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

[deisik]

You yourself assumed that bitcoin is the only currency in the entire world with no competition, right?

For the sake of argument. I don't think this is actually a realistic scenario.

So everyone will have their part of the loaf which is socialistic.

Not everyone in the world holds the same amount of currency. Not even close.

In a capitalistic society the major part goes only to the creators of this new loaf and those who financially supported them through buying corresponding stocks (through the creation of new money to support the expanded economy, which is impossible in the case of bitcoin). I think this is pretty obvious...

Oh well. I don't understand what you're saying. In a capitalistic society money (whether bitcoins or dollars or gold coins or whatever) goes to those who earn it. I don't know of anything about Bitcoin which changes this.

Yes, but the difference is that the number of coins remains the same, so even those who didn't earn them, still get their coins appreciating (what that means you should know by now), since the total output has increased through the economy expansion, but the quantity of coins hasn't. Socializing profits (that's what socialism is all about) is one of the harmful consequences of bitcoin's deflationary nature, among many others...

[deisik]

Yes, but the difference is that the number of coins remains the same, so even those who didn't earn them, still get their coins appreciating (what that means you should know by now), since the total output has increased through the economy expansion, but the quantity of coins hasn't. Socializing profits (that's what socialism is all about) is one of the harmful consequences of bitcoin's deflationary nature, among many others...

What do you mean by people who got their coins without earning them? Like people who stole their bitcoins?

I didn't mean this. I mean that existing coins of those people who don't contribute to production would also gather in purchasing power (in a sense stealing it from the productive forces) due to the expanded production through socializing profits of those who do. The number of coins remains the same, and all of them would be appreciating even only a small group of people made this possible (which is not fair in my opinion)...

[deisik]

What do you mean by people who got their coins without earning them? Like people who stole their bitcoins?

I didn't mean this. I mean that existing coins of those people who don't contribute to production would also gather in purchasing power (in a sense stealing it from the productive forces) due to the expanded production through socializing profits of those who do. The number of coins remains the same, and all of them would be appreciating even only a small group of people made this possible (which is not fair in my opinion)...

But for the most part people who have bitcoins did earn them. They did contribute to the growing economy. They may not have contributed directly to Bitcoin, though they did, unless they stole their coins, give something to someone who gave something to someone (etc.) who mined those Bitcoins.

That's what socialists would say

Yes, but it turns out that with bitcoin they are gaining part of the profits they didn't contribute to. You may say indeed that when they did earn their own coins, somebody had got some share of their profits too and now they have a right to be compensated. This wouldn't be a problem but for human nature (why should I give part of my profits to who's happened to gain some coins in the past?) since it disincentivizes production. Also, once you earned some coins, you could potentially capitalize on them infinitely (provided the economy is expanding). Why should you?

In short, this scheme simply wouldn't work...

[deisik]

Is stock market investing, for people who don't actually contribute anything to the company but merely buy their shares from someone else, also stealing?

I didn't quite understand your question really. Companies issue shares and get money from investors at IPOs, so they get cheap financing (they aren't giving them away for free). Who is then stealing from whom and in what way?

[deisik]

Yes, but it turns out that with bitcoin they are gaining part of the profits they didn't contribute to.

By waiting to purchase, I can get more for the same cost. If I bought a terabyte hard drive 5 years ago, it would cost one amount. If I wait, and buy it today, it costs less.

Is that gaining part of the profits that I didn't contribute to?

In a sense, yes. You just didn't contribute to technological and scientific advances which allowed to lower the cost of production per terabyte. People that bought a terabyte hard drive 5 years ago paid much more and thus they financed technological progress the results of which you're reaping today. If there weren't those improvements (through financing), you would still have had to pay the same price for the same volume of storage...

[aggster]

Bitcoin is like the perfect Ponzi scheme except everyones a winner, and the end game will be the death of fiat

[deisik]

Bitcoin is like the perfect Ponzi scheme except everyones a winner, and the end game will be the death of fiat

Well, it sounds promising... Any cogent reasons behind?

[aggster]

if everyone adopts  the price goes up till there is no value left in fiat, hopefully ending the current banking and monetary system

[deisik]

if everyone adopts  the price goes up till there is no value left in fiat, hopefully ending the current banking and monetary system

Wealth is not money. Money in economy pays only auxiliary role in facilitating exchange of goods and providing a store of value for postponed expenditure. The possession of goods makes people rich while the hold of power allows to maintain one's position of being rich through times...

[johnyj]

if everyone adopts  the price goes up till there is no value left in fiat, hopefully ending the current banking and monetary system

Wealth is not money. Money in economy pays only auxiliary role in facilitating exchange of goods and providing a store of value for postponed expenditure. The possession of goods makes people rich while the hold of power allows to maintain one's position of being rich through times...

It seems that I have no wealth because all I have is useless numbers. But as long as I can exchange those numbers to something valuable, those numbers have value. From this point of view, wealth can be anything that others are willing to exchange with their goods/services, so money itself is also wealth, just this wealth can not be consumed directly, but require a market

If the market is removed, many of the wealth today are not wealth anymore

[deisik]

if everyone adopts  the price goes up till there is no value left in fiat, hopefully ending the current banking and monetary system

Wealth is not money. Money in economy pays only auxiliary role in facilitating exchange of goods and providing a store of value for postponed expenditure. The possession of goods makes people rich while the hold of power allows to maintain one's position of being rich through times...

It seems that I have no wealth because all I have is useless numbers. But as long as I can exchange those numbers to something valuable, those numbers have value. From this point of view, wealth can be anything that others are willing to exchange with their goods/services, so money itself is also wealth, just this wealth can not be consumed directly, but require a market

If the market is removed, many of the wealth today are not wealth anymore

It seems that deep inside you understand everything yourself. Those numbers allow you to postpone your consumption (that's one of their functions), but they have no utility by themselves. If everyone refuses to sell you something worthy or vital, your "paper wealth" instantaneously evaporates...

[nodroids]

Yes, bitcoin is a market determined currency/reserve of liquidity existing in a market economy. Bitcoins will be backed by other things and will be the backing for other liquidity. But then we live in capitalism which is one big ponzi-pyramid scheme. Bitcoin is a market inside of market capitalism, I take your point, and it's no surprise. Until another ecomics system comes into play, bitcoin is the absolute best play going in the current pyramid scheme economy.

[deisik]

Yes, bitcoin is a market determined currency/reserve of liquidity existing in a market economy. Bitcoins will be backed by other things and will be the backing for other liquidity. But then we live in capitalism which is one big ponzi-pyramid scheme. Bitcoin is a market inside of market capitalism, I take your point, and it's no surprise. Until another ecomics system comes into play, bitcoin is the absolute best play going in the current pyramid scheme economy.

Why do you think so? We get resources from nature and return what consider as waste, but even for us what we thought as waste two hundred years ago may no longer be that nowadays. For nature itself it makes absolutely no difference at that...

[deisik]

Those numbers allow you to postpone your consumption (that's one of their functions), but they have no utility by themselves. If everyone refuses to sell you something worthy or vital, your "paper wealth" instantaneously evaporates...

In the same way a telephone has no utility by itself, because if everyone refuses to talk to people on the phone, your telephone is worthless?

If the utility of a telephone is making distance calls only, then yes, as long as this telephone remains the only sample in the world (which is what your assumption can be reduced to), it will be useless as a means of communication...

[Kungfucheez]

Well, telephones already started that chain of events awhile ago with the introduction of the cell phone. No one is going to buy a telephone that has only one function, when they can buy a phone that has multiple functions, and functions as a telephone just fine. In that regards yes, a telephone is in itself worthless when you have the ability to use multiple functions for the same device. That's just technology making your life easier. Bitcoins aren't necessarily correlated though to that same idea though, at least no more then regular fiat money already is. 

[Lloydie]

Yes, bitcoin is a market determined currency/reserve of liquidity existing in a market economy. Bitcoins will be backed by other things and will be the backing for other liquidity. But then we live in capitalism which is one big ponzi-pyramid scheme. Bitcoin is a market inside of market capitalism, I take your point, and it's no surprise. Until another ecomics system comes into play, bitcoin is the absolute best play going in the current pyramid scheme economy.

Yes, I agree with you. Bitcoin is the ultimate asset class right now.

[Hashcesar84]

They say that right now there are about 12 million bitcoins in total, some part of which stashed away. Eventually the production of new coins will stop, so only around 21 million of them will be available, and no more... Now, what will happen next if it ever comes to that, and Bitcoin is finally accepted as a legal tender?

I think that nothing life-changing is actually going to happen. We have already been there. And by there I mean a time period in the 19th century, commonly referred to as a Free Banking Era, when banks could issue bank notes against specie (gold and silver coins). It was during those times when the term inflation began entering into widespread usage and emerging in literature, though not as a reference to price changes but as something pointing to disproportions between paper representing money and the amount of specie actually available in the bank

So, this time instead of gold, we will have Bitcoin (which will be hoarded as per Gresham's law), and all kinds of "paper" derivatives inevitably entering the circulation as a means of exchange. These "papers" allegedly backed up by Bitcoin will in fact leave behind them only inflation, even despite Bitcoin intrinsic deflationary nature...

And welcome back to fiat!

price will grow as enough as people request

[deisik]

They say that right now there are about 12 million bitcoins in total, some part of which stashed away. Eventually the production of new coins will stop, so only around 21 million of them will be available, and no more... Now, what will happen next if it ever comes to that, and Bitcoin is finally accepted as a legal tender?

I think that nothing life-changing is actually going to happen. We have already been there. And by there I mean a time period in the 19th century, commonly referred to as a Free Banking Era, when banks could issue bank notes against specie (gold and silver coins). It was during those times when the term inflation began entering into widespread usage and emerging in literature, though not as a reference to price changes but as something pointing to disproportions between paper representing money and the amount of specie actually available in the bank

So, this time instead of gold, we will have Bitcoin (which will be hoarded as per Gresham's law), and all kinds of "paper" derivatives inevitably entering the circulation as a means of exchange. These "papers" allegedly backed up by Bitcoin will in fact leave behind them only inflation, even despite Bitcoin intrinsic deflationary nature...

And welcome back to fiat!

price will grow as enough as people request

Excuse me, price of what?

[deisik]

Those numbers allow you to postpone your consumption (that's one of their functions), but they have no utility by themselves. If everyone refuses to sell you something worthy or vital, your "paper wealth" instantaneously evaporates...

In the same way a telephone has no utility by itself, because if everyone refuses to talk to people on the phone, your telephone is worthless?

If the utility of a telephone is making distance calls only, then yes, as long as this telephone remains the only sample in the world (which is what your assumption can be reduced to), it will be useless as a means of communication...

What does the number of telephones in the world matter?

With just one telephone existing in the world you can't call anyone (I don't really know if you can call your own number). But with two you evidently can (meaning you can use it as it was designed to be), provided you have something to say or ask your caller indeed...

[deisik]

Those numbers allow you to postpone your consumption (that's one of their functions), but they have no utility by themselves. If everyone refuses to sell you something worthy or vital, your "paper wealth" instantaneously evaporates...

In the same way a telephone has no utility by itself, because if everyone refuses to talk to people on the phone, your telephone is worthless?

If the utility of a telephone is making distance calls only, then yes, as long as this telephone remains the only sample in the world (which is what your assumption can be reduced to), it will be useless as a means of communication...

What does the number of telephones in the world matter?

With just one telephone existing in the world you can't call anyone (I don't really know if you can call your own number). But with two you evidently can (meaning you can use it as it was designed to be), provided you have something to say or ask your caller indeed...

Only if someone is willing to answer.

If everyone refuses to answer their phone, the value of your telephone instantaneously evaporates, right?

I don't see where you're going. You can still call even no one answers your calls, and if you assume that it is not your fault (or your phone's), then no, it is not. As I said before, if your assumption can be reduced to one telephone existing in the whole world, then yes, it instantaneously loses its utility...

Now tell me if you consider these two premises identical