Why bitcoin isn't currency.

[crumbs]

...
If we assume deflationary, sound money (accept it as a premise of our argument), sitting on your ass *guarantees* you profit.  There are no risks involved.
...

There's the assumption I was missing...  We are starting with the bizarre assumption that Bitcoin is today, sound money.  But by the time Bitcoin becomes sound, there probably won't be much deflation left to it, and very certainly nothing like it is today.  Currently, it is anything but sound.  It is still a very risky venture, and even some of its strongest advocates and investors are giving a much less than 50% chance for success.

If everyone that has bitcoins just "sits around" with them, it is pretty much guaranteed to fail, if even half do this, it is probably dead.

The blasted stuff is still in beta.  Wait until it is version 3.x for this complaint, not beta version 0.8.x

However, the stakeholders are NOT just sitting around, and if everyone did, they wouldn't be worth much anyway.  Most are pestering anyone who will listen about it.  They are programming, they are developing, they are creating economies, they are looking for opportunities to make it succeed.  Some are hacking each other, and ddossing exchanges, and all manner of illicit craziness.  Others are shoring up defenses, building better exchanges, and trying to make a go of it.  We have not yet seen the real bitcoin adversaries even.  
These are very early days.

If you are under the illusion that your money held in bitcoins is not at risk, you probably won't have them for very long.
If you don't believe me, just ask Tradefortress.

If you think sitting on your ass *guarantees* you a riskless profit... I wish you luck with that.

In that case i apologize.  I simply assumed that you were championing bitcoin as "deflationary, sound money" as many on this forum do.

[1715557464]

1715557464

[1715557464]

1715557464

[1715557464]

1715557464

[1715557464]

1715557464

[1715557464]

1715557464

[shawshankinmate37927]

At least they won't be able to profit by creating bitcoins on a whim, to bail themselves out, fund their deficits, or to "stimulate the recovery".  Stealing people's purchasing power by devaluing their money is off the table with bitcoin.  I think enough people understand that a bitcoin derivative is not a bitcoin.  Peer-to-peer decentralized exchanges will be needed to prevent market manipulation.  We should be seeing those within the next couple of years.

Bitcoin solves some problems while creating others.  There is no need to print money to manipulate the market -- robber barons of yesteryear did it quite successfully without printing a single note.  The only thing required is a large amount of wealth, denominated in virtually anything; that's what makes economics so much fun.

It's hard to discuss money without getting lost in the details, it's a pretty complicated & often counterintuitive thing.  For instance, treating the governments as "them" is not quite accurate when, at least in principle, in United States they are an extension of you, *your* "elected officials."

Politics resemble the free market.  Theoretically, you can run for presidency and, if people like what you stand for & trust you more than your opponent, you should win.  Sadly, just like the case with the free market, practice falls short of theory.  There are established political parties (think monopolies), established laws (established rules of commerce), barriers to entry (campaign funds = starting business capital), etc., etc.  So yeah, the game's rigged.  But the game's *always* rigged -- no matter what's used for money.

You don't have to print money to manipulate the market, but you do have to have a stranglehold on the exchanges.  Peer-to-peer decentralized exchanges will allow people to route around the manipulation.

I don't vote, so no one in the government represents me or my interests.  That's why I think it is accurate for me to refer to them as "them".  I don't play their game.

[crumbs]

On coinfinder guy...
There are many others that have never found their lost coins.  Likely a big part of the reason he forgot about those, was probably because he put the chance for success at much much lower than we are today.  So yes, there are the odd few who made money by taking an early risk and not contributing.  They relied on the enterprise of others.  

Is this Bitcoin's fatal flaw?
Is this the reason we ought all abandon it and try again?  
Well... if so... that's just what litecoin fixes.  Bitcoin's little sibling, not premined, different crypto, more evenly distributed.  Go for it.

Not sure if that's addressed to me, but i don't think bitcoin has a fatal flaw.  It has many flaws, though none of them are fatal.  Wealth, as a whole, has ... not a fatal flaw, but an unfortunate & obvious quality -- it rewards those who seek it.  If you have a weakness for romantic stuff like "the selfless & pure in spirit should triumph" & "the meek shall inherit blah blah," that aspect seems a bit unfair.  Though, from a purely rational perspective, my outlook is totally undefendable

[crumbs]

At least they won't be able to profit by creating bitcoins on a whim, to bail themselves out, fund their deficits, or to "stimulate the recovery".  Stealing people's purchasing power by devaluing their money is off the table with bitcoin.  I think enough people understand that a bitcoin derivative is not a bitcoin.  Peer-to-peer decentralized exchanges will be needed to prevent market manipulation.  We should be seeing those within the next couple of years.

Bitcoin solves some problems while creating others.  There is no need to print money to manipulate the market -- robber barons of yesteryear did it quite successfully without printing a single note.  The only thing required is a large amount of wealth, denominated in virtually anything; that's what makes economics so much fun.

It's hard to discuss money without getting lost in the details, it's a pretty complicated & often counterintuitive thing.  For instance, treating the governments as "them" is not quite accurate when, at least in principle, in United States they are an extension of you, *your* "elected officials."

Politics resemble the free market.  Theoretically, you can run for presidency and, if people like what you stand for & trust you more than your opponent, you should win.  Sadly, just like the case with the free market, practice falls short of theory.  There are established political parties (think monopolies), established laws (established rules of commerce), barriers to entry (campaign funds = starting business capital), etc., etc.  So yeah, the game's rigged.  But the game's *always* rigged -- no matter what's used for money.

You don't have to print money to manipulate the market, but you do have to have a stranglehold on the exchanges.  Peer-to-peer decentralized exchanges will allow people to route around the manipulation.

I don't vote, so no one in the government represents me or my interests.  That's why I think it is accurate for me to refer to them as "them".  I don't play their game.

You don't need to achieve a stranglehold on exchanges to have a stranglehold on the market.  I'm not quite sure what you mean, but do you feel burnside (of BTCT), for instance, was unjustly manipulating his exchange?  From what i know, he appears to be a pretty upstanding guy.  So, if you can clarify...

As far as you choosing not to vote, that's neither here nor there.  That's like saying the free market is unfair because you chose not to trade. 

[westkybitcoins]

I don't vote, so no one in the government represents me or my interests.  That's why I think it is accurate for me to refer to them as "them".  I don't play their game.

+1.

The idea that voting suddenly makes me part of the political class is an absurdity anyway. Walking up to Congress and waving my voter ID card is going to get me very little in comparison to waving around millions in campaign contributions, or better yet, actually being a congressman or other government bigshot. If I really was the government, you'd better believe things would be running differently. If "we" really were the government, things would also be running differently (as a starter, the bailouts would have never happened.)

The sooner we all wake up and realize anyone who arbitrarily claims authority over your life, liberty or property is just a "them," and we start (peacefully) resisting and rejecting them, the better off society will be.

[crumbs]

Car insurance companies are not sitting on their ass -- they risk their money by offering you a service.  You, their customer, may plow into a crowd of people & cost them much more than you have paid in dues.  This  is in no way comparable to sticking your sound money in your mattress and sitting on it to become rich.

Bitcoin investors aren't taking any risks?

If we assume deflationary, sound money (accept it as a premise of our argument), sitting on your ass *guarantees* you profit.  There are no risks involved.

Well, first of all, it's impossible for there to be a *guarantee* that the value of any commodity is going to go up. Whether it's dollar bills or gold bars or bitcoins or barrels of oil or whatever, there's always a possibility that the thing will lose value. There's also always a possibility that you'll die before you're able to cash in on your investment.

That said, it's quite common for it to be the case that you can expect, on average, to get more for your money by waiting. Whether you spend that waiting time on your ass or on your feet is irrelevant though. The important part is that, instead of consuming X now, you consume X+Y later.

As i have mentioned earlier, money itself doesn't change the amount of goods in the world.  By changing from one money to another, the world doesn't suddenly become wealthier or poorer as a whole.

You can repeat it, but it's not true. Money does increase the amount of goods in the world. Money facilitates division of labor, and division of labor facilitates productivity, and productivity is the rate at which goods or services are produced.

When i ask you to stay focused & resist the urge to splice up everything into fragments, it is not for my sake, but for the sake of others reading this thread.
This is not IRC, it's easy to crap up a thread & make it unreadable.  There are no set rules, but if you limit yourself to a one shot/one kill, the thread will remain readable for others.
/schoolmarm

So, addressing your last fragment:
No, money does not increase the amount of goods in the world.  *Labor* increases it.  Money, food, sex drive, music, greed, insecurities, butterflies, cartoon ponies, and everything else you can think of *may indirectly* affect productivity.

[crumbs]

I don't vote, so no one in the government represents me or my interests.  That's why I think it is accurate for me to refer to them as "them".  I don't play their game.

+1.

The idea that voting suddenly makes me part of the political class is an absurdity anyway. Walking up to Congress and waving my voter ID card is going to get me very little in comparison to waving around millions in campaign contributions, or better yet, actually being a congressman or other government bigshot. If I really was the government, you'd better believe things would be running differently. If "we" really were the government, things would also be running differently (as a starter, the bailouts would have never happened.)

The sooner we all wake up and realize anyone who arbitrarily claims authority over your life, liberty or property is just a "them," and we start (peacefully) resisting and rejecting them, the better off society will be.

What you have indirectly shown is how your apathy effectively excludes you from participating in democracy.
1. Doesn't vote.
2. Everyone who thinks like him doesn't vote.
3. ? ? ?
4. ^^Wonders why his views are not represented by the elected officials^^

[deisik]

As far as you choosing not to vote, that's neither here nor there.  That's like saying the free market is unfair because you chose not to trade. 

Why is it neither here nor there? Could we just say that you've chosen not to trade because the free market is unfair? And correspondingly, not to vote because politics is corrupt?

[deisik]

Money directly increases productivity. And money is a good.

It facilitates productivity, like science for example

[crumbs]

When i ask you to stay focused & resist the urge to splice up everything into fragments, it is not for my sake, but for the sake of others reading this thread.

When I ignore your request, it is because your attempt to throw a bunch of shit against the wall and hope that some of it sticks is misleading to others reading this thread.

So, addressing your last fragment:
No, money does not increase the amount of goods in the world.  *Labor* increases it.  Money, food, sex drive, music, greed, insecurities, butterflies, cartoon ponies, and everything else you can think of *may indirectly* affect productivity.

Money directly increases productivity. And money is a good.

Money sure is good, but it doesn't improve productivity.  If it does, US Mint should spend more of it on printing presses & print more, directly increasing productivity

[crumbs]

As far as you choosing not to vote, that's neither here nor there.  That's like saying the free market is unfair because you chose not to trade.  

Why is it neither here nor there? Could we just say that you've chosen not to trade because the free market is unfair? And correspondingly, not to vote because politics is corrupt?

Choosing not to vote is *exactly* like choosing not to trade "because the free market is unfair."
It is a choice, and a poor one.

[deisik]

Money sure is good, but it doesn't improve productivity.  If it does, US Mint should spend more of it on printing presses & print more, directly increasing productivity

It's not that simple. We can say that money improves productivity but it doesn't mean that any quantity of money would do so

[crumbs]

Money sure is good, but it doesn't improve productivity.  If it does, US Mint should spend more of it on printing presses & print more, directly increasing productivity

It's not that simple. We can say that money improves productivity but it doesn't mean that any quantity of money would do so

I responded to a claim the "Money directly increases productivity."  [boldface mine]
And that's why i ask that the thread is kept tidy

[deisik]

Choosing not to vote is *exactly* like choosing not to trade "because the free market is unfair."
It is a choice, and a poor one.

Why is it a poor choice to not trade if we agree that the market is unfair? Please expand more on this

[crumbs]

...

Money directly increases productivity. And money is a good.

Money sure is good, but it doesn't improve productivity.  If it does, US Mint should spend more of it on printing presses & print more, directly increasing productivity

Money is good. But my comment was that money is a good.

As for increasing productivity by spending more on printing presses to print more money:  http://www.marketwatch.com/story/new-100-bill-costs-60-more-to-produce-2013-10-08

Please be concise, the singular for "goods" is uncommon, and must be preceded by an article.

To further clarify, money is not goods.  That's simply false & not open to debate.

[deisik]

I responded to a claim the "Money directly increases productivity."  [boldface mine]
And that's why i ask that the thread is kept tidy

I think it is still valid to say that money directly increases productivity

[crumbs]

Money sure is good, but it doesn't improve productivity.  If it does, US Mint should spend more of it on printing presses & print more, directly increasing productivity

It's not that simple. We can say that money improves productivity but it doesn't mean that any quantity of money would do so

I responded to a claim the "Money directly increases productivity."  [boldface mine]
And that's why i ask that the thread is kept tidy

What does directly increase productivity, in your mind? Being more productive?

What's it matter anyway? The important point, which you conveniently cut out, is that some people can get richer without some other people getting poorer.

Theoretically, some people can get rich without others getting poor.  This trick, of course, is impossible if by "rich" you mean "money rich," and the currency in question is deflationary

[crumbs]

I responded to a claim the "Money directly increases productivity."  [boldface mine]
And that's why i ask that the thread is kept tidy

I think it is still valid to say that money directly increases productivity

No.  A direct relationship is X=Function of Y.  In other words, changing the amount of money in circulation should directly affect productivity.  There is no direct relationship.

[crumbs]

Choosing not to vote is *exactly* like choosing not to trade "because the free market is unfair."
It is a choice, and a poor one.

Why is it a poor choice to not trade if we agree that the market is unfair? Please expand more on this

If you expect to influence the market, choosing not to trade is a bad choice, unless you expect that your lack of participation would collapse the market.
When viewed from the perspective of voting, it is unreasonable to expect that your lack of participation would collapse the status quo.
Basic.

[sublime5447]

honesty!

Read the whole post.

That is how the dollar maintains some price stability. When the demand for currency goes up so does the number of units. The problem is the distribution.

If the dollar was inflated or deflated by a machine and passed out randomly to the members using the currency it would be a moral system.  

Lost me again, sorry.  

Inflation and deflation does pass out value to the members of the community, based on their "stake".
The US dollar doesn't maintain price stability.
What is the problem with the dollar's distribution?  Is it the method of distribution (banks and government first, the rest trickle-down so inflation is not experienced by those issuing the currency)?  Or the fact that distribution is unequal (redistribution being immoral)?  Or some other aspect of distribution?

I'd recommend a reading of Saltzman's "Gold and Liberty"
http://www.amazon.com/Gold-liberty-Economic-education-bulletin/dp/B0006PFFZO
It may clarify some things about honest money, and it is not all that long, and really excellent.

Or for lighter but longer reading, on monetary morality:



Are you advocating a proof of stake system rather than proof of work? It seems you are alternatively advocating this or its opposite, it is difficult to ascertain from the conversation.

I think Shawshank sort of has it...
This theoretical "not enough" money has never occurred.

If you think of Bitcoin as a tech stock, and bitcoins as shares, maybe it makes more sense to you?

Sure it has that is what caused the great depression. There was a shortage of currency.


I do think of bitcoin as a tech stock or a collectable. It is not immoral for an asset price to rise or lower.