Why bitcoin isn't currency.

[crumbs]

Anthony, if i give you an ice cream when you get a B+, i'm rewarding you, right?

Depends. What would you give me if I didn't get a B+?

Deflationary currency does reward you for sitting on your ass

Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.

Settled, or ... No?

No.

It doesn't matter what you get when you *don't* get a B+.  When you get a B+ you get a reward, which is the point you seem to be missing.
Analogously, it doesn't matter what deflationary money gives you if you *don't* sit on your ass.  When you sit on your as, it rewards you by making you rich, which, again, is the point you keep missing.
**the fragmented answers... jeesh... I got to remember those... VEeerrrry irritating )

[shawshankinmate37927]

...
You'll never see 30-year mortgages denominated in honest money.  You'll just rent and save for a few years and buy a house outright.

You'll never see *any* loans denominated in "honest money."  Why lend if you could simply hold & get rich, amirite?

You'll see some short term loans denominated in honest money, but not a lot.  I'm sure you've seen the Lending section of the forum where this sometimes occurs.

[crumbs]

...
You'll never see 30-year mortgages denominated in honest money.  You'll just rent and save for a few years and buy a house outright.

You'll never see *any* loans denominated in "honest money."  Why lend if you could simply hold & get rich, amirite?

You'll see some short term loans denominated in honest money, but not a lot.  I'm sure you've seen the Lending section of the forum where this sometimes occurs.

That's not lending, that's theves vs usurers. And let's remember that, as we speak, bitcoin is technically an inflationary currency.  The number of coins is increasing by the number of coins mined.  And yet its value is going up -- Magik!

[crumbs]

You'll never see 30-year mortgages denominated in honest money.

Why not?

If expected deflation is 2% a year, and mortgage interest is 2% a year, that's no different than paying 6% a year in interest when expected inflation is 2% a year.

Keep in mind that while your expected salary keeps increasing (to keep up with inflation), in a deflationary economy your salary would keep *decreasing* to keep up with *deflation*.  In 30 year's time you'll be making a handful of change to pay the same mortgage installments you needed to pay when you were making real, *honest* monyz

[sublime5447]

maybe the OP is bored and wants your time to giggle mingle snuggle. But its a healthy debate though.

Wife would be pissed to see me sneaking a peek, but happy to get you boys thinking 

[crumbs]

Anthony, if i give you an ice cream when you get a B+, i'm rewarding you, right?

Depends. What would you give me if I didn't get a B+?

Deflationary currency does reward you for sitting on your ass

Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.

Settled, or ... No?

No.

It doesn't matter what you get when you *don't* get a B+.  When you get a B+ you get a reward, which is the point you seem to be missing.
Analogously, it doesn't matter what deflationary money gives you if you *don't* sit on your ass.  When you sit on your as, it rewards you by making you rich, which, again, is the point you keep missing.
**the fragmented answers... jeesh... I got to remember those... VEeerrrry irritating )

If I give my son an ice cream every Friday, and one Friday he comes home with a B+ and gets an ice cream, that ice cream wasn't a reward (at least, not a reward for getting a B+).

If every Friday I look at what is in my son's piggybank, and double it, I'm rewarding my son for saving money in his piggybank, not for sitting on his ass or getting a B+ or getting expelled from school or whatever else it is that he did or didn't do the past week.

I'm afraid o sophist you aren't.
The folks without money aren't getting an ice cream every Friday.  Only your son is.  Apparently, for doing ... nothing.
See?

The poor folks are also getting the reward of having their money that they don't spend doubled, just like your son.  Though nothing x 2 = NOTHING.

If you would like them to not spend the money on food, they wouldn't be able to work for yo ass -- they be dead, and then you'd have to stop buying your son ice cream every Friday for doing nothing & get off your ass & work.  

[crumbs]

Anthony, if i give you an ice cream when you get a B+, i'm rewarding you, right?

Depends. What would you give me if I didn't get a B+?

Deflationary currency does reward you for sitting on your ass

Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.

Settled, or ... No?

No.

It doesn't matter what you get when you *don't* get a B+.  When you get a B+ you get a reward, which is the point you seem to be missing.
Analogously, it doesn't matter what deflationary money gives you if you *don't* sit on your ass.  When you sit on your as, it rewards you by making you rich, which, again, is the point you keep missing.
**the fragmented answers... jeesh... I got to remember those... VEeerrrry irritating )

If I give my son an ice cream every Friday, and one Friday he comes home with a B+ and gets an ice cream, that ice cream wasn't a reward (at least, not a reward for getting a B+).

If every Friday I look at what is in my son's piggybank, and double it, I'm rewarding my son for saving money in his piggybank, not for sitting on his ass or getting a B+ or getting expelled from school or whatever else it is that he did or didn't do the past week.

I'm afraid o sophist you aren't.
The folks without money aren't getting an ice cream every Friday.  Only your son is.  Apparently, for doing ... nothing.
See?

The poor folks are also getting the reward of having their deflationary money doubled, though nothing x 2 = NOTHING.

If you would like them to not spend the money on food, they wouldn't be able to work for yo ass -- they be dead, and then you'd have to stop buying your son ice cream every Friday & get off your ass & work.  

The folks without money aren't getting an ice cream every Friday. Only my son is. He's being rewarded for having saved his money in the first place, and for not spending his money on booze and hookers like all the other school children.

Where do you suggest the poor people get their money, from their daddy like your son did?
You really gotta think these things through

P.S:  And you said your son gets an ice cream every Friday regardless of what he does, or have you forgotten?

[crumbs]

Anthony, if i give you an ice cream when you get a B+, i'm rewarding you, right?

Depends. What would you give me if I didn't get a B+?

Deflationary currency does reward you for sitting on your ass

Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.

Settled, or ... No?

No.

It doesn't matter what you get when you *don't* get a B+.  When you get a B+ you get a reward, which is the point you seem to be missing.
Analogously, it doesn't matter what deflationary money gives you if you *don't* sit on your ass.  When you sit on your as, it rewards you by making you rich, which, again, is the point you keep missing.
**the fragmented answers... jeesh... I got to remember those... VEeerrrry irritating )

If I give my son an ice cream every Friday, and one Friday he comes home with a B+ and gets an ice cream, that ice cream wasn't a reward (at least, not a reward for getting a B+).

If every Friday I look at what is in my son's piggybank, and double it, I'm rewarding my son for saving money in his piggybank, not for sitting on his ass or getting a B+ or getting expelled from school or whatever else it is that he did or didn't do the past week.

I'm afraid o sophist you aren't.
The folks without money aren't getting an ice cream every Friday.  Only your son is.  Apparently, for doing ... nothing.
See?

The poor folks are also getting the reward of having their deflationary money doubled, though nothing x 2 = NOTHING.

If you would like them to not spend the money on food, they wouldn't be able to work for yo ass -- they be dead, and then you'd have to stop buying your son ice cream every Friday & get off your ass & work.  

The folks without money aren't getting an ice cream every Friday. Only my son is. He's being rewarded for having saved his money in the first place, and for not spending his money on booze and hookers like all the other school children.

Where do you suggest the poor people get their money, from their daddy like your son did?
You really gotta think these things through

P.S:  And you said your son gets an ice cream every Friday regardless of what he does, or have you forgotten?  

I don't have any suggestion for the poor, as they can't afford my advice.

And the doubling of the piggybank was meant as an alternative to the ice cream, but whatever.

No, dude, Please send your son to a better school instead of giving him money & fattening him up with ice cream if his buddies are really blowing their cash on hookers & blow.  What kind of a dad are you?  

P.S:  I have nothing against wealth or greed, i'm arguably both of those.  What i *do* hate is self-satisfied idiots thinking God Himself smiles down upon them & blesses their money lust.

[shawshankinmate37927]

That's not lending, that's theves vs usurers. And let's remember that, as we speak, bitcoin is technically an inflationary currency.  The number of coins is increasing by the number of coins mined.  And yet its value is going up -- Magik!

I agree that bitcoin is an inflationary currency, because, like you, I define inflation as an expansion of the money supply. However, a lot of folks around here think of inflation as an increase in prices.  It's that the inflation is controlled and predictable that makes it attractive to those of us that prefer to live below our means for the time being and do most of our spending later.

What about 0% interest?  That doesn't sound like usury to me.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=288543.0

[crumbs]

That's not lending, that's theves vs usurers. And let's remember that, as we speak, bitcoin is technically an inflationary currency.  The number of coins is increasing by the number of coins mined.  And yet its value is going up -- Magik!

I agree that bitcoin is an inflationary currency, because, like you, I define inflation as an expansion of the money supply. However, a lot of folks around here think of inflation as an increase in prices.  It's that the inflation is controlled and predictable that makes it attractive to those of us that prefer to live below our means for the time being and do most of our spending later.

What about 0% interest?  That doesn't sound like usury to me.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=288543.0

The Islamic loans?  No, that's not usury, if they really are what they seem, that's a really beautiful thing.  Never looked into those, afraid they might turn out to be betting on the debtor defaulting & forfeiting the deposit...

Edit: I had to click that link...  I thought you were talking about Islamic loans, who (like Jews and Christians, but that's a different story) are not allowed to charge interest by Koran.  What you have there is a guy banking on the debtor defaulting & getting a 20% reward.

Edit2:  regarding inflation, both of those definitions are valid, which makes using the word pretty awkward.  If you define what you mean, it sounds like you're talking down to someone, if you don't...  There's usually context that sort-of defines what's meant, like "monetary inflation, but...  Must be a better word.

[crumbs]

What you have there is a guy banking on the debtor defaulting & getting a 20% reward.

Could also be shorting LTC against BTC.

Yeah, but there used to be a Muslim on this forum who made zero-interest loans.  Seen it in passing a while ago, not really sure.  There are exceptions. 

[NewLiberty]

Still struggling with this. 
Are car insurance companies making money by sitting on their ass and taking the risk (that you don't have an accident)?
Is offering insurance immoral?  Is purchasing it?

If by making money by "sitting on your ass" what you mean is "continuing to take financial risk" is immoral then the question becomes: What is the basis for the immorality?
Would you further suggest that it is somehow also not ethical, and if so, who is it that is harmed?

[rampalija]

Still struggling with this. 
Are car insurance companies making money by sitting on their ass and taking the risk (that you don't have an accident)?
Is offering insurance immoral?  Is purchasing it?

If by making money by "sitting on your ass" what you mean is "continuing to take financial risk" is immoral then the question becomes: What is the basis for the immorality?
Would you further suggest that it is somehow also not ethical, and if so, who is it that is harmed?

Car insurrance companys dont have any risks in their business if they are doing just cars. This sound a little funny but if you have 10 000 cars insurace how many of them will crash?    A small amount

[crumbs]

Still struggling with this.  
Are car insurance companies making money by sitting on their ass and taking the risk (that you don't have an accident)?
Is offering insurance immoral?  Is purchasing it?

If by making money by "sitting on your ass" what you mean is "continuing to take financial risk" is immoral then the question becomes: What is the basis for the immorality?
Would you further suggest that it is somehow also not ethical, and if so, who is it that is harmed?

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.  Purchasing auto insurance is an obligation in most US states, it is an industry with plenty of regulations & plenty of slick lobbyists (see: Big Gobment).  You may or may not consider it immoral in that respect.  While obscenely bothersome, is not immoral to me.

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.

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.  So, to answer your question, as you & other money hoarders become richer, the rest of the people become poorer, and that's who gets hurt.  The poor people, the have-nots, the ones who always get hurt.

[shawshankinmate37927]

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.  So, to answer your question, as you & other money hoarders become richer, the rest of the people become poorer, and that's who gets hurt.  The poor people, the have-nots, the ones who always get hurt.

I would much rather see hoarders prosper than the bankers and politicians and those that are well-connected.  People who are actually productive and making positive contributions to society (as determined by a free market) are the ones that should be rewarded with prosperity, not the scammers.

[crumbs]

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.  So, to answer your question, as you & other money hoarders become richer, the rest of the people become poorer, and that's who gets hurt.  The poor people, the have-nots, the ones who always get hurt.

I would much rather see hoarders prosper than the bankers and politicians and those that are well-connected.  People who are actually productive and making positive contributions to society (as determined by a free market) are the ones that should be rewarded with prosperity, not the scammers.

Bankers and politicians will profit with any form of money -- that's their reason for being.  The new moneyed elite will be just like the old moneyed elite, only without the need to keep cycling their money through the economy.  It should be obvious that those driven by the love of money will be the ones who eventually wind up with the most of it.  There are plenty of financial instruments that can be created to exploit any situation.  Shorting, for instance, allows one to profit from failing companies.  Greedy and corrupt people are greedy and corrupt, not stupid and unimaginative.

[shawshankinmate37927]

I would much rather see hoarders prosper than the bankers and politicians and those that are well-connected.  People who are actually productive and making positive contributions to society (as determined by a free market) are the ones that should be rewarded with prosperity, not the scammers.

Bankers and politicians will profit with any form of money -- that's their reason for being.  The new moneyed elite will be just like the old moneyed elite, only without the need to keep cycling their money through the economy.  It should be obvious that those driven by the love of money will be the ones who eventually wind up with the most of it.  There are plenty of financial instruments that can be created to exploit any situation.  Shorting, for instance, allows one to profit from failing companies.  Greedy and corrupt people are greedy and corrupt, not stupid and unimaginative.

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.

[NewLiberty]

Still struggling with this.  
Are car insurance companies making money by sitting on their ass and taking the risk (that you don't have an accident)?
Is offering insurance immoral?  Is purchasing it?

If by making money by "sitting on your ass" what you mean is "continuing to take financial risk" is immoral then the question becomes: What is the basis for the immorality?
Would you further suggest that it is somehow also not ethical, and if so, who is it that is harmed?

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.  Purchasing auto insurance is an obligation in most US states, it is an industry with plenty of regulations & plenty of slick lobbyists (see: Big Gobment).  You may or may not consider it immoral in that respect.  While obscenely bothersome, is not immoral to me.

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.

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.  So, to answer your question, as you & other money hoarders become richer, the rest of the people become poorer, and that's who gets hurt.  The poor people, the have-nots, the ones who always get hurt.

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.

This thought may have come from that guy who forgot about his bitcoins, and then found them.

There are many others that have never found them.  And the reason he forgot about those, was probably because he put the chance for success at much much lower than we are today.

[crumbs]

I would much rather see hoarders prosper than the bankers and politicians and those that are well-connected.  People who are actually productive and making positive contributions to society (as determined by a free market) are the ones that should be rewarded with prosperity, not the scammers.

Bankers and politicians will profit with any form of money -- that's their reason for being.  The new moneyed elite will be just like the old moneyed elite, only without the need to keep cycling their money through the economy.  It should be obvious that those driven by the love of money will be the ones who eventually wind up with the most of it.  There are plenty of financial instruments that can be created to exploit any situation.  Shorting, for instance, allows one to profit from failing companies.  Greedy and corrupt people are greedy and corrupt, not stupid and unimaginative.

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.

[NewLiberty]

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.