The Bitcoin decimal issue

[wingding]

Once upon a time there was a village where one rich man who had ten breads while the rest of the village was poor and starved. The rich man said to the poor people: "listen, I will share one bread with the rest of you, that should keep you satisfied" the villagers responded: "one bread wont feed us all" The rich man said "Oh, that is no problem, the bread can be cut into 20 slices". But The villagers responded "that is not enough, we are thousands of starving people" The rich man then said "that is still not a problem, because each slice of bread can be divided into hundreds of crumbles - and if that is not enough for you, each crumble can actually be divided into billions of molecules"

After pondering a little on the rich man's last answer, the villagers became euphoric and danced in a ring shouting: "It can be divided into crumbles - and then into microcrumbles!" "It will be plenty for everyone!"  Some time after that they were all dead.
 

[1715213175]

1715213175

[1715213175]

1715213175

[1715213175]

1715213175

[TTBit]

Once upon a time there was a village where one rich man who had ten breads while the rest of the village was poor and starved. The rich man said to the poor people: "listen, I will share one bread with the rest of you, that should keep you satisfied" the villagers responded: "one bread wont feed us all" The rich man said "Oh, that is no problem, the bread can be cut into 20 slices". But The villagers responded "that is not enough, we are thousands of starving people" The rich man then said "that is still not a problem, because each slice of bread can be divided into hundreds of crumbles - and if that is not enough for you, each crumble can actually be divided into billions of molecules"

Stupid story? Well it is exactly the same logic that a disturbingly lot of people here believe can solve the problem of the limited supply of bitcoins.

F-

[grue]

b8/10

[Foxpup]

This has to be one of the dumbest posts I've ever seen on this forum, and that's saying a lot. If the "problem" is that it is impossible for Bitcoin to produce infinite wealth by infinite splitting, then a) nobody who suggests splitting bitcoins has that as a goal; and b) if you think that is their goal, or should be, or is even remotely possible in any way whatsoever, or that anyone even believes it is possible, then you're an idiot.

[WinVery.com]

Yes this post shows major deficits in comprehension.  Particularly of relative value.

[franky1]

Once upon a time there was a village where one rich man who had ten breads while the rest of the village was poor and starved. The rich man said to the poor people: "listen, I will share one bread with the rest of you, that should keep you satisfied" the villagers responded: "one bread wont feed us all" The rich man said "Oh, that is no problem, the bread can be cut into 20 slices". But The villagers responded "that is not enough, we are thousands of starving people" The rich man then said "that is still not a problem, because each slice of bread can be divided into hundreds of crumbles - and if that is not enough for you, each crumble can actually be divided into billions of molecules"

Stupid story? Well it is exactly the same logic that a disturbingly lot of people here believe can solve the problem of the limited supply of bitcoins.

food and currency are 2 different things.

lets sat a town mayor owned one satoshi. he could divide it up as a trusted person into 100,000 parts and print pieces of paper that he trades gold, food, land for the decimals and then the receivers of the decimals can then use those decimals to trade amungst themselves for food, products etc. or trade with the town mayor to change the decimals back into gold/land whatever. never disappearing.

one slice of bread will keep a stomach happy for half a day. after that its gone never to come back, flushed down the toilet and tomorrow everyone is to starve.

completely different things entirely

[jagallout]

This story reminds me of the infinite division vs infinitely small logic puzzle:  The question goes something along the lines of:  If you can split a minute/inch/teddy bear etc.  into an infinite number of smaller pieces, and because infinity is of course never ending, how is it then possible that your minute/inch/severed puppy ear is not infinitely long/long/(hairy?).

[abdada]

The OP has no understanding of basic economics.

The value of any currency isn't "set" except by supply and demand.

100 years ago, you could buy a candy bar for $0.01.  Today that same candy bar is $1.00.  We didn't NEED to make the price more expensive, and it isn't more expensive at all, because the value of the US dollar has fallen 99x in 100 years.  So today's $1.00 is EQUAL to $0.01 from 100 years ago.

BTC will operate in the opposite fashion if it becomes widely used.  What costs 1BTC today might only cost 0.01BTC in 10 years, but the VALUE will be identical.

[kwukduck]

This has to be one of the dumbest posts I've ever seen on this forum, and that's saying a lot. If the "problem" is that it is impossible for Bitcoin to produce infinite wealth by infinite splitting, then a) nobody who suggests splitting bitcoins has that as a goal; and b) if you think that is their goal, or should be, or is even remotely possible in any way whatsoever, or that anyone even believes it is possible, then you're an idiot.

This.

OP just took first position on my 'dumbest posts' list. Congratulations.

[MagicBit15]

There was once a man who lived in a poor city. He decided he loved all his people so much that he wanted them to be rich. He thought "If I could just find a way to make more money, I can help my people!!" So he simply broke into the mint and printed more money for them. Everytime there was a problem he broke in and printed more and more money to solve the issue. Eventually everyone had money making it become more and more useless and inflating the price of everything beyond a reasonable doubt. There was never a resolution, and the people of his city are still dealing with the problem to this very day. Sound familiar? 


It should because your one of the citizens.

Welcome one of the many global economic issues of today. Good Luck!!

[wingding]

There once was a man called Nakamoto. He printed a million coins. He was later joined by a few other guys who together printed yet a few million coins. Thereafter many people joined, but printing then became very difficult. Actually the printing press will slow down to zero. However, those guys who printed the first coins are willing to sell their coins to rest of the world. And if those other people of the world only can grab a fraction of a coin, don't worry - it can be divided by 10e8. Economy!

[Gabi]

This story reminds me of the infinite division vs infinitely small logic puzzle:  The question goes something along the lines of:  If you can split a minute/inch/teddy bear etc.  into an infinite number of smaller pieces, and because infinity is of course never ending, how is it then possible that your minute/inch/severed puppy ear is not infinitely long/long/(hairy?).

That was solved like in 1600 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal_calculus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_calculus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_calculus

[silvergoldandbitcoin]

Once upon a time there was a village where one rich man who had ten breads while the rest of the village was poor and starved. The rich man said to the poor people: "listen, I will share one bread with the rest of you, that should keep you satisfied" the villagers responded: "one bread wont feed us all" The rich man said "Oh, that is no problem, the bread can be cut into 20 slices". But The villagers responded "that is not enough, we are thousands of starving people" The rich man then said "that is still not a problem, because each slice of bread can be divided into hundreds of crumbles - and if that is not enough for you, each crumble can actually be divided into billions of molecules"

Stupid story? Well it is exactly the same logic that a disturbingly lot of people here believe can solve the problem of the limited supply of bitcoins.

..... I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this post.

[AliceWonder]

The OP has no understanding of basic economics.

The value of any currency isn't "set" except by supply and demand.

100 years ago, you could buy a candy bar for $0.01.  Today that same candy bar is $1.00.  We didn't NEED to make the price more expensive, and it isn't more expensive at all, because the value of the US dollar has fallen 99x in 100 years.  So today's $1.00 is EQUAL to $0.01 from 100 years ago.

But if I have a penny from 10 years ago it isn't worth squat today, worth less than when it fell out of my pocket and rolled under the dresser. However if I have a bitcoin from 5 years ago it is worth a lot more. I like deflationary currency

[Jace]

Once upon a time there was a village where one rich man who had ten breads while the rest of the village was poor and starved. The rich man said to the poor people: "listen, I will share one bread with the rest of you, that should keep you satisfied" the villagers responded: "one bread wont feed us all" The rich man said "Oh, that is no problem, the bread can be cut into 20 slices". But The villagers responded "that is not enough, we are thousands of starving people" The rich man then said "that is still not a problem, because each slice of bread can be divided into hundreds of crumbles - and if that is not enough for you, each crumble can actually be divided into billions of molecules"

Stupid story? Well it is exactly the same logic that a disturbingly lot of people here believe can solve the problem of the limited supply of bitcoins.

1e-8 bitcoin can serve the EXACT same purpose as 1 bitcoin, in terms of using it as a digital currency unit.

1 breadcrumb can NOT serve the exact same purpose as 1 bread, in terms of satisfying a person's hunger.

Was that so hard?

[Bogdan]

I dont see how that related to this.

[jackjack]

Once upon a time there was a village where one rich man who had ten breads while the rest of the village was poor and starved. The rich man said to the poor people: "listen, I will share one bread with the rest of you, that should keep you satisfied" the villagers responded: "one bread wont feed us all" The rich man said "Oh, that is no problem, the bread can be cut into 20 slices". But The villagers responded "that is not enough, we are thousands of starving people" The rich man then said "that is still not a problem, because each slice of bread can be divided into hundreds of crumbles - and if that is not enough for you, each crumble can actually be divided into billions of molecules"

Stupid story? Well it is exactly the same logic that a disturbingly lot of people here believe can solve the problem of the limited supply of bitcoins.

[Rampion]

Once upon a time there was a village where one rich man who had ten breads while the rest of the village was poor and starved. The rich man said to the poor people: "listen, I will share one bread with the rest of you, that should keep you satisfied" the villagers responded: "one bread wont feed us all" The rich man said "Oh, that is no problem, the bread can be cut into 20 slices". But The villagers responded "that is not enough, we are thousands of starving people" The rich man then said "that is still not a problem, because each slice of bread can be divided into hundreds of crumbles - and if that is not enough for you, each crumble can actually be divided into billions of molecules"

Stupid story? Well it is exactly the same logic that a disturbingly lot of people here believe can solve the problem of the limited supply of bitcoins.

[niko]

Once upon a time there was a village where one rich man who had ten breads while the rest of the village was poor and starved. The rich man said to the poor people: "listen, I will share one bread with the rest of you, that should keep you satisfied" the villagers responded: "one bread wont feed us all" The rich man said "Oh, that is no problem, the bread can be cut into 20 slices". But The villagers responded "that is not enough, we are thousands of starving people" The rich man then said "that is still not a problem, because each slice of bread can be divided into hundreds of crumbles - and if that is not enough for you, each crumble can actually be divided into billions of molecules"

Stupid story? Well it is exactly the same logic that a disturbingly lot of people here believe can solve the problem of the limited supply of bitcoins.

Reported, with a request to burn after reading.

[kjj]

Once upon a time, there was a guy that didn't understand the difference between physical goods with mass, and abstract money.  He wrote a story comparing bread to bitcoin.  Sadly, everyone laughed at him, because each tiny little bit of bread can only be consumed once, so the whole loaf has only a fixed amount of sustaining power, no matter how divided, while money circulates to be used over and over again without ever being consumed.

[weisoq]

Once upon a time, there was a guy that didn't understand the difference between physical goods with mass, and abstract money.  He wrote a story comparing bread to bitcoin.  Sadly, everyone laughed at him, because each tiny little bit of bread can only be consumed once, so the whole loaf has only a fixed amount of sustaining power, no matter how divided, while money circulates to be used over and over again without ever being consumed.

Not everyone's laughing at him, many are laughing at the tangential and defensive responses.

[MagicBit15]

OK but did we just create a 'once a upon a time' meme with currency in this thread. I feel like OP fail has led to greatness... Going to try to contribute..

[MagicBit15]

[bigdude]

[bigdude]

[kjj]

Once upon a time, there was a guy that didn't understand the difference between physical goods with mass, and abstract money.  He wrote a story comparing bread to bitcoin.  Sadly, everyone laughed at him, because each tiny little bit of bread can only be consumed once, so the whole loaf has only a fixed amount of sustaining power, no matter how divided, while money circulates to be used over and over again without ever being consumed.

Not everyone's laughing at him, many are laughing at the tangential and defensive responses.

If someone popped up asking if the software could safely hold up his aquarium without bending or cracking, there isn't much that can be said by way of direct reply.

Such was his analogy.  He is deeply confused.  It is neither defensive nor tangential to point that out.

[weisoq]

If someone popped up asking if the software could safely hold up his aquarium without bending or cracking, there isn't much that can be said by way of direct reply.

Such was his analogy.  He is deeply confused.  It is neither defensive nor tangential to point that out.
[/quote]
Tangential in that it doesn't address his point, rather ones own. Defensive in responding with mutual and valueless memes to distract from the possibilty of any merit. We might not all agree, but we do all understand the point he was making. If you hope to build cryptos into anything more than a zero-sum techie plaything I suggest it's time to stop playing and skirting around the questions everyone outside this small circle will have. If you don't, then as you were.

[freedomno1]

Top 5 Epic fail storys of the forums
I know someday such a topic will exist

[MagicBit15]

*Insert Facepalm Spam Memes*

Allright lets relax with the spam kid. Send you right back to the newbie board/Mod reporting Lmao!!

[freedomno1]

*Insert Facepalm Spam Memes*

Allright lets relax with the spam kid. Send you right back to the newbie board/Mod reporting Lmao!!

Lol I don't think such a function exists yet

[MagicBit15]

*Insert Facepalm Spam Memes*

Allright lets relax with the spam kid. Send you right back to the newbie board/Mod reporting Lmao!!

Lol I don't think such a function exists yet

It should though right lmao

[freedomno1]

*Insert Facepalm Spam Memes*

Allright lets relax with the spam kid. Send you right back to the newbie board/Mod reporting Lmao!!

Lol I don't think such a function exists yet

It should though right lmao

I can see it now
Its the NOOB HAMMER a wonderfully kinder or eviler version of the ban hammer
Its ability
Send people Back to the Fjords with Noobs!

[Yuusha]

but we do all understand the point he was making.

Actually, no. His post is pure nonsense. And I say that not being a hardcore Bitcoin-believer. Anyone not completely mentally challenged would understand this is not how it works.

[weisoq]

but we do all understand the point he was making.

Actually, no. His post is pure nonsense. And I say that not being a hardcore Bitcoin-believer. Anyone not completely mentally challenged would understand this is not how it works.

ah yes of course, what logic and rationale. But you are correct in that one of us is either mentally challenged, or bullshitting.

[kjj]

If someone popped up asking if the software could safely hold up his aquarium without bending or cracking, there isn't much that can be said by way of direct reply.

Such was his analogy.  He is deeply confused.  It is neither defensive nor tangential to point that out.

Tangential in that it doesn't address his point, rather ones own. Defensive in responding with mutual and valueless memes to distract from the possibilty of any merit. We might not all agree, but we do all understand the point he was making. If you hope to build cryptos into anything more than a zero-sum techie plaything I suggest it's time to stop playing and skirting around the questions everyone outside this small circle will have. If you don't, then as you were.

There was no point to address.  Bitcoin is not bread.  The sustaining power of a loaf of bread is fixed, and dividing it up doesn't change the sum.  One loaf cannot feed a herd of angry villagers.  The money power of bitcoin is not fixed.  1 BTC can serve the exchange uses of the entire world.

Value is not a thing that exists outside of our minds.  We aren't embedding some of it into our money.  We are measuring it, like we measure temperature or distance, just not with a coherent or standardized scale*.  No one is worried that there won't be enough temperature to go around, or enough kilometers.  Worrying that there won't be enough money for everyone demonstrates a serious confusion.

Once again, it is not defensive to point out that someone's thinking will not lead to useful questions, much less useful answers.

*  Although bitcoin is the world's best attempt at a coherent measure for value, by far.  The far end of the scale is subject to the whims of politicians or bankers.  If only that were the only problem...

[sidhujag]

This goes back to the whole deflation/inflation issue and what is good/bad should there an equilibrium between the two in order for our society to operate in harmony? The OP made a valid point but maybe came from a different point of view which wasn't valid but had the right idea.

It's more complicated than to say hey 1 BTC can run the world, you have to provide info that doesn't exist yet in order to prove that, and its relatively easy to disprove that idea.

I created a thread here talking about this issue:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=236684.0;

[freedomno1]

Fine replies to this story with same line of reasoning bear with me sigh

The crowds followed Satoshi on foot from the towns. When Satoshi landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their finances. As evening approached, the bitcoiners came to him and said, "This is a remote place, and it's already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the mines and earn themselves some food."
Satoshi replied, "They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat."
"We have here only one loaf of bread and fifty bitcoins," they answered.
"Bring them here to me," he said.
Satoshi directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the one loaf of bread and the fifty bitcoins and looking up to the blockchain, he gave thanks and broke the chain. Then he gave them to the bitcoiners, and the bitcoiners gave them to the people. They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children.

OP's story made me go there

[bitcoinbear]

Once upon a time, there was a guy that didn't understand the difference between physical goods with mass, and abstract money.  He wrote a story comparing bread to bitcoin.  Sadly, everyone laughed at him, because each tiny little bit of bread can only be consumed once, so the whole loaf has only a fixed amount of sustaining power, no matter how divided, while money circulates to be used over and over again without ever being consumed.

+1

Is the OP saying the problem lies in the fact that one man has 10 bread while the rest of the village lives on 1 bread, so the inequality is killing them? Or is he saying that there are 10 breads, which clearly is not enough to feed the 1000's of people, so no matter how they cut it they are going to starve?

Are we complaining about how the early adopters have too many coins, or that the money supply of bitocins is only like a billion dollars, which is clearly too small for a global economy?

The obvious solution to the OP's story is to printbake more bread.

We don't have to print more bitcoins because they can just expand to fill the needs of the economy. That might mean the USD value of a single Bitcoin will go up a few orders of magnitude, but that is okay because we can divide bitcoins down eight decimal places. See, the divisibility is the solution after all, you just have to look at it the right direction.

[freedomno1]

Once upon a time, there was a guy that didn't understand the difference between physical goods with mass, and abstract money.  He wrote a story comparing bread to bitcoin.  Sadly, everyone laughed at him, because each tiny little bit of bread can only be consumed once, so the whole loaf has only a fixed amount of sustaining power, no matter how divided, while money circulates to be used over and over again without ever being consumed.

+1

Is the OP saying the problem lies in the fact that one man has 10 bread while the rest of the village lives on 1 bread, so the inequality is killing them? Or is he saying that there are 10 breads, which clearly is not enough to feed the 1000's of people, so no matter how they cut it they are going to starve?

Are we complaining about how the early adopters have too many coins, or that the money supply of bitocins is only like a billion dollars, which is clearly too small for a global economy?

The obvious solution to the OP's story is to printbake more bread.

We don't have to print more bitcoins because they can just expand to fill the needs of the economy. That might mean the USD value of a single Bitcoin will go up a few orders of magnitude, but that is okay because we can divide bitcoins down eight decimal places. See, the divisibility is the solution after all, you just have to look at it the right direction.

Nope the obvious solution to this story was to split the bitcoins using the blockchain to buy more bread XD
Refer to my troll post XD

[sidhujag]

Once upon a time, there was a guy that didn't understand the difference between physical goods with mass, and abstract money.  He wrote a story comparing bread to bitcoin.  Sadly, everyone laughed at him, because each tiny little bit of bread can only be consumed once, so the whole loaf has only a fixed amount of sustaining power, no matter how divided, while money circulates to be used over and over again without ever being consumed.

+1

Is the OP saying the problem lies in the fact that one man has 10 bread while the rest of the village lives on 1 bread, so the inequality is killing them? Or is he saying that there are 10 breads, which clearly is not enough to feed the 1000's of people, so no matter how they cut it they are going to starve?

Are we complaining about how the early adopters have too many coins, or that the money supply of bitocins is only like a billion dollars, which is clearly too small for a global economy?

The obvious solution to the OP's story is to printbake more bread.

We don't have to print more bitcoins because they can just expand to fill the needs of the economy. That might mean the USD value of a single Bitcoin will go up a few orders of magnitude, but that is okay because we can divide bitcoins down eight decimal places. See, the divisibility is the solution after all, you just have to look at it the right direction.

You divide bitcoins down to 8 decimal points and you will see people starving, holding off for a cheaper loaf of bread

[bitcoinbear]

Once upon a time, there was a guy that didn't understand the difference between physical goods with mass, and abstract money.  He wrote a story comparing bread to bitcoin.  Sadly, everyone laughed at him, because each tiny little bit of bread can only be consumed once, so the whole loaf has only a fixed amount of sustaining power, no matter how divided, while money circulates to be used over and over again without ever being consumed.

+1

Is the OP saying the problem lies in the fact that one man has 10 bread while the rest of the village lives on 1 bread, so the inequality is killing them? Or is he saying that there are 10 breads, which clearly is not enough to feed the 1000's of people, so no matter how they cut it they are going to starve?

Are we complaining about how the early adopters have too many coins, or that the money supply of bitocins is only like a billion dollars, which is clearly too small for a global economy?

The obvious solution to the OP's story is to printbake more bread.

We don't have to print more bitcoins because they can just expand to fill the needs of the economy. That might mean the USD value of a single Bitcoin will go up a few orders of magnitude, but that is okay because we can divide bitcoins down eight decimal places. See, the divisibility is the solution after all, you just have to look at it the right direction.

You divide bitcoins down to 8 decimal points and you will see people starving, holding off for a cheaper loaf of bread

That makes no sense. Bitcoins are already divided down to 8 decimal places. Anybody starving because they are hoping their bitcoins will go up in value is an idiot. Food today is worth more than the possibility of food tomorrow.

[weisoq]

If someone popped up asking if the software could safely hold up his aquarium without bending or cracking, there isn't much that can be said by way of direct reply.

Such was his analogy.  He is deeply confused.  It is neither defensive nor tangential to point that out.

Tangential in that it doesn't address his point, rather ones own. Defensive in responding with mutual and valueless memes to distract from the possibilty of any merit. We might not all agree, but we do all understand the point he was making. If you hope to build cryptos into anything more than a zero-sum techie plaything I suggest it's time to stop playing and skirting around the questions everyone outside this small circle will have. If you don't, then as you were.

There was no point to address.  Bitcoin is not bread.  The sustaining power of a loaf of bread is fixed, and dividing it up doesn't change the sum.  One loaf cannot feed a herd of angry villagers.  The money power of bitcoin is not fixed.  1 BTC can serve the exchange uses of the entire world.

Value is not a thing that exists outside of our minds.  We aren't embedding some of it into our money.  We are measuring it, like we measure temperature or distance, just not with a coherent or standardized scale*.  No one is worried that there won't be enough temperature to go around, or enough kilometers.  Worrying that there won't be enough money for everyone demonstrates a serious confusion.

Once again, it is not defensive to point out that someone's thinking will not lead to useful questions, much less useful answers.

*  Although bitcoin is the world's best attempt at a coherent measure for value, by far.  The far end of the scale is subject to the whims of politicians or bankers.  If only that were the only problem...

His point referred to distribution not division. The only value that Bitcoin has, beyond niches, is that ascribed to it in supplanting something else of value and this remaining so.

You have two choices, as do I. The first is to maintain the myths for as long as possible, make what you will of good fortune (and perhaps work, I don’t know you and don't dispute efforts expended), continue facilitating zero-sum intellectual and capital investment and waste an incredible opportunity for crytocurrencies to revolutionise finance and personal empowerment that would far surpass short-term personal gains. The second is to recognise that if bitcoins are not scarce because they may be replicated (for all intents and purposes, with just a name change) then what is their value, or if they are scarce then people will find something else to use instead; and thus something needs to change.

That’s up to you, but please don’t assume everybody is an idiot.

[ElectricMucus]

Nice thread OP, judging from the responses it seems you've struck a nerve.

[sidhujag]

Once upon a time, there was a guy that didn't understand the difference between physical goods with mass, and abstract money.  He wrote a story comparing bread to bitcoin.  Sadly, everyone laughed at him, because each tiny little bit of bread can only be consumed once, so the whole loaf has only a fixed amount of sustaining power, no matter how divided, while money circulates to be used over and over again without ever being consumed.

+1

Is the OP saying the problem lies in the fact that one man has 10 bread while the rest of the village lives on 1 bread, so the inequality is killing them? Or is he saying that there are 10 breads, which clearly is not enough to feed the 1000's of people, so no matter how they cut it they are going to starve?

Are we complaining about how the early adopters have too many coins, or that the money supply of bitocins is only like a billion dollars, which is clearly too small for a global economy?

The obvious solution to the OP's story is to printbake more bread.

We don't have to print more bitcoins because they can just expand to fill the needs of the economy. That might mean the USD value of a single Bitcoin will go up a few orders of magnitude, but that is okay because we can divide bitcoins down eight decimal places. See, the divisibility is the solution after all, you just have to look at it the right direction.

You divide bitcoins down to 8 decimal points and you will see people starving, holding off for a cheaper loaf of bread

That makes no sense. Bitcoins are already divided down to 8 decimal places. Anybody starving because they are hoping their bitcoins will go up in value is an idiot. Food today is worth more than the possibility of food tomorrow.

In deflation the price of things get cheaper and cheaper as currency price rises... there is incentive there for wrong behaviour that will cause many bad things to happen. Although its not much better than what we are doing to our people now, it is not much better. You want a semi-inflationary deflation scheme which will allow you to control supply to a finite extent which will not burden the economy and create too much inflationary stress. You can easily see where just dividing the bitcoins will go wrong in many ways.

[Ichthyo]

If someone popped up asking if the software could safely hold up his aquarium without bending or cracking, there isn't much that can be said by way of direct reply.

Such was his analogy.  He is deeply confused.  It is neither defensive nor tangential to point that out.

Tangential in that it doesn't address his point, rather ones own. Defensive in responding with mutual and valueless memes...
We might not all agree, but we do all understand the point he was making.

There was no point to address.  Bitcoin is not bread.  The sustaining power of a loaf of bread is fixed, and dividing it up doesn't change the sum....

Value is not a thing that exists outside of our minds.  We aren't embedding some of it into our money.  We are measuring it, like we measure temperature or distance, ....

Folks, we shouldn't be so dismissive...

For thousands of years people where deeply believing that value is substantial.
Let's be honest: even today, a grand majority of all humans still share this belief. The modern age has barely scratched the surface. People might surrender "pro forma", they might just talk as they where tought in school, but if you look carefully, there is a very far spread deep belief regarding a substance of value, assuming a fixed coordinate system of good and bad (and especially evil is perceived as being substantial!) and that "somehow" (be it remote, mystical) there is a fixed benevolent master plan.

Only a small elite of educated people has really grasped relativity and attained a scientific thinking style.
We shouldn't forget that, since to all the others, analogies as brought forth by the OP sound "somehow plausible" and "seem to ring true". And all the arguments of the world won't help a shit against deep believes.

[Ichthyo]

To OP:

you made a serious mistake by using such an allusive and condescending writing style. This is not the place to tell stories to the children.

Thus, if you want a honest discussion, then please come out of your cranny, and instead of talking in metaphors, put some clear arguments on the table!

• what exactly are you criticising?
• what are your presuppositions?
• what are your conclusions?

your turn...

[kjj]

His point referred to distribution not division. The only value that Bitcoin has, beyond niches, is that ascribed to it in supplanting something else of value and this remaining so.

You are really reaching here.  Go back and read the first post.  Most of it is about division, not distribution.  And his summary at the end even makes it clear that he is talking about the "limited supply".

Perhaps you are reading what you want to read, rather than what was actually written?

You have two choices, as do I. The first is to maintain the myths for as long as possible, make what you will of good fortune (and perhaps work, I don’t know you and don't dispute efforts expended), continue facilitating zero-sum intellectual and capital investment and waste an incredible opportunity for crytocurrencies to revolutionise finance and personal empowerment that would far surpass short-term personal gains. The second is to recognise that if bitcoins are not scarce because they may be replicated (for all intents and purposes, with just a name change) then what is their value, or if they are scarce then people will find something else to use instead; and thus something needs to change.

I can make no sense of this, which is strange because all of the words are familiar to me.  If you'd like to try to restate it more clearly, feel free.  Oh, and your dilemma in the second part is false: scarceness is necessary for money.

That’s up to you, but please don’t assume everybody is an idiot.

I never assume that anyone is an idiot until they've given me a reason.  In fact, if you read my posting history, you can see for yourself that I have a tendency to chastise people for underestimating the public (this comes up often in the many many threads about naming the fractions).

P.S.  Confusion does not imply idiocy.  Money is hard to understand, very few people really "get" it, but I suspect that most people can if they put in the effort.

[tkbx]

Once upon a time there was a village where one rich man who had ten breads while the rest of the village was poor and starved. The rich man said to the poor people: "listen, I will share one bread with the rest of you, that should keep you satisfied" the villagers responded: "one bread wont feed us all" The rich man said "Oh, that is no problem, the bread can be cut into 20 slices". But The villagers responded "that is not enough, we are thousands of starving people" The rich man then said "that is still not a problem, because each slice of bread can be divided into hundreds of crumbles - and if that is not enough for you, each crumble can actually be divided into billions of molecules"

Stupid story? Well it is exactly the same logic that a disturbingly lot of people here believe can solve the problem of the limited supply of bitcoins.

You obviously know nothing of economics. The bread analogy is worthless, because the amount of food a person needs to survive is fairly constant, and bread derives it's value from necessity, not rarity. Imagine for a second there are 1,000,000,000,000,000 bitcoins, all in curculation. 1BTC becomes worth much less, so people start giving them out because they are readily available, trading multiple BTC for small items and services, faucets might give out 1 or 2 BTC, and you're not a "hoarder" until you have 1,000,000,000. Now, imagine there is one BTC. People know they will never have 1BTC, hell, they'll never have 0.00001, so 0.0000001 because worth dollars, maybe dozens of dollars, because so many people are trying to get BTC.

[weisoq]

You are really reaching here.  Go back and read the first post.  Most of it is about division, not distribution.  And his summary at the end even makes it clear that he is talking about the "limited supply".
Perhaps you are reading what you want to read, rather than what was actually written?

No I’m not the only person who was able to discern what he was referring to. We could keep playing the game of analogy vs literal, but we don’t need to as his first post was clarified by his second which stated:

There once was a man called Nakamoto. He printed a million coins. He was later joined by a few other guys who together printed yet a few million coins. Thereafter many people joined, but printing then became very difficult. Actually the printing press will slow down to zero. However, those guys who printed the first coins are willing to sell their coins to rest of the world. And if those other people of the world only can grab a fraction of a coin, don't worry - it can be divided by 10e8. Economy!”

I can make no sense of this, which is strange because all of the words are familiar to me.  If you'd like to try to restate it more clearly, feel free.  Oh, and your dilemma in the second part is false: scarceness is necessary for money.

I don’t see the confusion. Perhaps you don’t like what it says. I can rewrite if it helps:

You have two choices.

The first choice is to maintain the myths of Bitcoin for as long as possible, make what you will of good fortune to date, continue wasting good intellectual and capital investment in zero-sum endeavours where one group of techies screws over another, and therfore also waste an incredible opportunity for crytocurrencies to revolutionise finance and personal empowerment that would far surpass short-term personal gains (or at minimum waste a heck of a lot of time in getting to that point).

The second choice is to recognise that something has to change with Bitcoin because either:

1) Bitcoins are scarce in which case at some point those who do not already have any will rationally find something else to use instead of Bitcoin (see the rise of altcoins and alternatives as evidence of this). This phenomenon was predicted on these boards from at least 2010 when I started reading it, probably earlier, and will not end because it’s an inevitability, or

2) Bitcoins are not scarce because they may be replicated (for all intents and purposes with just a name change), in which case what is the value of a replicable and replicated digital asset offering no advantage over others?

Falling on either side of 1 or 2 without the existence of advantages or damn good reasons to prefer Bitcoin over alternatives (beyond marketing) therefore necessitates changes or precludes its demise beyond a blinkered niche. As to what changes are required, I will leave that to application of rationality and economics.

I never assume that anyone is an idiot until they've given me a reason.  In fact, if you read my posting history, you can see for yourself that I have a tendency to chastise people for underestimating the public (this comes up often in the many many threads about naming the fractions).
P.S.  Confusion does not imply idiocy.  Money is hard to understand, very few people really "get" it, but I suspect that most people can if they put in the effort.

Everybody “gets” it. Whether they are able and willing to admit it is another matter. Perhaps unlike the bulk of people on this forum I’d actually like cryptos to (be able to) replace state fiat not remain a token playthings between small groups. That’s not possible with Bitcoin unless it is changed. Rather than the continual trumpeting of any innate libertarian, free-market ethos to Bitcoin why isn’t there more appreciation that the natural evolution of private free money and autonomy is that the next person or group will come along, compete with and improve it, likely resigning the previous form to the dustbin.

Either Bitcoin adherents accept there are flaws and moves with the times, or any objective observer has to conclude it’s just a pyramid because it doesn’t work economically for the majority of economic participants who will rationally not adopt it when they work it out. And to be clear my perspective there is as simple as not discerning any great difference between one group of powerful cronies controlling the fortunes of everybody else and another - be that a government, us Bitcoiners or whoever. There is no special ‘Bitcoin State’ that rewrites the rules of monetary theory or libertarian ideology and to think otherwise is naive or corrupt.

[sidhujag]

You are really reaching here.  Go back and read the first post.  Most of it is about division, not distribution.  And his summary at the end even makes it clear that he is talking about the "limited supply".
Perhaps you are reading what you want to read, rather than what was actually written?

No I’m not the only person who was able to discern what he was referring to. We could keep playing the game of analogy vs literal, but we don’t need to as his first post was clarified by his second which stated:

There once was a man called Nakamoto. He printed a million coins. He was later joined by a few other guys who together printed yet a few million coins. Thereafter many people joined, but printing then became very difficult. Actually the printing press will slow down to zero. However, those guys who printed the first coins are willing to sell their coins to rest of the world. And if those other people of the world only can grab a fraction of a coin, don't worry - it can be divided by 10e8. Economy!”

I can make no sense of this, which is strange because all of the words are familiar to me.  If you'd like to try to restate it more clearly, feel free.  Oh, and your dilemma in the second part is false: scarceness is necessary for money.

I don’t see the confusion. Perhaps you don’t like what it says. I can rewrite if it helps:

You have two choices.

The first choice is to maintain the myths of Bitcoin for as long as possible, make what you will of good fortune to date, continue wasting good intellectual and capital investment in zero-sum endeavours where one group of techies screws over another, and therfore also waste an incredible opportunity for crytocurrencies to revolutionise finance and personal empowerment that would far surpass short-term personal gains (or at minimum waste a heck of a lot of time in getting to that point).

The second choice is to recognise that something has to change with Bitcoin because either:

1) Bitcoins are scarce in which case at some point those who do not already have any will rationally find something else to use instead of Bitcoin (see the rise of altcoins and alternatives as evidence of this). This phenomenon was predicted on these boards from at least 2010 when I started reading it, probably earlier, and will not end because it’s an inevitability, or

2) Bitcoins are not scarce because they may be replicated (for all intents and purposes with just a name change), in which case what is the value of a replicable and replicated digital asset offering no advantage over others?

Falling on either side of 1 or 2 without the existence of advantages or damn good reasons to prefer Bitcoin over alternatives (beyond marketing) therefore necessitates changes or precludes its demise beyond a blinkered niche. As to what changes are required, I will leave that to application of rationality and economics.

I never assume that anyone is an idiot until they've given me a reason.  In fact, if you read my posting history, you can see for yourself that I have a tendency to chastise people for underestimating the public (this comes up often in the many many threads about naming the fractions).
P.S.  Confusion does not imply idiocy.  Money is hard to understand, very few people really "get" it, but I suspect that most people can if they put in the effort.

Everybody “gets” it. Whether they are able and willing to admit it is another matter. Perhaps unlike the bulk of people on this forum I’d actually like cryptos to (be able to) replace state fiat not remain a token playthings between small groups. That’s not possible with Bitcoin unless it is changed. Rather than the continual trumpeting of any innate libertarian, free-market ethos to Bitcoin why isn’t there more appreciation that the natural evolution of private free money and autonomy is that the next person or group will come along, compete with and improve it, likely resigning the previous form to the dustbin.

Either Bitcoin adherents accept there are flaws and moves with the times, or any objective observer has to conclude it’s just a pyramid because it doesn’t work economically for the majority of economic participants who will rationally not adopt it when they work it out. And to be clear my perspective there is as simple as not discerning any great difference between one group of powerful cronies controlling the fortunes of everybody else and another - be that a government, us Bitcoiners or whoever. There is no special ‘Bitcoin State’ that rewrites the rules of monetary theory or libertarian ideology and to think otherwise is naive or corrupt.

This is what I've been saying all along and it would be good to have you over at my thread. The economy would be lopsidedly deflationary and alt's like devcoin already combat this issue by providing scarcity by controlling supply in a public manor. 200 billion coins in 100 years from now is not inflationary by any means judging by how many people there will be to use the coins, infact it is highly deflationary still, but the best crypto example we have. Proponents of btc will say you can just divide up the currency units once it gets more scarce, but to me there is no proof from a supply/demand perspective to justify that this will stop a fully deflationary event where banks will stop lending and ppl defaulting on their loans.

[wingding]

To OP:

you made a serious mistake by using such an allusive and condescending writing style. This is not the place to tell stories to the children.

Thus, if you want a honest discussion, then please come out of your cranny, and instead of talking in metaphors, put some clear arguments on the table!

• what exactly are you criticising?
• what are your presuppositions?
• what are your conclusions?

A fair claim Ichthyo, but I think weisoq express my views perfectly well:

The first choice is to maintain the myths of Bitcoin for as long as possible, make what you will of good fortune to date, continue wasting good intellectual and capital investment in zero-sum endeavours where one group of techies screws over another, and therfore also waste an incredible opportunity for crytocurrencies to revolutionise finance and personal empowerment that would far surpass short-term personal gains (or at minimum waste a heck of a lot of time in getting to that point).

The second choice is to recognise that something has to change with Bitcoin because either:

1) Bitcoins are scarce in which case at some point those who do not already have any will rationally find something else to use instead of Bitcoin (see the rise of altcoins and alternatives as evidence of this). This phenomenon was predicted on these boards from at least 2010 when I started reading it, probably earlier, and will not end because it’s an inevitability, or

2) Bitcoins are not scarce because they may be replicated (for all intents and purposes with just a name change), in which case what is the value of a replicable and replicated digital asset offering no advantage over others?

Falling on either side of 1 or 2 without the existence of advantages or damn good reasons to prefer Bitcoin over alternatives (beyond marketing) therefore necessitates changes or precludes its demise beyond a blinkered niche. As to what changes are required, I will leave that to application of rationality and economics.

I never assume that anyone is an idiot until they've given me a reason.  In fact, if you read my posting history, you can see for yourself that I have a tendency to chastise people for underestimating the public (this comes up often in the many many threads about naming the fractions).
P.S.  Confusion does not imply idiocy.  Money is hard to understand, very few people really "get" it, but I suspect that most people can if they put in the effort.

Everybody “gets” it. Whether they are able and willing to admit it is another matter. Perhaps unlike the bulk of people on this forum I’d actually like cryptos to (be able to) replace state fiat not remain a token playthings between small groups. That’s not possible with Bitcoin unless it is changed. Rather than the continual trumpeting of any innate libertarian, free-market ethos to Bitcoin why isn’t there more appreciation that the natural evolution of private free money and autonomy is that the next person or group will come along, compete with and improve it, likely resigning the previous form to the dustbin.

Either Bitcoin adherents accept there are flaws and moves with the times, or any objective observer has to conclude it’s just a pyramid because it doesn’t work economically for the majority of economic participants who will rationally not adopt it when they work it out. And to be clear my perspective there is as simple as not discerning any great difference between one group of powerful cronies controlling the fortunes of everybody else and another - be that a government, us Bitcoiners or whoever. There is no special ‘Bitcoin State’ that rewrites the rules of monetary theory or libertarian ideology and to think otherwise is naive or corrupt.

Satoshi created a great thing as technology alone is considered. But he did not solve the problem of distribution, which is a a difficult one. On the contrary, his extremely deflationary rules for supply was the worst choice. Now, the greed of the early adopters that strives to preserve bitcoin unchanged, is what probably will prohibit mass adoption of bitcoin - and worse, delay the appearance of a free cryptocurrency for years.

[Ichthyo]

Hey, can you please stop the gibberish and meta-discussion in this thread.

My claim still stands: give us a clear, crisp and unambiguous statement of your critique.

As long as you continue to tell stories ("once there was a man called...") in poetical language, littered with allusions and implied meaning, we must assume that you're hiding something. Whenever you've a clear grasp of a topic, you're able to put it in simple words

Please put your axioms and assumptions on the table, in clear daylight. Then there can be a fair discussion.


It is really an insult to expect from your readers to infer what you were intending, instead of just stating yourself what you want to say.


Thus, please write an answer in one sentence: what is The Bitcoin decimal issue?

[Killdozer]

Thus, if you want a honest discussion, then please come out of your cranny, and instead of talking in metaphors, put some clear arguments on the table!

    what exactly are you criticising?
    what are your presuppositions?
    what are your conclusions?

Boy, this just get's more and more hilarious, I love this shit! There is just no way for this topic to be serious now.
Conclusions, presuppositions? The OT lacks basic comprehension of how reality works, economics, mathematics or even logic and here we are, trying to get some clear arguments.
- "Bitcoin sucks because bread can't be divided to molecules"
- "What are your conclusions? Presuppositions?"

[sidhujag]

he probably meant it to mean what i wrote about in my thread about capped vs uncapped coin. Plz advise on there its a more comprehensive summary of what this guy was too lazy to say.

[weisoq]

This is what I've been saying all along and it would be good to have you over at my thread. The economy would be lopsidedly deflationary and alt's like devcoin already combat this issue by providing scarcity by controlling supply in a public manor. 200 billion coins in 100 years from now is not inflationary by any means judging by how many people there will be to use the coins, infact it is highly deflationary still, but the best crypto example we have. Proponents of btc will say you can just divide up the currency units once it gets more scarce, but to me there is no proof from a supply/demand perspective to justify that this will stop a fully deflationary event where banks will stop lending and ppl defaulting on their loans.

Cheers, but it's a complete waste of time. Opinion will tend to fall on the side of personal asset/liability profiles, and as this is bitcointalk the skew or ignorance or bullshit is self-evident, regardless of realities and economics. A shame for those interested in making more of cryptos and Bitcoin infrastructure and efforts, as that means it fails or was never intended to work, so it just comes down to timing in a game, but so be it.

[Ichthyo]

the skew or ignorance or bullshit is self-evident, regardless of realities and economics. A shame for those interested in making more of cryptos and Bitcoin infrastructure and efforts, as that means it fails or was never intended to work

Can you please be more explicit?

What are those miraculous "realities" and "rules of economics" you are alluding all the time?

WHY ARE YOU ALLUDING TO THINGS instead of just stating what you think are the facts.

Thus again: say in one sentence what are those "facts" everyone seems to be ignoring?


It might well be that you are incapable of stating your "facts" in a single, clear sentence, and thus need to resort to telling fairy tales and slander other people.

Thus: proof to the contrary that you are able to give a coherent reasoning about what is broken with Bitcoin.

[weisoq]

the skew or ignorance or bullshit is self-evident, regardless of realities and economics. A shame for those interested in making more of cryptos and Bitcoin infrastructure and efforts, as that means it fails or was never intended to work

Can you please be more explicit?

What are those miraculous "realities" and "rules of economics" you are alluding all the time?

WHY ARE YOU ALLUDING TO THINGS instead of just stating what you think are the facts.

Thus again: say in one sentence what are those "facts" everyone seems to be ignoring?

It might well be that you are incapable of stating your "facts" in a single, clear sentence, and thus need to resort to telling fairy tales and slander other people.

Thus: proof to the contrary that you are able to give a coherent reasoning about what is broken with Bitcoin.

I posted on that above, trying to engage in a substantive discussion, but I'll post it again if you'd like to explain where I'm wrong. Otherwise do you have any actual opinion or basis for your faith beyond prayer and evangelism, or are you instead just going to keep repeating the same defensive nonsense such as the requirement to outine any view 'in a sentence'?

You have two choices.

The first choice is to maintain the myths of Bitcoin for as long as possible, make what you will of good fortune to date, continue wasting good intellectual and capital investment in zero-sum endeavours where one group of techies screws over another, and therfore also waste an incredible opportunity for crytocurrencies to revolutionise finance and personal empowerment that would far surpass short-term personal gains (or at minimum waste a heck of a lot of time in getting to that point).

The second choice is to recognise that something has to change with Bitcoin because either:

1) Bitcoins are scarce in which case at some point those who do not already have any will rationally find something else to use instead of Bitcoin (see the rise of altcoins and alternatives as evidence of this). This phenomenon was predicted on these boards from at least 2010 when I started reading it, probably earlier, and will not end because it’s an inevitability, or

2) Bitcoins are not scarce because they may be replicated (for all intents and purposes with just a name change), in which case what is the value of a replicable and replicated digital asset offering no advantage over others?

Falling on either side of 1 or 2 without the existence of advantages or damn good reasons to prefer Bitcoin over alternatives (beyond marketing) therefore necessitates changes or precludes its demise beyond a blinkered niche. As to what changes are required, I will leave that to application of rationality and economics.

Quote
I never assume that anyone is an idiot until they've given me a reason.  In fact, if you read my posting history, you can see for yourself that I have a tendency to chastise people for underestimating the public (this comes up often in the many many threads about naming the fractions).
P.S.  Confusion does not imply idiocy.  Money is hard to understand, very few people really "get" it, but I suspect that most people can if they put in the effort.
Quote

Everybody “gets” it. Whether they are able and willing to admit it is another matter. Perhaps unlike the bulk of people on this forum I’d actually like cryptos to (be able to) replace state fiat not remain a token playthings between small groups. That’s not possible with Bitcoin unless it is changed. Rather than the continual trumpeting of any innate libertarian, free-market ethos to Bitcoin why isn’t there more appreciation that the natural evolution of private free money and autonomy is that the next person or group will come along, compete with and improve it, likely resigning the previous form to the dustbin.

Either Bitcoin adherents accept there are flaws and moves with the times, or any objective observer has to conclude it’s just a pyramid because it doesn’t work economically for the majority of economic participants who will rationally not adopt it when they work it out. And to be clear my perspective there is as simple as not discerning any great difference between one group of powerful cronies controlling the fortunes of everybody else and another - be that a government, us Bitcoiners or whoever. There is no special ‘Bitcoin State’ that rewrites the rules of monetary theory or libertarian ideology and to think otherwise is naive or corrupt.

[btcusr]

I strongly believe that somewhere in near future mBTC / XBT should go mainstream.

May be I am completely wrong, but I couldn't differentiate between Bitcoin starting to use subunits and a country printing more fiat money.

Let's say Bitcoin starts to use mBTC, now there are suddenly 1000x units. When a country prints more money then why not think it as a way of making units more fungible.

You bought a candy for a cent then you pay a dollar now. That means, your country has printed 100 times more money or something interesting happened to candy production or your country has gained much reputation or your country is manipulating global exchange rates, etc.

Everything somehow looks the same for me. I'm an average Bitcoin user, explain to me.

[AliceWonder]

I strongly believe that somewhere in near future mBTC / XBT should go mainstream.

May be I am completely wrong, but I couldn't differentiate between Bitcoin starting to use subunits and a country printing more fiat money.

Let's say Bitcoin starts to use mBTC, now there are suddenly 1000x units. When a country prints more money then why not think it as a way of making units more fungible.

You bought a candy for a cent then you pay a dollar now. That means, your country has printed 100 times more money or something interesting happened to candy production or your country has gained much reputation or your country is manipulating global exchange rates, etc.

Everything somehow looks the same for me. I'm an average Bitcoin user, explain to me.

My client is already set to display mBTC and I expect that to be the norm if the cost of a full BTC stabalizes higher than it is right now.

[btcusr]

May be my point irrelevant to this thread. I'll start a new thread..

[Jace]

I strongly believe that somewhere in near future mBTC / XBT should go mainstream.

May be I am completely wrong, but I couldn't differentiate between Bitcoin starting to use subunits and a country printing more fiat money.

Let's say Bitcoin starts to use mBTC, now there are suddenly 1000x units.

When a country prints more money then why not think it as a way of making units more fungible.

You bought a candy for a cent then you pay a dollar now. That means, your country has printed 100 times more money or something interesting happened to candy production or your country has gained much reputation or your country is manipulating global exchange rates, etc.

Everything somehow looks the same for me. I'm an average Bitcoin user, explain to me.

You couldn't differentiate? They're completely the opposite of eachother!

There are more sides to this, but I guess the key difference is this: by switching to mBTC thus effectively creating 1000x more units (which is not the case because these units were in fact already there to begin with, but for argument's sake) then who owns these new units? Now compare this to: when a country prints more fiat money, then who owns this new fiat?

Government or ECB or FED printing more fiat money = effectively stealing existing fiat money.

[btcusr]

I strongly believe that somewhere in near future mBTC / XBT should go mainstream.

May be I am completely wrong, but I couldn't differentiate between Bitcoin starting to use subunits and a country printing more fiat money.

Let's say Bitcoin starts to use mBTC, now there are suddenly 1000x units.

When a country prints more money then why not think it as a way of making units more fungible.

You bought a candy for a cent then you pay a dollar now. That means, your country has printed 100 times more money or something interesting happened to candy production or your country has gained much reputation or your country is manipulating global exchange rates, etc.

Everything somehow looks the same for me. I'm an average Bitcoin user, explain to me.

You couldn't differentiate? They're completely the opposite of eachother!

There are more sides to this, but I guess the key difference is this: by switching to mBTC thus effectively creating 1000x more units (which is not the case because these units were in fact already there to begin with, but for argument's sake) then who owns these new units? Now compare this to: when a country prints more fiat money, then who owns this new fiat?

Government or ECB or FED printing more fiat money = effectively stealing existing fiat money.

Thanks, that was so simple.

Who owns new currency really matters.

Now, I understand the difference.

[bitcoinbear]

I strongly believe that somewhere in near future mBTC / XBT should go mainstream.

May be I am completely wrong, but I couldn't differentiate between Bitcoin starting to use subunits and a country printing more fiat money.

Let's say Bitcoin starts to use mBTC, now there are suddenly 1000x units. When a country prints more money then why not think it as a way of making units more fungible.

You bought a candy for a cent then you pay a dollar now. That means, your country has printed 100 times more money or something interesting happened to candy production or your country has gained much reputation or your country is manipulating global exchange rates, etc.

Everything somehow looks the same for me. I'm an average Bitcoin user, explain to me.

XBT is the ISO friendly version of BTC, thus 1 XBT = 1 BTC (not a millibitcoin, mB, or a microbitcoin or 0.0001 bitcion).

Switching from using BTC to mB is like a stock split as opposed to printing more currency which is like a stock sale. In a stock split, anybody who was holding 1 share of stock worth $100 now owns 10 shares of stock worth $10, so the total worth of their holdings is unchanged. So if I am holding 1.000 bitcoins which can buy me 100 loafs of bread, and I switch to using mB, now I have 1000 mB which can buy me 100 loafs of bread, the value I am holding remains constant.

Compare this to printing new currency, if my 1 GovCoin can buy me 100 loafs of bread, and then the government doubles the number of GovCoins overnight now I can only buy 50 loafs of bread.

[sidhujag]

I strongly believe that somewhere in near future mBTC / XBT should go mainstream.

May be I am completely wrong, but I couldn't differentiate between Bitcoin starting to use subunits and a country printing more fiat money.

Let's say Bitcoin starts to use mBTC, now there are suddenly 1000x units. When a country prints more money then why not think it as a way of making units more fungible.

You bought a candy for a cent then you pay a dollar now. That means, your country has printed 100 times more money or something interesting happened to candy production or your country has gained much reputation or your country is manipulating global exchange rates, etc.

Everything somehow looks the same for me. I'm an average Bitcoin user, explain to me.

XBT is the ISO friendly version of BTC, thus 1 XBT = 1 BTC (not a millibitcoin, mB, or a microbitcoin or 0.0001 bitcion).

Switching from using BTC to mB is like a stock split as opposed to printing more currency which is like a stock sale. In a stock split, anybody who was holding 1 share of stock worth $100 now owns 10 shares of stock worth $10, so the total worth of their holdings is unchanged. So if I am holding 1.000 bitcoins which can buy me 100 loafs of bread, and I switch to using mB, now I have 1000 mB which can buy me 100 loafs of bread, the value I am holding remains constant.

Compare this to printing new currency, if my 1 GovCoin can buy me 100 loafs of bread, and then the government doubles the number of GovCoins overnight now I can only buy 50 loafs of bread.

Easy explanation but surprisingly there are alot of people stuck in the notion that a stock split is the answer to deflationary pressures lol then some argue that as there is a split the price will double, how would it double? thats up to the market to decide and does not discount the fact that there is still a hyper deflationary scenario at 21 million.

[Ichthyo]

Can you please be more explicit?

What are those miraculous "realities" and "rules of economics" you are alluding all the time?

WHY ARE YOU ALLUDING TO THINGS instead of just stating what you think are the facts.

I posted on that above, trying to engage in a substantive discussion, but I'll post it again if you'd like to explain where I'm wrong.

Do you really think a unfortunate statement becomes better by repeating it literally? ;-)

Otherwise do you have any actual opinion or basis for your faith beyond prayer and evangelism, or are you instead just going to keep repeating the same defensive nonsense such as the requirement to outine any view 'in a sentence'?

OK, so lets start with the basics of human communication.
If you foist "prayer", "evangelism", "nonsense" on your interlocutor this counts as insults and thus counts against the credibility of your argument. That means: you would not need to insult other people if you were able to win by plain flat argumentation.

That being said...

You have two choices.

The first choice is to maintain the myths of Bitcoin for as long as possible

so again: what are the "myths of Bitcoin" dude??
Is it really so hard to "get" the fact that you to state what you mean in order to be understood by other people?

continue wasting good intellectual and capital investment in zero-sum endeavours where one group of techies screws over another

this again is not argumentation, but defaming of other people.
You might be right, but you would have to show this is actually the case. You should make clear what you mean with "wasting". You should make clear what you mean with "screwing". And then the difficult part is to show that the whole endeavour is indeed zero-sum. This is indeed such a difficult challenge that it is just plain unjustified to state such an accusation as being "obvious"

The second choice is to recognise that something has to change with Bitcoin because either:

1) Bitcoins are scarce in which case at some point those who do not already have any will rationally find something else to use instead of Bitcoin

2) Bitcoins are not scarce because they may be replicated (for all intents and purposes with just a name change), in which case what is the value of a replicable and replicated digital asset offering no advantage over others?

oh my god.
Don't you notice how broken this argument is?

First of, what makes you think there are just the two alternative scenarios you point out? Have you considered the possibility of an equilibrium state in-between (hint: in most free market-like constellations, a more or less fluctuating equilibrium is even the most likely state, while the clear "black" or "white" situation never happens).


Besides of that, the two "exclusive" alternatives you point out are both distorted and misconstrued:

1) is in contradiction to the very notion of supply and demand. If something is scarce, this means the demand surpasses the supply. In a market-like constellation, this causes the price to go up, until there is an equilibrium. This mechanism limits the possible scarcity, but it does not automatically destroy the usefulness of the scarce good.

2) is a merely theoretical construction and misleading, since you can't simply introduce a payment system in the blink of an eye. Have you ever considered what "network effect" means? Thus again, this presumably exclusive alternative can't even exist, but rather we get again the push towards an equilibrium (after a certain number of distinct payment networks have been created, the market for payment networks is saturated)

And, after this rather brilliant piece of argumentation, you draw your conclusions:

Falling on either side of 1 or 2 without the existence of advantages or damn good reasons to prefer Bitcoin over alternatives therefore necessitates changes or precludes its demise beyond a blinkered niche. As to what changes are required, I will leave that to application of rationality and economics.

And the last sentence is the annoying part and the reason which derailed this whole discussion right from start: you have nothing to offer, but you hide that behind the allusion of everything being "self-evident".



It is in no way clear what "needs" to be changed, since you weren't able to come up with a clear account of what presumably is "broken" with Bitcoin. Worse, you didn't even try to come up with such.

And last but not least, you should note that "economics" is not some kind of a fixed substance; rather there are several highly controversial schools of economics, especially when it comes to macro economics. If getting monetary systems "right" would be just a matter of common sense, then the global finance wouldn't be in such a desperate situation.


While all of this discussion is certainly funny and entertaining, actually we should indeed discuss and scrutinise the very things you're avoiding with all your statements: we should actually pose the question: what properties do we want to require from a payment system?

[weisoq]

Do you really think a unfortunate statement becomes better by repeating it literally? ;-)

I have nothing constructive to say here, although it will be difficult to respond to your points without being as patronsing and diversionary as you are.
 

OK, so lets start with the basics of human communication. If you foist "prayer", "evangelism", "nonsense" on your interlocutor this counts as insults and thus counts against the credibility of your argument. That means: you would not need to insult other people if you were able to win by plain flat argumentation. That being said...

No, prayer and evangelism can be the foundation of a religion. I think Bitcoin may have become similar or analogous to a religion. Some may argue that prayer, evangelism and religion are insulting and/or count against the credibility of an argument; I don't know but it's an interesting perspective.
 

so again: what are the "myths of Bitcoin" dude??
Is it really so hard to "get" the fact that you to state what you mean in order to be understood by other people?

The core myth is that it works for the purposes commonly outlined by its proponents – definable as a broadly adoptable currency of mutual benefit, able to replace or compete with state fiat.

this again is not argumentation, but defaming of other people.
You might be right, but you would have to show this is actually the case. You should make clear what you mean with "wasting". You should make clear what you mean with "screwing". And then the difficult part is to show that the whole endeavour is indeed zero-sum. This is indeed such a difficult challenge that it is just plain unjustified to state such an accusation as being "obvious"

You should investigate the meaning of defamation. It’s a matter of personal reputation and a tortious action. It’s my opinion and it’s also my opinion that if you don’t know to which of those two groups you’re in it’s the latter. I believe the words 'wasting', 'screwing' and 'zero-sum' are quite capable of being understood. Anyhow, why would I have to show this is actually the case? Until it has achieved the purposes outlined above or similar the onus is on Bitcoin to prove its continued worth, not for me to prove otherwise.

Look down - to my signature - you'll see a Bitcoin address. I have Bitcoins, I'm on Bitcointalk and I'm not a troll who fills the boards with relentless posts slating Bitcoin. I have no problem with Bitcoin per se, in the technology, perhaps as a stepping stone; my problem is in where it's going in terms of time, progress and progressive claims made. Assuming Bitcoin is more than a pyramid I don't recall claiming I had a solution to remedy all the flaws to every Bitcoin owner's preferences, and if I did or this was possible which I doubt I rationally wouldn't suggest them until I had optimised my own potential gain from what I perceive as possible misundersatndings or mispricings; that is if I was being economically rational which I concede perhaps I am not. That is certainly a matter of opinion subject to timescales.

oh my god.
Don't you notice how broken this argument is?
First of, what makes you think there are just the two alternative scenarios you point out? Have you considered the possibility of an equilibrium state in-between (hint: in most free market-like constellations, a more or less fluctuating equilibrium is even the most likely state, while the clear "black" or "white" situation never happens).
Besides of that, the two "exclusive" alternatives you point out are both distorted and misconstrued:
1) is in contradiction to the very notion of supply and demand. If something is scarce, this means the demand surpasses the supply. In a market-like constellation, this causes the price to go up, until there is an equilibrium. This mechanism limits the possible scarcity, but it does not automatically destroy the usefulness of the scarce good.
2) is a merely theoretical construction and misleading, since you can't simply introduce a payment system in the blink of an eye. Have you ever considered what "network effect" means? Thus again, this presumably exclusive alternative can't even exist, but rather we get again the push towards an equilibrium (after a certain number of distinct payment networks have been created, the market for payment networks is saturated)
And, after this rather brilliant piece of argumentation, you draw your conclusions:

Your breakdown of scenario 1 doesn’t make sense with regards to a broad fungible currency when alternatives are available. Your breakdown of scenario 2 is largely my point.
But nevertheless it comes down to two questions: is Bitcoin scarce, and then what would be the rational and likely response to that?

And the last sentence is the annoying part and the reason which derailed this whole discussion right from start: you have nothing to offer, but you hide that behind the allusion of everything being "self-evident".
It is in no way clear what "needs" to be changed, since you weren't able to come up with a clear account of what presumably is "broken" with Bitcoin. Worse, you didn't even try to come up with such.
And last but not least, you should note that "economics" is not some kind of a fixed substance; rather there are several highly controversial schools of economics, especially when it comes to macro economics. If getting monetary systems "right" would be just a matter of common sense, then the global finance wouldn't be in such a desperate situation.
While all of this discussion is certainly funny and entertaining, actually we should indeed discuss and scrutinise the very things you're avoiding with all your statements: we should actually pose the question: what properties do we want to require from a payment system?

No I do not need to offer a solution to highlight a problem. I will transact in the way that I believe best suits my interests, like everybody else. Absent Bitcoin doing something to address common complaints or questions raised, the natural course of collective realisation over Bitcoin is and will continue to evidence itself in alternatives that will exercise the function of fixes. I’m not sure what’s so difficult to understand about that. Maybe there isn’t a ‘solution’ yet, maybe it’s trial and error, maybe the array of recent alts, ripple, fiat currency volatility etc are evidence that the market is searching for something better. Perhaps it's just a game, trading numbers on a screen and hoping to wallk away with more than you started.

[Ichthyo]

You should investigate the meaning of defamation. It’s a matter of personal reputation and a tortious action. It’s my opinion and it’s also my opinion that if you don’t know to which of those two groups you’re in it’s the latter.

With your statement, you continue to show your dishonesty.
Instead of arguing, you place other people close to being zealots, believing in myths, creators of zero-sum scams, wasting economical resources.

I believe the words 'wasting', 'screwing' and 'zero-sum' are quite capable of being understood.

Exactly. That's why they work so well for slander.

so again: what are the "myths of Bitcoin"?

The core myth is that it works for the purposes commonly outlined by its proponents – definable as a broadly adoptable currency of mutual benefit, able to replace or compete with state fiat.

Now please look at your statement with some critical distance.
It is very vague ("commonly outlined by its proponents") to start with, and then it lumps together a lot of different goals, in an unprecise fashion

• Bitcoin is usable as currency
• using Bitcoin currency creates mutual benefit
• Bitcoin as a currency is broadly adoptable
• Bitcoin has the ability to compete with state fiat
• Bitcoin has the ability to replace state fiat

These are 5 different things. Its far from being the obvious Bitcoin myth.
And besides, you omit several other themes present in the Bitcoin community in a similar way (as possible goals), which could be labelled as Bitcoin myths as well.


And now, what exactly is the "decimal issue"?
Is the issue that you can divide bitcoins arbitrarily, or is it that you can not divide them arbitrarily?
Is it that the real-world value of one Bitcoin unit doesn't stay constant?
Is it that the real-world value of one Bitcoin unit likely increases over time, instead of decreasing?
Is it that no-one manages the real-world value of one Bitcoin unit through monetary politics?

[weisoq]

...

Epic bullshit. Instead of engaging in theology and semantics as would befit a zealot why don't you prove me wrong and answer the question I've asked about six times: "is Bitcoin scarce, and with regards to you answer what then would be the rational and likely response to that"

[Stampbit]

There is no issue, with a deflationary currency we will all enjoy working with billionths of a coin.

[Ichthyo]

Epic bullshit. Instead of engaging in theology and semantics as would befit a zealot

Weisoq, can you please stop spreading insults and stay on topic and clarify your critique?

It is not up to me to answer to hinsideous and confused questions ("is Bitcoin scarce?")

Rather it is up to you to point out what your critique is.


Please start with clarifying the topics I've pointed out. Where exactly do you see "the Bitcoin decimal issue"?
Is your concern that you can divide bitcoins arbitrarily, or is it that you can not divide them arbitrarily because of limitations in the network?
Is your concern that the real world buying power is volatile, or is the issue the the real world value is likely increasing?

[Ichthyo]

There is no issue, with a deflationary currency we will all enjoy working with billionths of a coin.

using small fractions of a coin does not pose any problems for payments.
But, just to pick one issue, making Bitcoin legal tender would require to denote the tax dept and salary and prices in other units of measurement. Thus it can't be a drop-in replacement for the kind of legal tender we're using today. Is there a fundamental problem with that, or is this just something which requires additional technicalities?

[btcusr]

You guys should be arguing over twitter..

Long arguments, and difficult to get the point

[weisoq]

Epic bullshit. Instead of engaging in theology and semantics as would befit a zealot why don't you prove me wrong and answer the question I've asked about six times: "is Bitcoin scarce, and with regards to you answer what then would be the rational and likely response to that"

Weisoq, can you please stop spreading insults and stay on topic and clarify your critique?

It is not up to me to answer to hinsideous and confused questions ("is Bitcoin scarce?")

Rather it is up to you to point out what your critique is.
...

No I didn’t think so. Pathetic.

In propagation of a belief structure or infrastructure it is for the believer to justify such belief to the sceptic, not the other way around. Whether my views on Bitcoin are that of atheism or agnosticism or adherence, such a sceptical starting point is that shared by those yet to take up the concept and therefore questions needs addressing (questions and views that friends and colleagues enquiring of Bitcoin and cryptos in general have, which is what makes this discussion particularly interesting).

I have to assume that your reference to an initial simple and fundamental question as insidious (rather than just answering it; and there’s nothing confused about it whatsoever, scarcity is a prime factor in assessing the value of any asset) implies that you think the answer to that question will provide a means for you to begin outlining my critique for me. Which means we’re going nowhere, and so I’m done with wasting my time on this discussion. Good luck.

[Ichthyo]

In propagation of a belief structure or infrastructure it is for the believer to justify such belief to the sceptic, not the other way around. Whether my views on Bitcoin are that of atheism or agnosticism or adherence, such a sceptical starting point is that shared by those yet to take up the concept and therefore questions needs addressing (questions and views that friends and colleagues enquiring of Bitcoin and cryptos in general have, which is what makes this discussion particularly interesting).

I have to assume that your reference to an initial simple and fundamental question as insidious (rather than just answering it; and there’s nothing confused about it whatsoever, scarcity is a prime factor in assessing the value of any asset) implies that you think the answer to that question will provide a means for you to begin outlining my critique for me. Which means we’re going nowhere, and so I’m done with wasting my time on this discussion. Good luck.

So to conclude.

User Weisoq comes to this thread.
He behaves in a partonising manner, implying that his interlocutors are zealots, proponents of a belief structure, adhering to some obvious bitcoin myths.

When prompted to make his critique explicit, he starts spreading insults and asks suggestive "teacher questions", but plain flat refuses to make a clear point.

I have to assume that your reference to an initial simple and fundamental question as insidious, rather than just answering it; and there’s nothing confused about it whatsoever, scarcity is a prime factor in assessing the value of any asset,  implies that you think.....

you should not "believe", assume, and imply what other people might intend.
Rather you should make your presuppositions clear and make your conclusions explicit. Then there is room for discussion.


The question "is Bitcoin scarce?" is rogue, since it treats scarcity as a substantial property of Bitcoin. Which it isn't. Scarcity is a result of demand and supply. Likewise value, which is in addition subject to a lot of subjective factors of judgement. Everyone participating in an unregulated market should be aware of that.


This question is akin to asking "is uncle Bob's sleeping room on the left side of the house? because then this means..." -- a classic suggestive trap-door question. Is east left, or is west left? Neither, since it depends on the coordinate system.


Thus my insistence on explicit presuppositions and clear structured thinking, when we intend to treat a subject like the effects of scaling and dividing of a currency unit. Doing so creates a lot of effects, both subtle and blatant ones.

But judging which of these currency-scaling effects must be considered as "an issue" requires to make your moral coordinate system explicit. What kinds of behaviours do we consider to be harmful? AND are we in a position to intervene and defeat those harmful aspects? Do we have a mandate for intervention, and on which foundation?

[Ichthyo]

in the western, European/american political culture framework, a democratic state is considered to have such a mandate for intervention into monetary and market aspects. But this is bound to the condition, that this intervention happens in a formalised manner and sticks to some pre determined rules.

But a vague association of people using some currency throughout the globe is in no way such an democratic state, and doesn't have a mandate for market regulation. Same is true for any business entity, company or the like.

This means, Bitcoin can not just be swapped in as a replacement for any existing legal tender (in our existing system, legal tender is backed by a relative constant value through decree).

But as far as I can see, there is no fundamental obstacle to build something on top of Bitcion, a value measurement unit, which can be used as legal tender. This is not to say this would be a trivial undertaking.

[sidhujag]

in the western, European/american political culture framework, a democratic state is considered to have such a mandate for intervention into monetary and market aspects. But this is bound to the condition, that this intervention happens in a formalised manner and sticks to some pre determined rules.

But a vague association of people using some currency throughout the globe is in no way such an democratic state, and doesn't have a mandate for market regulation. Same is true for any business entity, company or the like.

This means, Bitcoin can not just be swapped in as a replacement for any existing legal tender (in our existing system, legal tender is backed by a relative constant value through decree).

But as far as I can see, there is no fundamental obstacle to build something on top of Bitcion, a value measurement unit, which can be used as legal tender. This is not to say this would be a trivial undertaking.

Lol the formalized manor like jpm in comex? How about tarp for equities? Ooooh ooh what about snb? Boj? Almost forgot about that didnt ya? Very well conditioned we were to see that!

How about stick to the point of topic. The thread is dead op doesnt know wht he was saying.

[Ichthyo]

Lol the formalized manor like jpm in comex? How about tarp for equities? Ooooh ooh what about snb? Boj? Almost forgot about that didnt ya? Very well conditioned we were to see that!

Sounds like a childish babble. What is your point, sir?

This means, Bitcoin can not just be swapped in as a replacement for any existing legal tender.

Are you mentably capable to grasp this?
Very much on topic.

[sidhujag]

Lol the formalized manor like jpm in comex? How about tarp for equities? Ooooh ooh what about snb? Boj? Almost forgot about that didnt ya? Very well conditioned we were to see that!

Sounds like a childish babble. What is your point, sir?

This means, Bitcoin can not just be swapped in as a replacement for any existing legal tender.

Are you mentably capable to grasp this?
Very much on topic.

I didnt expect u to understand. Sorry we are not on the same wavelength. Good day

[Ichthyo]

I didnt expect u to understand. Sorry we are not on the same wavelength. Good day

How about simply saying what you want to say?
Instead of just sending some "codes" or spreading a smell?


After considering this thread, this seems to be incredibly difficult



And yes, there can be issues with scaling the decimals of an currency unit.

Posting memes and telling fairy tales won't help with such.

[btcusr]

For those who think Bitcoin benefits early adapters unfairly, it is not. I had a difficult time to convince myself. Sooner or later, you are going to accept that point; if you don't then you can also choose to stay away from the system. Even if you don't accept, still you can buy / mine bitcoins..

As usual with any other technologies, early adopters take risk, and they will be rewarded accordingly.

Bitcoin distribution is competitive process, and we don't have a company behind Bitcoin to do this distribution, like Ripple.

If you think ASIC hardware companies like BFL, mine with their units then you can choose not to buy miners from them, but complaining is not going to help.

If you think you missed $0.01 - $100 exchange rates you can blame early adapters, but if you watch prices go up to $200 from here then who you will blame?

[Ichthyo]

Thats true.
A new payment system needs to create an incentive for using it, because the network-effect of the existing payment systems works against adapting a new one. In this sense, the act of hoarding bitcoins to profit from the rate gains helps to bridge the time until there is more utility for bitcoins as a payment medium.

But it might be a problem that the bitcoin rates may continue to rise even at a point, where Bitcoin doesn't need such a supporting mechanism anymore, since it has already wider adoption. Now you might argue that such continuously rising rates simply reduce the usability of Bitcoin, and thus help to limit the demand and moderate the price rise. This is certainly true, but in practice, this process can be expected to be rough, not smooth, and will create a lot of adaptation issues, for which we (Bitcoin users community) don't have a working solution to deploy.

But I think, these are technicalities, not a fundamental issue.

[wingding]

But I think, these are technicalities, not a fundamental issue.

It is fundamental -not technicalities. Read my op. And try to get it this time.

This is certainly true, but in practice, this process can be expected to be rough, not smooth, and will create a lot of adaptation issues, for which we (Bitcoin users community) don't have a working solution to deploy.

So "you" (Bitcoin user's community) don't have a solution? Really? What if "we" have? - but don't want to deploy it, because that would turn bitcoin into a currency instead of a commodity, and vaporize our get-rich-scheeme.

[btcusr]

There once was a man called Nakamoto. He printed a million coins. He was later joined by a few other guys who together printed yet a few million coins. Thereafter many people joined, but printing then became very difficult. Actually the printing press will slow down to zero. However, those guys who printed the first coins are willing to sell their coins to rest of the world. And if those other people of the world only can grab a fraction of a coin, don't worry - it can be divided by 10e8. Economy!

Even if satoshi and co. had millions of coins in the beginning it is worthless.

Then it was like, 1 million BTC = 100 - 200 pizzas.

Its not worth complaining. You'll learn to accept the fact, or you don't.

[Ichthyo]

It is fundamental -not technicalities. Read my op.

Hi wingdong, can you please say explicitly what you mean, instead of sending codes and allusions around?

Your op doesn't contain much substance, but shows a lot of misconceptions.
We have discussed this in breadth, and you received a full K.O and weren't able to answer anymore.
So we're done with your OP.


Up to now you haven't provided any meaningful statements, only confused and contradictory stuff.

But now you get your second chance:


you state, "it is fundamental"

OK now say why...

you state "there is an issue"

OK now describe it...

[Ichthyo]

There once was a man called Nakamoto. He printed a million coins. He was later joined by a few other guys who together printed yet a few million coins. Thereafter many people joined, but printing then became very difficult. Actually the printing press will slow down to zero. However, those guys who printed the first coins are willing to sell their coins to rest of the world. And if those other people of the world only can grab a fraction of a coin, don't worry - it can be divided by 10e8. Economy!

everyone please note: dont't fall for that bait.

This piece of text looks as if it implies a meaning.
When you have a more closer look, any tangible statement has been carefully omitted.
It's an invitation to the reader to interpolate a tendency, and as such it is insideous

[sidhujag]

There once was a man called Nakamoto. He printed a million coins. He was later joined by a few other guys who together printed yet a few million coins. Thereafter many people joined, but printing then became very difficult. Actually the printing press will slow down to zero. However, those guys who printed the first coins are willing to sell their coins to rest of the world. And if those other people of the world only can grab a fraction of a coin, don't worry - it can be divided by 10e8. Economy!

everyone please note: dont't fall for that bait.

This piece of text looks as if it implies a meaning.
When you have a more closer look, any tangible statement has been carefully omitted.
It's an invitation to the reader to interpolate a tendency, and as such it is insideous

You should take a hint, he doesn't want to be specific probably because of the way you attack others trying to show yourself as better than others. You're just like everyone else here and always will be, we won't know the truth until it is applied and we learn the outcome. The market is too complicated even for the smartest person to wrap every variable around in their head. Give it up kid, move on.

[Ichthyo]

he doesn't want to be specific probably because

There is no point in guessing about his motives, until OP actually presents something tangible.

And just for the record: the storrytellers and FUD spreaders where first in this funny thread.

[Ichthyo]

so the conclusion is:

There is no "Bitcoin decimal issue", since the storytellers weren't willing (or able) to point out any issue in a coherent fashion

[thermos]

But I think, these are technicalities, not a fundamental issue.

It is fundamental -not technicalities. Read my op. And try to get it this time.

This is certainly true, but in practice, this process can be expected to be rough, not smooth, and will create a lot of adaptation issues, for which we (Bitcoin users community) don't have a working solution to deploy.

So "you" (Bitcoin user's community) don't have a solution? Really? What if "we" have? - but don't want to deploy it, because that would turn bitcoin into a currency instead of a commodity, and vaporize our get-rich-scheeme.

yeah boy this is how it goes gown in the real world i say pull certs and flush out the bad actors give bitcoin back to the user base, what i find amazing is for bitcoin being an open sourced project that censorship is over the top in this neck of the woods NYC;)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tlhvFusnPI