Why Bitcoin is ultimately doomed to fail (not today or tomorrow)

[deisik]

Yeah, I remember Al Capone, then the public enemy number one, was indicted for income tax evasion and sentenced to 11 years of imprisonment. He didn't get away with it!

Yeah, I mean most criminal enterprises nowadays are running businesses where they're overreporting their income. Make millions in drug money, then launder the drug money through your network of bars and strip clubs which report the millions as income. This way when the IRS comes knocking and asks how you can afford that mansion and porche, you say you made it with your strip club business and show where you reported it on your taxes.

The lesson seems to be learned the hard way but nevertheless pretty well... What else can we say?

[1714844857]

1714844857

[1714844857]

1714844857

[1714844857]

1714844857

[deisik]

Failing to report your income from your bitcoin business is no different from failing to report your income from a cash business. You might be able to get away with it if you never spend the money. But what's the point of that?

Would it be correct to treat the increase in bitcoins as income? What is considered as income by IRS? I think income can be calculated only when you actually sell something which is not money, right? Otherwise, it doesn't make much sense because prices change constantly, and then, in case of Bitcoin, what price should be taken for a tax assessment?

[deisik]

If bad money drove out good money even when exchange rates floated, then we'd all be hoarding US dollars and paying everything in Zimbabwean dollars or something.

I see no reason why it would be otherwise (according to my extension of Gresham's Law) but for the factors which don't allow us both to easily get Zimbabwean dollars and to spend them as easily (also taking into account possible depreciation of the currency in between). So, I think this new Gresham's Law will persist...

[deisik]

If you are paid in dollars, you would then try to get rid of them as soon as possible, either through exchange for things or for bitcoins. So with that knowledge in your head you are first of all spending all your dollars...

But if I get paid every two weeks on Friday but I spend money every day. On Friday I'm going to convert all my dollars for bitcoins. The next Monday I'm going to spend my bitcoins directly, if I'm able to.

Or maybe I can convince my employer to pay me in bitcoins directly. Then I can avoid ever touching those icky dollars.

So what's the problem? Holding bad money (depreciating dollars) would likely mean losing purchasing power, which you could preserve if you held good money (bitcoins) instead. In your case that would be the time period between this Friday and the next Monday. The extension still standing firm...

[deisik]

So what's the problem? Holding depreciating dollars would mean losing purchasing power which you could preserve if you held bitcoins instead. In your case that would be time between Friday and Monday. The extension still standing firm...

There is no problem, and I'm not sure what extension you're talking about. What is your "extended" version of Gresham's Law? And more importantly, what is your evidence of its truth?

My explanation was written in reply to your request about explaining what was my take on Gresham's Law. It seems that you missed it. It is not my evidence, but it is also it this thread. The evidence is in the post with which the current discussion about Gresham's Law started...

[deisik]

If 1 mBTC is worth $10.00, and I can buy something for $15 or for 1 mBTC, then I'm going to pay with the 1 mBTC. If I can pay $5 or 1 mBTC, I'll pay with $5. If the choice is $10 or 1 mBTC, then I'll be indifferent between the two.

How come? If 1 mBTC is worth $10.00 it means that you can buy something for $10 or for 1 mBTC. Otherwise, it is not worth $10.00...

[deisik]

Under Gresham's Law, if my choice is to pay with a silver quarter worth $3.50, or a 2013 quarter worth $0.04, or 10 2013 nickels worth $0.60, I'm going to pay with the 2013 quarter. The fixed exchange rate is the reason that good money drives out bad.

I didn't quite understand your example, but you can consider the actual floating exchange rates as fixed at any given moment. My extension of Gresham's Law implies that bad money depreciates faster than good money (by definition). Thus the floating exchange rate is effectively taken out of the equation...

[RodeoX]

I don't understand what that has to do with my statement? How is it the IRS knows, an audit? I never turn bitcoin into USD, how would they audit my bitcoins?

If you never turn bitcoin into USD, how do you pay your rent?

With all the USD I also own.
 

Good luck, then.

(Am I allowed to wish you good luck? Or would that be conspiracy to commit tax evasion? Oh well, to be safe I'll cross it out.)

Failing to report your income from your bitcoin business is no different from failing to report your income from a cash business. You might be able to get away with it if you never spend the money. But what's the point of that?

lol. Oh I do pay my taxes, I don't always like how it gets used, but I pay my share. And if I do turn some back into dollars I will pay capitol gains. At least I won't have to pay as mus as I do for the money I earn by working.
I promise I will not bring up your post at my trial either.  

[deisik]

"But this doesn't mean that we can't extend it a bit by substituting that requirement with an individual's discriminating judgment about the moneys, leaving bad money and good money where they are." Is that what you mean? If so, it's not clear to me what that means, let alone why it would be true.

You also say that we can call this Deisik's Law. Let's do that, so as not to make it sound like something that Gresham would have supported. It seems to be the opposite of Gresham's law.

You have already given an example of bad money (Zimbabwean dollars) vs good money (US dollars). We know in advance that Zimbabwean dollars are bad and they depreciate faster than US dollars, so people that have bad money (e.g. they are paid for their work with it) would prefer spending it and stashing away good money, provided all other things being equal. There is no contradiction with Gresham's law actually. It is the same law but stretched in time to make up for floating rates...

[deisik]

I'm not sure what "Zimbabwean dollars depreciate faster than US dollars" means, really.

I hope somebody would explain you what currency appreciation/depreciation means, or you can always ask Google yourself. Presently, I'd rather stick to explaining your other points which seem to me of greater importance...

[deisik]

But the point is that all things aren't equal when we have floating exchange rates.

If you read carefully, you would have noticed that I didn't say about all things being equal. In fact, I said all other things being equal, i.e. anything beyond currency appreciation/depreciation that would make up a floating exchange rate. This was intended to exclude possible considerations not pertaining to the actual question. If I hadn't written this, you wouldn't even pay attention...

[deisik]

You have already given an example of bad money (Zimbabwean dollars) vs good money (US dollars). We know in advance that Zimbabwean dollars depreciate faster than US dollars, so people would prefer paying with bad money and stashing good money, provided all other things being equal. There is no contradiction with Gresham's law actually. It is the same  law but stretched in time to make up for floating rates...

A related point is that we don't know whether US dollars are going to go up or down in value relative to BTC. If we did, then the $/BTC ratio would adjust accordingly. Because the $/BTC exchange rate floats, any known future changes in value are already factored in.

It is enough for an individual to make assumption, i.e. discriminating judgment about what money is bad and what money is not so bad over his planning horizon. This is the crucial point of the extension of Gresham's Law for floating exchange rates that I put forward...

[deisik]

I hope somebody would explain you what currency appreciation/depreciation means, or you can always ask Google yourself. Presently, I'd rather stick to explaining your other points which seem to me of greater importance...

OK, I think I got that part.

Now, is $/BTC going to be higher or lower two weeks from now?

I don't know really. But I consider the probability of Bitcoin exchange rate going down higher than that for dollar at least in the midterm (my planning horizon). So I do think that Bitcoin presently makes a bad money beside dollar, which, correspondingly, will be a good money then. It may just be my fear or whatever, but what causes me think so doesn't actually matter here...

[deisik]

I suspect $/BTC is going down slightly in the near term. Not enough that it's worth paying the short term capital gains taxes, though.

Anyway, how does Deisik's Law work if the two currencies constantly oscillate around each other? One minute Bitcoin is undervalued and people spend dollars, the next minute dollars are undervalued and people spend bitcoins? Seems to me that that's the equilibrium state in terms of game theory.

Piece o'cake! The currencies may be on a par, so the oscillation can go on indefinitely long. The net effect would ultimately depend on what all participants think over all planning horizons. This has an interesting similarity to a self-fulfilling prophecy with the roots obviously lying in the subjective theory of value...

[AnonyMint]

I don't think that Bitcoin will fail as much as people think. The reason the dollar bill has been so strong is because we were forced to accept it as currency. We had no choice in the matter. Same as all other currencies that use paper.

Noone thinks that bitcoin will fail. The only ones that do so is those that are thinking bitcoins as something that opposes the dollar and that's wrong anyway.

If you think Bitcoin will become the next government controlled digital currency, then of course it will not be as likely to "fail" if that does happen. It depends on what we mean by "fail". Also eventually all fiat currencies "fail" (assuming if it became government controlled then it would be a fiat).

Here is one of many reasons I suspect "failure" on the near-term horizon:

What are the implications of these, to the distribution of bitcoin wealth to holders of different sizes of holdings?

It started here:

So a few hundred people could crash bitcoin price?

If they all stupid, yes. Just like a few hundred people can crash USD price.

That sounds like you are referring to the higher probability of collusion and working together given a smaller number of insiders.

Collectively crashing it to get the weak hands to sell and buying more wouldn't be stupid if one had an exit price where they think they can cash out for good or they think there is a never ending stream of buyers because they believe it will become a widespread currency.

It cascaded to my thought experiment about corrupted exchanges, collusion with government (the socialism), and the enslavement of humanity outcome.

I think I interjected a chart showing how transactions are not increasing as fast as price and market cap, thus pointing towards concentration.

Concentration of ownership implies the necessity to collude with the government, because Bitcoin can't succeed on its own without deconcentration of ownership.

Any way, I have no problem if you delete posts. I can copy mine to other threads if you do. I don't think it is intelligible if you delete some rebuttals and not the posts being rebutted.

[AnonyMint]

Then why is the government in so much debt?

Because government can't tax more than people and businesses can earn. Besides that, there is an optimal level of tax rates which maximizes total tax revenues, and in most cases it is far below 50% (welcome Laffer curve)...

No, it's because they give away all their revenues and then some. It's altruism, not capitalism.

It is a misapplication of vocabulary to characterize a system of collective theft from the Commons, i.e. a Tragedy of the Commons, as "altruism". Debt (even private debt) is always future taxation:

Sorry but NO - most of "our" countries debt is PRIVATE debt, this is the main problem, and it's completely unrelated to "state sponsored education" - the public debt of Germany or even Spain or Portugal is roughly the same as in the US, the problem are the fucking banks who go in debt to finance mortgages that fuel the housing bubbles and the households that go in debt for the most stupid and innecessary things (a new car, a new TV, new furniture, etc.).

The big difference between Europe's governments debt and US government debt is that Government money in Europe is mostly spent in public services and not in criminal wars.

You don't understand economics.

Private debt means an elevated level of commerce and thus tax payments pumped up by debt. When the debt write-down comes (which hasn't been allowed yet), then the government debts will skyrocket.

Also the interest rates have been held artificially low (see a devastating chart) by the central banks. This is just allowing the aggregate debts and misallocation of capital and human lives to increase. When the interest rates go back up to normal levels, the debts of the governments are going to skyrocket in a runaway spiral to apocalypse.

Everyone in power knows this. They are planning to confiscate all private wealth to pay for the write-down. Merkel lied to get elect, then immediately after federalized the German banks to the EU. It is going to be an all-for-one-and-one-for-all collapse. Everyone will pay their "fair share", hahaha. Stupid socialists deserve it.

You have no where to hide. Certainly not Bitcoin.

You will pay dearly for having lived in that debt-based, state-sponsored socialism.

P.S. it ironic how Europeans comfort themselves with notions of how their governments are less rapacious. Hilter's government was also so caring in the beginning while it was printing money for universal health care. You all never learn your lesson about collectivism and always come back for sloppy seconds, thirds, fourths, ...

Government already taxes Bitcoin owners.

If you think the US government is going to tax Bitcoin owners directly (and not as part of an income tax or a sales tax), well then I'd like to hear how the constitutional requirement of apportionment is going to be dealt with.

Government is going to tax all the wealth to death (because of the 300+% unpayable total debt-to-GDP ratio for the world, plus the 45% technological unemployment between now and 2033 predicted by recent Oxford study), except the wealth of those who own the government-- topmost banksters. This is what massive debt failure is about. This is what can lead to Dark Ages. Because the socialism doesn't write-down the debt by taking it from the banksters (i.e. the most wealthy), rather it takes it from the bond holders, the depositors, and then on down the line until you reach Hitler's outcome of culling the weak to deal with the bankruptcy of the country and the cost of universal health care. Actually Hitler couldn't get oil with his self-printed (no Rothschild controlled central bank) dollars, thus the economy was going bankrupt. He had no choice but to wage war to go take the resources he needed to fund his social experiment of printing his own money and massive government spending.

You may call taxes various vile names as much as you please, but in any case this doesn't prove that government wouldn't be happy and ready to tax Bitcoin owners if there is such an opportunity. I think it is just a matter of time...

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Government already taxes Bitcoin owners.

If you think the US government is going to tax Bitcoin owners directly (and not as part of an income tax or a sales tax), well then I'd like to hear how the constitutional requirement of apportionment is going to be dealt with.

I don't get either what can be difficult to understand here. If you get an income, you should pay an income tax. If you sale something, you pay taxes from the profits you make. As far as I know, currently no government collects taxes from an income or profit obtained in bitcoins (but can be wrong here).

Every US citizen owes capital gains taxes when they sell their Bitcoins. The IMF is floating ideas of a net worth tax for all westerners.

The G20 has written increasingly vigorous resolutions to coordinate to go after tax evaders.

All countries are kneeling down to comform to the USA's FATCA requirements coming into effect in 2014.

All the G7 have official plans on their government websites for bail-ins.

The Homeland Security in the USA is procuring 2714 tank-like armored vehicles and billions of rounds of hollow-point bullets over next 8-9 years (which are illegal in war by Hague Convention).

Etc, etc, etc. If you can't see the writing on the wall, you are blind.

[AnonyMint]

Wrong. Transaction volume is up, significantly.

So my working theory is because bitcoin is inelastic, the value is rising so fast that the deflationary effect hits some tipping point, offsetting Gresham's Law. There could be some "point" where people don't mind spending the stronger currency, because it takes so much less of it to purchase the desired good or service.

All this has a very simple explanation without ever offsetting Gresham's Law. In fact, it actually confirms this law. Let's assume for a moment that Gresham's Law is infallible and fully applicable in this case. Really, if the principle behind it has been known since Ancient Greece, then why should it fail right now?

Simply put, Gresham's Law says that one money is better than another. If that's true, this would inevitably mean that people still think dollars (or whatever) are better than bitcoins because they prefer to pay in Bitcoin while withholding their dollars, no other way around. Why would they? Deep inside they don't believe Bitcoin will be a success in the long term and are just trying to make use of an opportunity that Bitcoin high price gives them...

And everything is in strict accordance with Gresham's Law

I guess it comes down to whether you believe bitcoin is a better money than the fiat (which was my underlying assumption - because it's inelastic ) vs what you're saying - that it's not and people are utilizing the higher prices in bitcoin to capture the value by spending it.

Incorrect, see chart disproving your claim.

To your point, I've been selling bitcoin this week and buying gold and silver (am I going to get ridiculed for admitting that on this board?) because I think the price has just gotten nuts (while gold and silver are at or near their points of maximum pessimism).

Wise but you are likely too early. Gold and silver will bottom under $1000 and $17. Bitcoin is not likely at peak price yet.

[AnonyMint]

All this has a very simple explanation without ever offsetting Gresham's Law. In fact, it actually confirms this law. Let's assume for a moment that Gresham's Law is infallible and fully applicable in this case. Really, if the principle behind it has been known since Ancient Greece, then why should it fail right now?

Simply put, Gresham's Law says that one money is better than another. If that's true, this would inevitably mean that people still think dollars (or whatever) are better than bitcoins because they prefer to pay in Bitcoin while withholding their dollars, no other way around. Why would they? Deep inside they don't believe Bitcoin will be a success in the long term and are just trying to make use of an opportunity that Bitcoin high price gives them...

And everything is in strict accordance with Gresham's Law

I guess it comes down to whether you believe bitcoin is a better money than the fiat (which was my underlying assumption - because it's inelastic ) vs what you're saying - that it's not and people are utilizing the higher prices in bitcoin to capture the value by spending it.

If you had a time machine which would allow you to travel to the future (say, two-three years ahead of now) and saw the Bitcoins were universally accepted and dollar banned (Bitcoin addicts' pipe dream), would you spend your coins instead of dollars in the present?

There is a simpler reason Gresham's Law applies. Because the price is going up. Currencies typically don't gain much international exchange value in a year, maybe 10%. And most people don't exchange a currency internationally any way.

Bitcoin is an investment, not a currency. See the link to the chart in my prior post which serves as evidence.

And when the price starts going down (meaning when no more greater fools to bring more capital in), then the absence of significant transactions demand, means Bitcoin won't be anything. Poof. Then the government steps in...

Thus the scenario of the OP is never possible with Bitcoin any way, it will fail much sooner than that. Fractional reserves and lending in Bitcoin are not possible while the price is so volatile.

[AnonyMint]

And if you mined then sold bitcoin face-to-face, the IRS wouldn't know.

You guys don't think.

Someone down the line of the coin's history won't be anonymous, then they are culpable for all activities on the coin unless they can provide the identities of whom they bought from and sold to. This will cascade right back to you the miner.

If they don't know your wallet, the information about someone down the chain won't help them.

You missed my point. The person whose identity they do know any where down the chain, is in deep shit until they can provide the upstream and downstream name who they bought from and sold to. Then when they help the IRS to identify those, then ditto for those people and so on, until it reaches back to you.

Now if you were careful in the past, you might remain anonymous, but don't forget the NSA is storing all the data and it is very likely you have leaked your identity in a cookie in a Google ad, in a VPN that is a honeypot, in Tor exit node that is a honeypot, in timing analysis in Tor, in a firefox exploit in Tor, etc...

And in the future, no one who can surely be 100% reliably anonymous will accept payment from you if you don't provide your identity.

I will accept them. I'll just spend them when I'm living in another country. All the IRS can do now is drive bitcoins out of the country. That is no benefit to them.

G20 is talking FATCA compliance. China has just chimed in with compliance measure to track all identities. The rest of the world will fall to its knees to the USA, because the QE has been ending up in the developing world as dollar bond issues. They have massive dollar debt now, and as the global debt implosion proceeds (circa 2016 for the next leg down, we are in a dead-cat bounce right now which is why gold and silver corrected) the world's capital will run into the reserve currency (the dollar) and to lesser extent the next reserve currency (the yuan). The developing countries will have a crisis with their FX rates plummeting, exodus of dollars, and huge loan servicing in dollars which are getting more expensive to them relative to their local currencies. India in August was experiencing this, and they have bought some respite by installing an IMF central bank head, but this is just part of the plan to destroy India. Next leg down coming 2016ish.

The NWO was planned very well by the elite.

You all are just not seeing the big picture.

Once the IRS starts attacking, no one will accept or sell coins without knowing the identity of the counter-party.

The government is sitting back letting the wildwest go on so as to let electronic money become popular. Then they will crack their whip and it will done. There will be no difference between Bitcoin and 666. Everything is on the public ledger. Much worse than cash.

Despite what you say, they weren't able to do anything to Edward Snowden, so I think it is not too late yet. Though I agree that anonymity of Bitcoin is a myth. Was trying to explain this to one of the converts here, but to no avail...

Don't you know what Russia does to anyone who exposes the corruption in Russia, see the poisoning of Litvinenko.

Do you think we will have free markets if we depend on the mafia who run Russia? Also Russia is going bankrupt.

lol. Oh I do pay my taxes, I don't always like how it gets used, but I pay my share. And if I do turn some back into dollars I will pay capitol gains. At least I won't have to pay as mus as I do for the money I earn by working.
I promise I will not bring up your post at my trial either.  

And when those tax rates become unreasonable, i.e. 90% or even 200%?

Revolution and war, except the unemployed masses won't be on your side. To be safe, you must also suck the tit of the government. And then we head for the Hitler outcome of culling the weak to pay for the Tragedy of the Commons.

Some interesting sh8t coming...prepare your popcorn...

[deisik]

If they don't know your wallet, the information about someone down the chain won't help them.

You missed my point. The person whose identity they do know any where down the chain, is in deep shit until they can provide the upstream and downstream name who they bought from and sold to. Then when they help the IRS to identify those, then ditto for those people and so on, until it reaches back to you.

No, I didn't because I kept that in mind. To work it that way, first of all, you would have to physically catch and corner everyone who is down the chain. How do you really imagine that? Secondly, as it routinely happens in a cash world, you often don't know who you transact with, so you just wouldn't be able to give out any names. When the transactions numbers reach some point, it simply becomes impractical on a daily basis for an average Joe who is suspected in tax evasion...