[deleted]

[Cashitter]

[deleted]

[Lethn]

The Bitcoin supply can't be affected unless the code is messed with in some way to create more Bitcoins, there is a hard limit, if that happened people would notice, it could however inflate the exchange value of Bitcoin though because that kind of thing affects its purchasing power, you can only tamper with inflation or deflation if you have direct control over the money supply and that isn't the case with Bitcoin, people often confuse the Bitcoin money supply with the exchange rate which are two totally different things.

[Lethn]

It would probably hype things up a bit because it's such an expensive purchase but in order to have some proper inflation going on you need to have everyone in on it, a bit like with the housing crisis, that's usually how you make a proper bubble, so if you managed to sell several hundred paintings for that value and they all got constantly traded then that would definitely affect the exchange rate, but one by itself no matter what the price isn't really going to do much, people adjust to that sort of thing.

It's a bit like the Winklevoss twins supposedly buying up a huge number of Bitcoins, because it was just them the price hasn't been moved all that much and even then people like them need to spend it so they're Bitcoins will make their way into the market again eventually.

[molecular]

Hi Everybody. I've got a question.
I have seen that the artist Kuno Goda (www.kunogoda.com) is selling a painting called "200 Bitcoin". It's inspired by Andy Warhol's "200 One Dollar Bills".
The Price of the painting is 200 BTC (surprise surprise).
Let's assume that the (art) world agrees on this value.
Wouldn't that  effectively inflate the Bitcoin supply?

If you could send the painting through the internet for a very low fee and people used it as a "money substitute", then yes, it would increase the money supply. However: that's not the case, people don't use the painting as a substitute for bitcoins.

[NewLiberty]

Hi Everybody. I've got a question.
I have seen that the artist Kuno Goda (www.kunogoda.com) is selling a painting called "200 Bitcoin". It's inspired by Andy Warhol's "200 One Dollar Bills".
The Price of the painting is 200 BTC (surprise surprise).
Let's assume that the (art) world agrees on this value.
Wouldn't that  effectively inflate the Bitcoin supply?

If you could send the painting through the internet for a very low fee and people used it as a "money substitute", then yes, it would increase the money supply. However: that's not the case, people don't use the painting as a substitute for bitcoins.

Having lots of "things" with a bitcoin value, or priced in bitcoin, is a good thing for bitcoin economy.  The more things that can be bought with bitcoin, the more useful bitcoin becomes.  This is not money supply.

For example, when I release fine gold and silver bullion pieces that are priced in Bitcoin (but do not contain any Bitcoin intrinsically), these can serve as a tangible asset with a Bitcoin value, but this does not increase the Bitcoin money supply.  What it does do is provide a Bitcoin-compatible real-money currency, that can serve for instantaneous in-person transactions settled in Bitcoin, in a currency that is even more anonymous than any crypto-currency, finely minted precious metal.

[molecular]

Hi Everybody. I've got a question.
I have seen that the artist Kuno Goda (www.kunogoda.com) is selling a painting called "200 Bitcoin". It's inspired by Andy Warhol's "200 One Dollar Bills".
The Price of the painting is 200 BTC (surprise surprise).
Let's assume that the (art) world agrees on this value.
Wouldn't that  effectively inflate the Bitcoin supply?

If you could send the painting through the internet for a very low fee and people used it as a "money substitute", then yes, it would increase the money supply. However: that's not the case, people don't use the painting as a substitute for bitcoins.

Having lots of "things" with a bitcoin value, or priced in bitcoin, is a good thing for bitcoin economy.  The more things that can be bought with bitcoin, the more useful bitcoin becomes.  This is not money supply.

For example, when I release fine gold and silver bullion pieces that are priced in Bitcoin (but do not contain any Bitcoin intrinsically), these can serve as a tangible asset with a Bitcoin value, but this does not increase the Bitcoin money supply.  What it does do is provide a Bitcoin-compatible real-money currency, that can serve for instantaneous in-person transactions settled in Bitcoin, in a currency that is even more anonymous than any crypto-currency, finely minted precious metal.

true. I found a good definition of "money substitute":

Money Substitute
Claims to a definite amount of money, payable and redeemable on demand, against a debtor about whose solvency and willingness to pay there does not prevail the slightest doubt, render to the individual all the services money can render, provided that all parties with whom he could possibly transact business are perfectly familiar with these essential qualities of the claims concerned: daily maturity and undoubted solvency and willingness to pay on the part of the debtor.

Neither your finely minted precious metal nor the painting qualify under this definition, because neither is redeemable on demand against any debtor. Those things may have a market price measurable in BTC.

An example of a money substitute for Bitcoin might have been mtGox BTC codes (do they still exist?). However, 1.) people didn't use them widely and 2.) given mtGox was honest, those didn't inflate the bitcoin money supply because mtGox had the bitcoins represented by them in cold storage. Had mtGox entered into a "fractional reserve" scheme with these, it would have inflated the money supply.

[NewLiberty]

Hi Everybody. I've got a question.
I have seen that the artist Kuno Goda (www.kunogoda.com) is selling a painting called "200 Bitcoin". It's inspired by Andy Warhol's "200 One Dollar Bills".
The Price of the painting is 200 BTC (surprise surprise).
Let's assume that the (art) world agrees on this value.
Wouldn't that  effectively inflate the Bitcoin supply?

If you could send the painting through the internet for a very low fee and people used it as a "money substitute", then yes, it would increase the money supply. However: that's not the case, people don't use the painting as a substitute for bitcoins.

Having lots of "things" with a bitcoin value, or priced in bitcoin, is a good thing for bitcoin economy.  The more things that can be bought with bitcoin, the more useful bitcoin becomes.  This is not money supply.

For example, when I release fine gold and silver bullion pieces that are priced in Bitcoin (but do not contain any Bitcoin intrinsically), these can serve as a tangible asset with a Bitcoin value, but this does not increase the Bitcoin money supply.  What it does do is provide a Bitcoin-compatible real-money currency, that can serve for instantaneous in-person transactions settled in Bitcoin, in a currency that is even more anonymous than any crypto-currency, finely minted precious metal.

true. I found a good definition of "money substitute":

Money Substitute
Claims to a definite amount of money, payable and redeemable on demand, against a debtor about whose solvency and willingness to pay there does not prevail the slightest doubt, render to the individual all the services money can render, provided that all parties with whom he could possibly transact business are perfectly familiar with these essential qualities of the claims concerned: daily maturity and undoubted solvency and willingness to pay on the part of the debtor.

Neither your finely minted precious metal nor the painting qualify under this definition, because neither is redeemable on demand against any debtor. Those things may have a market price measurable in BTC.

An example of a money substitute for Bitcoin might have been mtGox BTC codes (do they still exist?). However, 1.) people didn't use them widely and 2.) given mtGox was honest, those didn't inflate the bitcoin money supply because mtGox had the bitcoins represented by them in cold storage. Had mtGox entered into a "fractional reserve" scheme with these, it would have inflated the money supply.

Yes!  Good example.  The classic example is a "warehouse receipt" which are covered by the Uniform Commercial Code.  MtGox codes operated in a way close to this and arguably would be governed the same way, though getting that protection could be problematic for other reasons.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Warehouse+Receipt 

[yayayo]

If I took a sheet of paper drawing "$ 1000000000" on it and setting the price tag of $ 1000000000 for it would this inflate the dollar?


Am I the only one that thinks that the topic starter rapes logic here?


ya.ya.yo!

[molecular]

If I took a sheet of paper drawing "$ 1000000000" on it and setting the price tag of $ 1000000000 for it would this inflate the dollar?


Am I the only one that thinks that the topic starter rapes logic here?


ya.ya.yo!

hey-ho m'fugga. Did you even read the previous posts? They answer your question pretty well.

[Regenmacher]

I'm producing 1-Bitcoin-Art. It's made from small Canvas. I'm just not sure where to sell them online. If you have any Ideas just let me know!

[molecular]

I'm producing 1-Bitcoin-Art. It's made from small Canvas. I'm just not sure where to sell them online. If you have any Ideas just let me know!

maybe bitmit.net? It currently has server problems, though, but it's quite popular. ebay for bitcoin.

[yayayo]

If I took a sheet of paper drawing "$ 1000000000" on it and setting the price tag of $ 1000000000 for it would this inflate the dollar?


Am I the only one that thinks that the topic starter rapes logic here?


ya.ya.yo!

hey-ho m'fugga. Did you even read the previous posts? They answer your question pretty well.

I read them.

But they greatly overcomplicate the most simple fact: A painting titled "200 Bitcoins" is not the same as 200 Bitcoins.

ya.ya.yo!

[NewLiberty]

If I took a sheet of paper drawing "$ 1000000000" on it and setting the price tag of $ 1000000000 for it would this inflate the dollar?


Am I the only one that thinks that the topic starter rapes logic here?


ya.ya.yo!

hey-ho m'fugga. Did you even read the previous posts? They answer your question pretty well.

I read them.

But they greatly overcomplicate the most simple fact: A painting titled "200 Bitcoins" is not the same as 200 Bitcoins.

ya.ya.yo!

Yes, we are "complicating" it by shilling our goods. 
I took the OP as an advert for a painting, and so joined with my own advert.  No harm done.