Bitcoin: The Quants Dream.

[general.crackdown]

List of things required for a true 'quant' currency:

1) No relationship to anything in the real world either physically or economically.
2) Inner workings can only be understood by programmer types or crypto-geeks
3) You can trade it over computers and never have to integrate into society or meet people.
4) Can be traded at super high frequency by computer programmes.
5) Entire currency can be understood in purely mathematical and statistical terms.
6) Currency can be created by solving mathematical equations quickly.

What Bitcoin appears to be is a giant 'quant fund' exercise which is bound to crash as it has no fundamental value in the long run.

Bitcoin is totally doomed as the majority of those involved have no idea about really basic economics or why currencies exist.

I will predict the future of Bitcoin:

It will turn into a 'bot-war' of geeks trying to perform ultra-fast quant computer trading and eventually the market will dry out as real traders become bored with it as its volatility reaches absurd levels. The entire concept of trade is exchange of different physical commodities - it is why people used to risk sailing half way around the world to bring back goods.

Bitcoin is a bit like Pogs as in they are very exciting to own and trade when your 10 years old - then you grow up and realise they are pointless and have no value.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogs

Duration until Bitcoin tanks: About 3 months.

Ignore at your own peril.

  

[not_mm]

Bitcoins have value. They are a currency (because people are willing to trade goods/services for them) that provide unique, valuable features:

- they are a way to instantly send money across the world with very low fees <- this is valuable
- they are decentralized; no authority can freeze or seize your assets <- this is valuable
- they are pseudo-anonymous; contrary to traditional financial systems <- this is valuable

You can't argue against the above. These features alone give them at least some value... and I would argue a LOT of value.

[Asymptote]

OP - you say most Bitcoiners don't understand economics, and then you go on to suggest that increased trading will produce more volatile markets? 

And you post a link to pogs... which are a commodity unlimited in supply, indivisible, non-fungible, and non-durable. A silly comparison to Bitcoins.

Maybe your own economics and understanding of money needs a bit of work?

[general.crackdown]

The myth with Bitcoin is that since a finite amount of coins are available this somehow benefits the consumer or empowers people.

All Bitcoin will lead to is a deflationary economy in which asset prices continuously drop killing investment. I actually suggest you go and learn some economics instead of further math or programming.

The comparison to Pogs was clearly psychological.

- they are a way to instantly send money across the world with very low fees - Already exists without risk of Bitcoin exchange rate fluctuations.
- they are decentralized; no authority can freeze or seize your assets - Also applied to gold
- they are pseudo-anonymous; contrary to traditional financial systems - Also applies to credit cards

This whole Bitcoin 'project' is a purely quant phenomena. Its inhabited by mathematicians and physicists who appear to be slightly detached from the economic realities of this world.

About 30% of the world have internet access. Internet currency. Great idea.



 

[CBuffer]

About 30% of the world have internet access. Internet currency. Great idea.

Pick up your hand bag and clear off. Hundreds of millions of people don't even have access to banks. Bitcoin serves a purpose for some people.

[general.crackdown]

Lol nice one.

Miss all the important points and pick up on the last.

Quant boy.

[johnj]

This should be in Speculation

[piramida]

The myth with Bitcoin is that since a finite amount of coins are available this somehow benefits the consumer or empowers people.

All Bitcoin will lead to is a deflationary economy in which asset prices continuously drop killing investment. I actually suggest you go and learn some economics instead of further math or programming.

The comparison to Pogs was clearly psychological.

- they are a way to instantly send money across the world with very low fees - Already exists without risk of Bitcoin exchange rate fluctuations.
- they are decentralized; no authority can freeze or seize your assets - Also applied to gold
- they are pseudo-anonymous; contrary to traditional financial systems - Also applies to credit cards

This whole Bitcoin 'project' is a purely quant phenomena. Its inhabited by mathematicians and physicists who appear to be slightly detached from the economic realities of this world.

About 30% of the world have internet access. Internet currency. Great idea.

Wait, Bitcoin "leads to deflationary economy where prices drop" or "dies in 3 months"? You have to pick only one here.

- Name it. And if you mean bank transfer, don't be so delusional. It takes several days, costs upward from 50 bucks, not possible in some countries, and generally not feasible for any shopping. Name something that is at least close to btc in speed, cost, and lack of regulation.
- Right, but gold is hardly liquid, robbery-prone, and non-transferable.
- Credit cards are pseudo-anonymous? You got to be kidding here right? Or you are making it too easy. Calling the system which was invented to log and associate all financial transactions to an individual "anonymous" is pretty silly.

Sorry, you are completely wrong on all your "important" points.

[general.crackdown]

Asset prices do drop in a deflationary economy. If you are attempting to challenge this assertion please explain.

It does not cost me '50 bucks' to transfer money across borders. It costs the current spread quoted in the FX markets which most traders would consider worth paying to avoid Bitcoins volatility.

Why are guys all so against people 'logging' your financial transactions. Some proof of payment tends to be quite useful in the real world. Its why we have invented things called receipts.

Real World Scenario:

1) I buy a book of Amazon for 10 Bitcoins.
2) I send Amazon 10 Bitcoins.
3) Book never turns up.
4) I ask Amazon where my book is.
5) Amazon ask me to prove I paid for the book then they will send it.
6) I can't because transactions are anonymous.
7) Entire system fails as no legal recourse exists. Welcome to reality.
 
You can see here that the entire premise of Bitcoin being anonymous has just been totally destroyed in 7 points by someone without a Phd in Computer Science or even A-levels. It is open to systemic fraud and confidence will never materialise.

Its not surprising that the entire Bitcoin 'project' was thought up by a cryptographer in a lab somewhere.

 

[wobber]

Asset prices do drop in a deflationary economy. If you are attempting to challenge this assertion please explain.

It does not cost me '50 bucks' to transfer money across borders. It costs the current spread quoted in the FX markets which most traders would consider worth paying to avoid Bitcoins volatility.

Why are guys all so against people 'logging' your financial transactions. Some proof of payment tends to be quite useful in the real world. Its why we have invented things called receipts.

Real World Scenario:

1) I buy a book of Amazon for 10 Bitcoins.
2) I send Amazon 10 Bitcoins.
3) Book never turns up.
4) I ask Amazon where my book is.
5) Amazon ask me to prove I paid for the book then they will send it.
6) I can't because transactions are anonymous.
7) Entire system fails as no legal recourse exists.
 
You can see here that the entire premise of Bitcoin being anonymous has just been totally destroyed in 7 points by someone without a Phd in Computer Science or even A-levels. It is open to systemic fraud and confidence will never materialise.

Its not surprising that the entire Bitcoin 'project' was thought up by a cryptographer in a lab somewhere.

 

Amazon will and should sign their payment address. You now have your proof.

[arsenische]

Asset prices do drop in a deflationary economy. If you are attempting to challenge this assertion please explain.

It does not cost me '50 bucks' to transfer money across borders. It costs the current spread quoted in the FX markets which most traders would consider worth paying to avoid Bitcoins volatility.

Why are guys all so against people 'logging' your financial transactions. Some proof of payment tends to be quite useful in the real world. Its why we have invented things called receipts.

Real World Scenario:

1) I buy a book of Amazon for 10 Bitcoins.
2) I send Amazon 10 Bitcoins.
3) Book never turns up.
4) I ask Amazon where my book is.
5) Amazon ask me to prove I paid for the book then they will send it.
6) I can't because transactions are anonymous.
7) Entire system fails as no legal recourse exists.
 
You can see here that the entire premise of Bitcoin being anonymous has just been totally destroyed in 7 points. It is open to systemic fraud and confidence will never materialise.

Its not surprising that the entire Bitcoin 'project' was thought up by a cryptographer.

 

in this hypothetical situation when you buy a book of Amazon, Amazon can provide you a receipt with unique bitcoin address and delivery address, signed by its private key. then you will be able to prove that the payment has been sent to that address, but the book has not been delivered (and it doesn't matter who ordered the book, paid for it or was going to receive it)

[general.crackdown]

'in this hypothetical situation when you buy a book of Amazon, Amazon can provide you a receipt with unique bitcoin address and delivery address, signed by its private key. then you will be able to prove that the payment has been sent to that address, but the book has not been delivered (and it doesn't matter who ordered the book, paid for it or was going to receive it)'

Very technically clever but instantly the entire system then fails to be 'anonymous' if Amazon refuse to accept the key is correct. Also just to further bring you into reality - you would have to provide an address for them to send the book to.

You guys are living in an entirely theoretical world. Wake up.

[wobber]

GPG signing works only in theory?

[general.crackdown]

Try to understand that when two people trade they both require proof of the transaction so as to have legal rights if either side does not pay. Its why we invented banks.

Bitcoin does not provide this very basic requirement.

I'm not entering into a discussion about passing keys or codes around as it is what you would call a 'recursive' argument. At some point proof will have to be provided of the transaction in both directions if either party fails to pay.
  

[wobber]

Banks were invented to help a handful of people control most of world's resources. Banks acting as third parties in transactions aren't the only thing banks do. Wake up Neo

[general.crackdown]

Banks were invented to help a handful of people control most of world's resources. Banks acting as third parties in transactions aren't the only thing banks do. Wake up Neo

Nutter!

[Sultan]

'in this hypothetical situation when you buy a book of Amazon, Amazon can provide you a receipt with unique bitcoin address and delivery address, signed by its private key. then you will be able to prove that the payment has been sent to that address, but the book has not been delivered (and it doesn't matter who ordered the book, paid for it or was going to receive it)'

Very technically clever but instantly the entire system then fails to be 'anonymous' if Amazon refuse to accept the key is correct. Also just to further bring you into reality - you would have to provide an address for them to send the book to.

You guys are living in an entirely theoretical world. Wake up.

I would humbly disagree with you here. The public key is made available to the world so amazon cannot deny that the key is is wrong since they will put it in global circulation. The maths and technicalities are complicated, granted, but thats why its equivilant is forensics. But true, anonymity cannot be guaranteed with Bitcoin, especially when you buy stuff in the real world, its just very difficut, not impossible. You can go through the delivery company check their records to see if it had been delivered.

[general.crackdown]

I would humbly disagree with you here. The public key is made available to the world so amazon cannot deny that the key is is wrong since they will put it in global circulation. The maths and technicalities are complicated, granted, but thats why its equivilant is forensics. But true, anonymity cannot be guaranteed with Bitcoin, especially when you buy stuff in the real world, its just very difficut, not impossible. You can go through the delivery company check their records to see if it had been delivered.

Q: Who is going to make Amazon pay you?
Ans: A court which requires evidence of transactions.

[Lolcust]

1)
Quick google search suggests that "pogs" indeed have value, that can be trivially expressed in U.S. Dollars.

Another quick search suggests that even   weirder things, such as age-riddled postage stamps, do have value (and fairly exuberant one at that)

2)
The fact that OP later tries to make an argument regarding "deflationary" economics suggests that the OP has some pretty weird assumptions about the nature and eventual extent of "bitcoin economy" and generally does not seem to realize that something that is essentially infinitely divisible can not operate in a manner entirely similar to "usual"  deflationary currencies (which were quite limited in their division ability), which is what makes this experiment in quasi-deflationary system interesting (also, in my humble opinion, considering bitcoin to be a currency is somewhat inaccurate).

Conclusion:
OP has presented no novel arguments and has fairly bizarre assumptions both as to "target" extent of "bitcoin economy" and value in general. OP has presented a fallacious argument that extends the behavior of typical "deflationary" currencies to something that, by its nature, can be neither really "deflationary" nor really "inflationary". OP also apparently believes that Bitcoin transactions are, by their default state, anonymous, which is simply factually incorrect (OP can educate himself using Block Explorer, which can be found via powers of Google).

OP's motives for posting his "warning" on this particular forum are completely indecipherable to me (I am, of course, operating under assumption that OP is sincere in his claims)

OP is thus best ignored.

Thank you, and have a nice and very safe day.

Goodbye.

[Gabi]

Op is a troll