreme conditions the currency issued by one state could be exploited by parties not of that state as a sort of “safe-deposit box” on which they would not need to pay any rental fees or fees like those paid to the managers of mutual funds for investment.
    But, simply to improve the conditions under which agreements regarding long-term lending and borrowing would be made, a money would be more or less equivalently good if it had a completely steady and constant rate of inflation.  Then this inflation rate could be added to all lending an borrowing contracts.  Hence, the problem of a money that would be too good is avoidable.
    If the value trend of a currency is such that a natural interest rate is not negative, then it is not an unattractive task for a central currency authority to mint or print the physical currency that would circulate.  Then the issuer of currency would be partially in the position of a borrower not paying interest on borrowed money.
    …the issuer of a currency also needs to be properly prepared for the possibility of speculation on the part of interests domiciled in foreign states, etc., etc.

A predictable rate of deflation is good and fine, but a perfectly stable metric for value is what the markets will run most efficiently on.  So bitcoin serves very well as the catalystic event. But if our fiat begins to compete with monetary policies then money could get better by having a proper relation to the underlying economy it represents.  Bitcoin doesn't need to expand and contract to be really really good, but Ideal Money might.

[iamnotback]

   There is a problem for the issuer of a currency, whether in coinage, paper, or electronic form, that if this currency (or money) is too good, then it could be exploited by all sorts of parties and interests that might simply wish to safely deposit a store of wealth or even to conservatively invest some assets for future good value. (The word good is used here in terms of comparative value trends, as in good investments.)
    Then, under extreme conditions the currency issued by one state could be exploited by parties not of that state as a sort of “safe-deposit box” on which they would not need to pay any rental fees or fees like those paid to the managers of mutual funds for investment.
    But, simply to improve the conditions under which agreements regarding long-term lending and borrowing would be made, a money would be more or less equivalently good if it had a completely steady and constant rate of inflation.  Then this inflation rate could be added to all lending an borrowing contracts.  Hence, the problem of a money that would be too good is avoidable.
    If the value trend of a currency is such that a natural interest rate is not negative, then it is not an unattractive task for a central currency authority to mint or print the physical currency that would circulate.  Then the issuer of currency would be partially in the position of a borrower not paying interest on borrowed money.
    …the issuer of a currency also needs to be properly prepared for the possibility of speculation on the part of interests domiciled in foreign states, etc., etc.

A predictable rate of deflation is good and fine, but a perfectly stable metric for value is what the markets will run most efficiently on.  So bitcoin serves very well as the catalystic event. But if our fiat begins to compete with monetary policies then money could get better by having a proper relation to the underlying economy it represents.  Bitcoin doesn't need to expand and contract to be really really good, but Ideal Money might.

That quote isn't saying what you interpreted. It is saying that a steady predictable rate (i.e. nobody can manipulate it) for an inflationary currency is okay, but that a deflationary currency would change everything. It seems to be indicating that a deflationary currency messes up the Ideal Money model. Can you give me a copy of the document from which that quote was taken so I can read the context?

[traincarswreck]

i always read it as a steady inflation RATE, I'll read it some more, but I know nash spoke differently in that way. Admittedly i haven't translated everything he said ;p


You need access to jstor: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1061553?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

[traincarswreck]

Yes I think I read it better now thank you!

[iamnotback]

I believe what Nash meant is that if there exists a deflationary currency, then the private fractional reserve issuers of long-term loans would have a problem. This is because those who demand exchange to a currency at par to the deflationary currency, demand more over time of any currency which is inflationary or less deflationary.

A deflationary decentralized currency makes private banking non-viable. My blockchain consensus design checkmates Bitcoin's, because PoW can't be deflationary, because the miners either have to be paid with minting and/or transaction fees.

Any way, private banking is going away naturally because private banking is only really viable for fixed capital loans wherein the bank can calculate NAV and cash flow reliably. The knowledge age is incompatible with such financial computations.

Checkmate on Bitcoin, MP and his $billions. I had warned him last year. His control and wealth is going away. Ditto all the banksters. They will own the death of the fixed capital investment age (i.e. industrial age and capex projects), but the knowledge age will bifurcate away from their influence. I predicted all this many years ago.

As explained above, the mathematical topological space of information is exponential vast, such that having the right answer is exponentially more valuable than having an unbounded quantity of random noise:

The end of democracy

...

Interesting that the above essay is essentially the same as my Rise of Knowledge, Demise of Finance essay (which predates his by a few years) in that it is pointing out how knowledge or leadership is non-fungible and how it becomes the post-industrial age economy.

Re: What cryptocurrency is solving the scaling problem?

@jonald_fyookball, you better re-read my post and make sure you understand why LN is not only never going to happen in Bitcoin, it is not viable in the knowledge age.

There may be some cryptos that "scale" but chances are they're never actually going to have to test their effectiveness due to their blocks never getting filled ion the way that Bitcoin's do.

But by "chances" you admit there is a chance you could be wrong? I hope so. Because I think you will be wrong. Remember that humans are unable to comprehend exponential change. It is what you can't see coming which catches you unprepared.

[iamnotback]

@r0ach you are leaving money on the table when you stopped investing in altcoins. Cripes ETH just did a 4 bagger in a month.

Silver is no panacea as @OROBTC says.

While the antediluvian relic Anonymint was getting a boner thinking about running coolpages in Ethereum VM, Putin has spotted silver breaking above the 200 day MA.

To my knowledge (and I could be wrong), Putin is a gold guy.  Russia has bought up a lot of gold over the past few years, and their central banker (Elvira Nabiullina) has apparently done a great job.

Russia is now No. 7 in the world re Official Gold Reserves (1615 tonnes):

Tinfoil hats don't understand why gold has been a reserve currency of good money and therefor they do not understand why gold is not optimal:

China announced that a huge gold mine was discovered: http://m.chinadaily.com.cn/en/2017-03/29/content_28719822.htm

And thus you don't understand why my blockchain design is the only one which will win as the ideal good money.

@r0ach has been clueless. If he is wise, he will read the linked thread and learn what is really going on.

[iamnotback]

I have become more favorable on Litecoin, now that I have realized that Bitcoin is likely stuck in a stalemate, so Litecoin is the escape valve for Lightning Networks scaling:

Re: Sleeping giant is awakening?? LTC back to $50 now ??

Is this what we have been waiting for?

segwit and possible privacy getting people back on the train for real or just a small pump today?


Choo Choo...

Do you realize how potentially huge this rise could be? Litecoin is 1/50th of Bitcoin's market cap. We could very easily see a 10X gain here in a short time frame.

Jump on this huge spike in volume trainrocket immediately. I just dumped the remainder of my BTC into LTC (except 1 BTC I have on localbitcoins). The reason is because Litecoin can do SegWit and LN sooner than Bitcoin and Bitcoin probably can never activate SegWit and LN. Litecoin is the escape valve for Blockstream (Core) so they don't become irrelevant:

Re: What cryptocurrency is solving the scaling problem?

@jonald_fyookball, you better re-read my post and make sure you understand why LN is not only never going to happen in Bitcoin, it is not viable in the knowledge age.

[traincarswreck]

After rethinking it I'd like to argue that bitcoin has a "constant and steady rate of inflation".  Is that wrong to suggest?

[franky1]

After rethinking it I'd like to argue that bitcoin has a "constant and steady rate of inflation".  Is that wrong to suggest?

you always thought it was inflation..
bitcoin has been deflationary

[iamnotback]

Re: Sleeping giant is awakening?? LTC back to $50 now ??

I have been considering a position in LTC now that it is correcting.

My question is: How can segwit activate there? like what is the state of the mining pools in LTC? we must look at what the big mining whales in LTC are going to do with segwit signaling because as of now, it's only 22%:

http://litecoinblockhalf.com/segwit.php

The good news is, it only takes 75% compared to 95% in BTC, but why is it stuck at 22%? and what are the realistic prospects of this changing anytime soon?

Pools are being lazy, but the other reason could be that whales need time to accumulate positions. Once they have them, flip the switch f2pool...

Because miners have much more to gain by activating it than on Bitcoin, because they will see a huge spike in the value of the tokens they are mining and the supply of Scrypt ASICs can't keep up (with the fast rising price in order to raise the difficulty), so those existing miners will make so much money! Thus they don't have the sunk costs dilemma that is creating the stalemate in Bitcoin.

Im just unsure to get in LTC because who knows if this is another flash pump and dump like the ones we've seen in the past few days.

Compare the volume.

[traincarswreck]

you always thought it was inflation..
bitcoin has been deflationary

thx for showing up.  Bitcoin is deflationary, but it's money supply is increasing atm. It has inflation atm. It has an inflation schedule.

…the possible area for evolution is that if, say, an inflation rate of between 1% and 3% is now considered desirable and appropriate in Sweden, then, if it is really controllable, why shouldn’t a rate between 1/2 % and 3/2 % be even more desirable?

[iamnotback]

Bitcoin is deflationary, but it's money supply is increasing atm. It has inflation atm.

That is because people here use the wrong terms. Bitcoin has debasement (which eventually or asymptotically ceases) but its effect on the economy is deflationary.

Litecoin has an advantage because its debasement ends sooner than Bitcoin, so it becomes ideal money sooner. The silver of the crypto world is about to rise to the 1/5 ratio or so.

I wrote the following in private communication to try to explain the upthread discussion more succinctly:

Nash's ideal money said that something like Bitcoin's design could end fiat systems and make private fractional reserve banking work correctly because governments wouldn't be able to muck up the metrics in the economy. But Nash admitted that if a deflationary currency is plausible, then it would mess up private fractional reserve banking and his ideal money concept would not be viable. Therefore, my design for a deflationary decentralized crypto currency should in theory destroy Bitcoin and all the other PoW crypto currencies (eventually, not instantly).

Won't happen. LTC may fluctuate alot, like between 250-500mil, nothing more. There is simply no reason for a barely top 7 project to climb too much. There's simply not enough demand for it, just a playtoy for the chinese. It's a copy of bitcoin but it doesn't have it's hype, it's brand, nor it's fame.

Everyone will remember LTC as the wannabe bitcoin, a project that aimed low. Every ltc pump simply ended with just higher lows. It was around 4$, so i guess it will level at around 5$.

You apparently don't understand the economics involved.

My hypothesis is the Litecoin miners and the Bitcoin minnows want SegWit and LN. And the whales of LTC want it too, because they can receive many of those Bitcoin minnows.

Ethereum can't be Nash's ideal money. And ostensibly Bitcoin can't get SeqWit and LN scaling activated because of miner sunk costs. But apparently Litecoin can do it (if my logic is correct) and is ideal money.

Ethereum is a different game about blockchain applications other than just money, not ideal money. Ethereum is prolly still going up (maybe 4X from here), but Litecoin has the potential to go up 10X or more (and very rapidly so).

Bitcoin is being disintermediated/disrupted on all fronts.

[traincarswreck]

That is because people here use the wrong terms. Bitcoin has debasement (which eventually or asymptotically ceases) but its effect on the economy is deflationary.

You've confused franky.  What if i said this: Bitcoin has a constant and steady rate of inflation.

True or false?  I claim true.

I wrote the following in private communication to try to explain the upthread discussion more succinctly:

Nash's ideal money said that something like Bitcoin's design could end fiat systems and make private fractional reserve banking work correctly because governments wouldn't be able to muck up the metrics in the economy. But Nash admitted that if a deflationary currency is plausible, then it would mess up private fractional reserve banking and his ideal money concept would not be viable. Therefore, my design for a deflationary decentralized crypto currency should in theory destroy Bitcoin and all the other PoW crypto currencies (eventually, not instantly).

I do not think he said I think he said the opposite. A deflationary currency would bring our fractional reserve system into order.

[franky1]

you always thought it was inflation..
bitcoin has been deflationary

thx for showing up.  Bitcoin is deflationary, but it's money supply is increasing atm. It has inflation atm. It has an inflation schedule.

…the possible area for evolution is that if, say, an inflation rate of between 1% and 3% is now considered desirable and appropriate in Sweden, then, if it is really controllable, why shouldn’t a rate between 1/2 % and 3/2 % be even more desirable?

lol nope ..
its deflationary

ok lets say there is a number.....um.. 1000
and inflation was 5% every 10 minutes

1050,, right.
but then the next 10 minutes is not an extra 50.. its actually 52.5
1102.5.. right

but then the next 10 minutes is not an extra 50.. its actually 55.125
1157.625.. right

inflation is that the new money INCREASES..

bitcoin however, stays at 50 per ~10mins.. then after ~4 years goes DOWN to 25 then after ~4 years goes DOWN to 12.5

have a nice day

[traincarswreck]

you always thought it was inflation..
bitcoin has been deflationary

thx for showing up.  Bitcoin is deflationary, but it's money supply is increasing atm. It has inflation atm. It has an inflation schedule.

…the possible area for evolution is that if, say, an inflation rate of between 1% and 3% is now considered desirable and appropriate in Sweden, then, if it is really controllable, why shouldn’t a rate between 1/2 % and 3/2 % be even more desirable?

lol nope ..
its deflationary

The term "inflation" originally referred to increases in the amount of money in circulation.[30] However, most economists today use the term "inflation" to refer to a rise in the price level. An increase in the money supply may be called monetary inflation, to distinguish it from rising prices, which may also for clarity be called "price inflation".[31] Economists generally agree that in the long run, inflation is caused by increases in the money supply.[32]

Do you see why I am glad you are here?