|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ducky1
|
 |
January 21, 2014, 05:30:49 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
aminorex
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1029
Sine secretum non libertas
|
|
January 21, 2014, 05:40:32 PM |
|
Isabella Kaminska, whose work I am otherwise a great fan of, does not seem to like Bitcoin much - pointing to its extreme Gini coefficient and other problems as indicative of its undesirability. She does write about it fairly regularly though.
Well she's dead wrong on the Gini. Consider the 85 who own more than 50% globally. With bitcoin there is a new 85. That doubles the dispersion of the high end, which dramatically improves the Gini. |
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a Poisson distribution and he eats at random times independent of one another, at a constant known rate.
|
|
|
|
T.Stuart
|
|
January 21, 2014, 07:28:27 PM |
|
The same long, detailed, intelligent and extremely positive article, by Marc Andreessen (Andreessen Horowitz), published by two of the biggest titles: Time: http://techland.time.com/2014/01/21/bitcoin-marc-andreessen/The New York Times: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/why-bitcoin-matters/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0I was waiting for an article that would really delve into what matters about Bitcoin and the potential out there. This is what I was looking for. To find it has just been published on the two of the top media platforms in existence today is quite amazing. Those who read my posts probably think I'm one of the most bullish in here, but this is suddenly making me feel too bearish! EDIT: sorry, only an excerpt at Time. But with the intro and link it's enough. |
|
|
|
600watt
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2338
Merit: 2106
|
|
January 21, 2014, 10:17:27 PM |
|
The same long, detailed, intelligent and extremely positive article, by Marc Andreessen (Andreessen Horowitz), published by two of the biggest titles: Time: http://techland.time.com/2014/01/21/bitcoin-marc-andreessen/The New York Times: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/why-bitcoin-matters/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0I was waiting for an article that would really delve into what matters about Bitcoin and the potential out there. This is what I was looking for. To find it has just been published on the two of the top media platforms in existence today is quite amazing. Those who read my posts probably think I'm one of the most bullish in here, but this is suddenly making me feel too bearish! EDIT: sorry, only an excerpt at Time. But with the intro and link it's enough. wow, nice article. i will re-post it. it used to be that i found articles about bitcoin that were depressing, and then i checked this forum and felt better. now it is sometimes other way around. |
|
|
|
|
notme
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1002
|
|
January 21, 2014, 10:32:13 PM |
|
Isabella Kaminska, whose work I am otherwise a great fan of, does not seem to like Bitcoin much - pointing to its extreme Gini coefficient and other problems as indicative of its undesirability. She does write about it fairly regularly though.
Well she's dead wrong on the Gini. Consider the 85 who own more than 50% globally. With bitcoin there is a new 85. That doubles the dispersion of the high end, which dramatically improves the Gini. You might want to recheck your source on that one. There's been a recent misprint that's since been corrected. In fact, 85 people own the same amount as the bottom 50% of people. Not quite the same. |
|
|
|
Adrian-x
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
|
|
January 21, 2014, 11:20:28 PM |
|
. In fact, 85 people own the same amount as the bottom 50% of people. Not quite the same.
OH YES, everything is good move along the 3,500,000,000 people whose combined wealth is just a reflection of there net contribution to society just happens to equal that of the 85 people as apposed to that of the other 3,500,000,000 people who combined have more. Honestly it's almost irrelevant the point is wealth is supposed to come to those who work for it not accumulate at the top by those who have control of a system that moves wealth to the top. |
Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
|
|
|
600watt
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2338
Merit: 2106
|
|
January 22, 2014, 12:23:19 AM |
|
lol, i always thought miners would be found on the radiator side of the game. bitcoin really changes everything...  |
|
|
|
|
sir faps
Member
Offline
Activity: 91
Merit: 10
|
|
January 22, 2014, 12:29:40 AM |
|
...the point is wealth is supposed to come to those who work for it not accumulate at the top by those who have control of a system that moves wealth to the top.
I agree completely with this statement. I don't think there's any way to say it clearer or more concisely. Thank you |
|
|
|
|
aminorex
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1029
Sine secretum non libertas
|
|
January 22, 2014, 01:24:40 AM |
|
Well she's dead wrong on the Gini. Consider the 85 who own more than 50% globally. With bitcoin there is a new 85. That doubles the dispersion of the high end, which dramatically improves the Gini.
You might want to recheck your source on that one. There's been a recent misprint that's since been corrected. In fact, 85 people own the same amount as the bottom 50% of people. Not quite the same. Isn't that what I just said? |
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a Poisson distribution and he eats at random times independent of one another, at a constant known rate.
|
|
|
aminorex
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1029
Sine secretum non libertas
|
|
January 22, 2014, 01:26:01 AM |
|
Wealth will not come to those who work for it unless there is a market for their labor.
|
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a Poisson distribution and he eats at random times independent of one another, at a constant known rate.
|
|
|
billyjoeallen
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1007
Hide your women
|
|
January 22, 2014, 02:10:09 AM |
|
Financial Times - FT Alphaville have been writing about Bitcoin for over two years. http://ftalphaville.ft.com/tag/bitcoin/Isabella Kaminska, whose work I am otherwise a great fan of, does not seem to like Bitcoin much - pointing to its extreme Gini coefficient and other problems as indicative of its undesirability. She does write about it fairly regularly though. The most interesting thing they've covered most recently is some thoughts on how Bitcoin and other crypto currencies are a possible solution to the Zero Lower Bound - and so in fact are assisting QE. It's a bit counterintuitive, but something Bitcoiners don't think about enough is that if Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies become generally accepted as mediums of exchange, then they are actually inflationary, as they are private currencies being issued in addition to the fiat coming from the Central Bank. I;d be happy to discuss this elsewhere -perhaps I will make a thread in Economics subforum. bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general are no more inflationary than the existence of any other tradable commodity. If the farmers have a bumper crop of wheat, is that inflationary? |
insert coin here:
Dash XfXZL8WL18zzNhaAqWqEziX2bUvyJbrC8s
1Ctd7Na8qE7btyueEshAJF5C7ZqFWH11Wc
|
|
|
|
Lloydie
|
|
January 22, 2014, 02:44:49 AM |
|
Financial Times - FT Alphaville have been writing about Bitcoin for over two years. http://ftalphaville.ft.com/tag/bitcoin/Isabella Kaminska, whose work I am otherwise a great fan of, does not seem to like Bitcoin much - pointing to its extreme Gini coefficient and other problems as indicative of its undesirability. She does write about it fairly regularly though. The most interesting thing they've covered most recently is some thoughts on how Bitcoin and other crypto currencies are a possible solution to the Zero Lower Bound - and so in fact are assisting QE. It's a bit counterintuitive, but something Bitcoiners don't think about enough is that if Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies become generally accepted as mediums of exchange, then they are actually inflationary, as they are private currencies being issued in addition to the fiat coming from the Central Bank. I;d be happy to discuss this elsewhere -perhaps I will make a thread in Economics subforum. bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general are no more inflationary than the existence of any other tradable commodity. If the farmers have a bumper crop of wheat, is that inflationary? Izabella is wrong for the simple fact that Bitcoin is a deflationary currency and it replaces debt based fiat. i.e. Rich people sell dollars and buy bitcoins, which they hold as an asset class. There is no credit growth as a result, ergo there is no inflationary effect. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ducky1
|
|
January 22, 2014, 06:51:01 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ducky1
|
|
January 22, 2014, 10:02:24 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
isov
|
|
January 23, 2014, 03:44:52 AM
Last edit: March 17, 2018, 03:13:25 PM by isov |
|
Something everyone not familiar with bitcoin should read IMO
|
|
|
|
|
spndr7
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1020
Merit: 1000
|
|
January 23, 2014, 08:09:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
