Denial

[Etlase2]

You seem to be unaware why the purchasing power of money increases when there is no change in the supply or demand of the money. Let's say the total yearly output of an economy is a dozen apples, and $1 buys one apple. If there is a breakthrough in apple production and the economy is now 25% more efficient, 15 apples are now produced. If the supply of money remains the same, $1 will now buy 1.25 apples.

And this has what to do with a fixed supply of money? Oh, nothing. In fact, I would almost call it an intentional attempt to conflate two very different things to cause obfuscation.

Now it seems you don't understand human incentives with regard to risk.

And you don't understand risk. You can say you do and you can repeat the same bullshit every bitcoin supporter around here does, but that doesn't make it true buddy!

Nope. It is a creation of wealth.

Currencies don't create wealth. I'm pretty sure all schools of economics agree on this. Currencies, however, can strongly influence the direction in which wealth moves. Mises has a big problem with inflation because it hurts the middle and lower class. Bitcoin substitutes the government and the wealthy for early adopters; spitting in Mises's face while shaking his hand.

There is complete transparency here, unlike at central banks.

Hundreds of thousands of unspent, hoarded, untraceable coins is transparent? Between 5 and 10 people monopolizing 10-20% of the total amount of coins to EVER BE PRODUCED is transparent? No, I don't believe it's transparent at all and can only be discovered by digging through the block chain and doing some math. Perhaps it is known to you and I who have spent time studying the system, but to someone who knows little about bitcoin? Not a chance. And you will never convince me that this is unintended. Satoshi's anonymity and disappearance. Fuck you Satoshi you fucking scumbag.

BTC would have never gotten anywhere near $35 if the early adopters had just opened the floodgates. If their intention was to create a truly deflationary system, they would have taken their one time profit and have been done with the massive hoarding. But that's not what they did.

[1714772577]

1714772577

[BitterTea]

And this has what to do with a fixed supply of money? Oh, nothing. In fact, I would almost call it an intentional attempt to conflate two very different things to cause obfuscation.

If the supply of money remains the same, $1 will now buy 1.25 apples.

I'm explaining to you where that "unearned value" comes from.

And you don't understand risk. You can say you do and you can repeat the same bullshit every bitcoin supporter around here does, but that doesn't make it true buddy!

Did you dedicate time and money to Bitcoin before it was worth anything? Would you have done so if you had known about it?

Currencies don't create wealth. I'm pretty sure all schools of economics agree on this. Currencies, however, can strongly influence the direction in which wealth moves. Mises has a big problem with inflation because it hurts the middle and lower class. Bitcoin substitutes the government and the wealthy for early adopters; spitting in Mises's face while shaking his hand.

Yes, Bitcoin has an inflationary period, which is public knowledge. It is also known at the inflationary period will slow down, leading to a period of a stable amount of money. Can you think of a better way to initially distribute a digital commodity in a decentralized fashion?

Hundreds of thousands of unspent, hoarded, untraceable coins is transparent?

Yes. The total amount of currency and inflation rate - past, present, and future - is known to all.

Between 5 and 10 people monopolizing 10-20% of the total amount of coins to EVER BE PRODUCED is transparent?

Monopolizing? Again, why weren't you mining Bitcoins at the beginning? Transparency for the system, not individual accounts. Do you demand to know how much your neighbor has in his bank account?

No, I don't believe it's transparent at all and can only be discovered by digging through the block chain and doing some math.

No it cannot.

Fuck you Satoshi you fucking scumbag.

I think perhaps you should seek therapy.

BTC would have never gotten anywhere near $35 if the early adopters had just opened the floodgates. If their intention was to create a truly deflationary system, they would have taken their one time profit and have been done with the massive hoarding. But that's not what they did.

You still don't understand what you're talking about when you use the word "deflation".

Here's a hint, there's nothing the early adopters (or we) can do to change the rate that Bitcoin are created.

[ElectricMucus]

BTC would have never gotten anywhere near $35 if the early adopters had just opened the floodgates. If their intention was to create a truly deflationary system, they would have taken their one time profit and have been done with the massive hoarding. But that's not what they did.

You still don't understand what you're talking about when you use the word "deflation".

Here's a hint, there's nothing the early adopters (or we) can do to change the rate that Bitcoin are created.

He has a point though. Some people don't seem to realize that they have a responsibility to spent a fraction of massive bitcoin holdings if the economy should get booming so there is a overall 50% coins in circulation.

[BitterTea]

Here's a hint, there's nothing the early adopters (or we) can do to change the rate that Bitcoin are created.

He has a point though. Some people don't seem to realize that they have a responsibility to spent a fraction of massive bitcoin holdings if the economy should get booming so there is a overall 50% coins in circulation.
[/quote]

Responsibility? As in a moral obligation? Why is that?

[ElectricMucus]

Responsibility? As in a moral obligation? Why is that?

The fact that the masses aren't going to keep 100% of their coins in circulation so in order to to compensate the people owning the upper 50% of all bitcoins issued have to spend some of them.

Well they don't but the economy needs 50% in circulation to be as healthy as possible. So any moral obligation is pretty much irrelevant.

[cypherdoc]

BTC would have never gotten anywhere near $35 if the early adopters had just opened the floodgates. If their intention was to create a truly deflationary system, they would have taken their one time profit and have been done with the massive hoarding. But that's not what they did.

You still don't understand what you're talking about when you use the word "deflation".

Here's a hint, there's nothing the early adopters (or we) can do to change the rate that Bitcoin are created.

He has a point though. Some people don't seem to realize that they have a responsibility to spent a fraction of massive bitcoin holdings if the economy should get booming so there is a overall 50% coins in circulation.

how would you know?  if Bitcoin goes to $1000 or whatever the true equlibrium price is assuming its higher than current, then hoarders would be happy to spend their Bitcoin and redistribute them.

[Etlase2]

I'm explaining to you where that "unearned value" comes from.

And you are explaining it via a "completely incorrect" concept. If you truly believe that is what is going on here, you need to educate yourself. Since I know you won't believe me, here you go: http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/wiki/Deflation

Did you dedicate time and money to Bitcoin before it was worth anything? Would you have done so if you had known about it?

No. I don't know. Regardless, the risk is at most a few dollars per month multiplied by a few months or years. There is no real time investment except for whoever coded the software. If there could be some guarantee that the early adopters would relinquish their hold over the economy, I wouldn't have such an issue with bitcoin. But they haven't, and haven't given any indication that they will. So while they possess those coins, they control the economy. And until this is no longer the case, I will never buy in to bitcoin. Instead of allowing the economy to grow naturally, they hoarded with the intent to drive up the price and popularity, in what I can only assume was hope for an even bigger payout. What other motivation would they have for not getting the coins out there? It certainly is not Mises's principles.

Yes, Bitcoin has an inflationary period, which is public knowledge. It is also known at the inflationary period will slow down, leading to a period of a stable amount of money. Can you think of a better way to initially distribute a digital commodity in a decentralized fashion?

Um, yes. Ease in, ease out for one--with the majority of coins being awarded in the middle of the distribution. That would not effect early adopters with nearly so much control. It really wouldn't be that hard to figure out a dozen others. The intent is quite clear that latecomers should be sucking on the teat of early comers. And this fosters people like you who do the advertising work for them.

Do you demand to know how much your neighbor has in his bank account?

No, but I would like to know that if I plan on investing a lot of money in crypto digital trash tokens that 5 or 10 people control 10-20% of all the tokens to ever be produced while 60,000 fight for 300, soon to be 150, coins an hour.

You still don't understand what you're talking about when you use the word "deflation".

You are just asking to get internet bitchslapped.

[ElectricMucus]

BTC would have never gotten anywhere near $35 if the early adopters had just opened the floodgates. If their intention was to create a truly deflationary system, they would have taken their one time profit and have been done with the massive hoarding. But that's not what they did.

You still don't understand what you're talking about when you use the word "deflation".

Here's a hint, there's nothing the early adopters (or we) can do to change the rate that Bitcoin are created.

He has a point though. Some people don't seem to realize that they have a responsibility to spent a fraction of massive bitcoin holdings if the economy should get booming so there is a overall 50% coins in circulation.

how would you know?  if Bitcoin goes to $1000 or whatever the true equlibrium price is assuming its higher than current, then hoarders would be happy to spend their Bitcoin and redistribute them.

The same could be said for $10000, $100000, 1mil, 10mil or any figure you could come up with.
Bitcoins will never be reach that figure without a economy behind it so this argument is invalid, sorry.

It's the iterated prisoners dilemma all over again... we are seeing the consequences right now.

[Etlase2]

50% is kind of high. Typically, currency is only about 10% of the money supply.

You are confusing the amount of actual paper with the total amount in circulation, FYI. And the vast majority of currency not in the "supply" per se in an inflationary economy is in investments. Bitcoins are in hoarding in hopes of future scarcity.

Responsibility? As in a moral obligation? Why is that?

As in, keeping the price from going to $2 to $35 to $2? Or do you think that this is a good thing?

[cypherdoc]

I'm explaining to you where that "unearned value" comes from.

And you are explaining it via a "completely incorrect" concept. If you truly believe that is what is going on here, you need to educate yourself. Since I know you won't believe me, here you go: http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/wiki/Deflation

Did you dedicate time and money to Bitcoin before it was worth anything? Would you have done so if you had known about it?

No. I don't know. Regardless, the risk is at most a few dollars per month multiplied by a few months or years. There is no real time investment except for whoever coded the software. If there could be some guarantee that the early adopters would relinquish their hold over the economy, I wouldn't have such an issue with bitcoin. But they haven't, and haven't given any indication that they will. So while they possess those coins, they control the economy. And until this is no longer the case, I will never buy in to bitcoin. Instead of allowing the economy to grow naturally, they hoarded with the intent to drive up the price and popularity, in what I can only assume was hope for an even bigger payout. What other motivation would they have for not getting the coins out there? It certainly is not Mises's principles.

how do you know this?   its quite possible every single early adopter has already sold out  all their coins to people who brought in real cash to pay for those coins and have become the new hoarders.  how would you begrudge them?

[cypherdoc]

50% is kind of high. Typically, currency is only about 10% of the money supply.

You are confusing the amount of actual paper with the total amount in circulation, FYI. And the vast majority of currency not in the "supply" per se in an inflationary economy is in investments. Bitcoins are in hoarding in hopes of future scarcity.

Responsibility? As in a moral obligation? Why is that?

As in, keeping the price from going to $2 to $35 to $2? Or do you think that this is a good thing?

do you begrudge all the hedge funds and investment banks that rented out all those oil tankers at sea to store oil in anticipation of higher prices?

[ElectricMucus]

Well people are certainly in denial about something....  

I could go on about secondary circulation and how increases the value in a healthy economy but people just don't wanna hear it.  

[Etlase2]

how do you know this?   its quite possible every single early adopter has already sold out  all their coins to people who brought in real cash to pay for those coins and have become the new hoarders.  how would you begrudge them?

It is written PLAIN AS DAY in how the bitcoin economy has progressed. Even if the scenario you propose were true, it is still Satoshi's fault for designing the currency this way. I mean fuck, can none of you add the pieces together? Inability to trace who controls what coins, completely buttfucking anonymous creator, creator has disappeared without a word of what his intentions are... and you just buy this shit up and assume he's doing it for the good of the world? How naive do you have to be?

do you begrudge all the hedge funds and investment banks that rented out all those oil tankers at sea to store oil in anticipation of higher prices?

Because companies in the real world hurt the real world economy in pursuit of their own greed, that makes it ok for bitcoin to do it and should be a system you recommend to everybody? I'm not sure I see your logic, broseph.

[memvola]

It is written PLAIN AS DAY in how the bitcoin economy has progressed.

I guess we'll have to take your word for it.

Or, instead of "buying in" with hopes of "cashing out" (most inappropriate terms ever), we could use it whenever it's better than the alternatives and not invest in it as if it's a business.

Is developing tools for it to be useful considered naive too?

[ElectricMucus]

I state that 50% is the optimal figure for the maximum growth potential. 10% would also be fine for bitcoin but we are far far away from that....

[Serge]

I'm explaining to you where that "unearned value" comes from.

And you are explaining it via a "completely incorrect" concept. If you truly believe that is what is going on here, you need to educate yourself. Since I know you won't believe me, here you go: http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/wiki/Deflation

Did you dedicate time and money to Bitcoin before it was worth anything? Would you have done so if you had known about it?

No. I don't know. Regardless, the risk is at most a few dollars per month multiplied by a few months or years. There is no real time investment except for whoever coded the software. If there could be some guarantee that the early adopters would relinquish their hold over the economy, I wouldn't have such an issue with bitcoin. But they haven't, and haven't given any indication that they will. So while they possess those coins, they control the economy. And until this is no longer the case, I will never buy in to bitcoin. Instead of allowing the economy to grow naturally, they hoarded with the intent to drive up the price and popularity, in what I can only assume was hope for an even bigger payout. What other motivation would they have for not getting the coins out there? It certainly is not Mises's principles.

Yes, Bitcoin has an inflationary period, which is public knowledge. It is also known at the inflationary period will slow down, leading to a period of a stable amount of money. Can you think of a better way to initially distribute a digital commodity in a decentralized fashion?

Um, yes. Ease in, ease out for one--with the majority of coins being awarded in the middle of the distribution. That would not effect early adopters with nearly so much control. It really wouldn't be that hard to figure out a dozen others. The intent is quite clear that latecomers should be sucking on the teat of early comers. And this fosters people like you who do the advertising work for them.

Do you demand to know how much your neighbor has in his bank account?

No, but I would like to know that if I plan on investing a lot of money in crypto digital trash tokens that 5 or 10 people control 10-20% of all the tokens to ever be produced while 60,000 fight for 300, soon to be 150, coins an hour.

You still don't understand what you're talking about when you use the word "deflation".

You are just asking to get internet bitchslapped.

Supply has been overpowering demand for the past few months, one of the reasons we're in decline.

You are asking others to release their holdings, what do you think would happen if there were 3 million bitcoins offered for sale at the same time? - super cheap bitcoins, and who knows how that would be treated by the market and rest of the world. Wouldn't people be asking themselves if early adopters mass selling their holdings, is it safe and worth getting in to?

[cypherdoc]

how do you know this?   its quite possible every single early adopter has already sold out  all their coins to people who brought in real cash to pay for those coins and have become the new hoarders.  how would you begrudge them?

It is written PLAIN AS DAY in how the bitcoin economy has progressed. Even if the scenario you propose were true, it is still Satoshi's fault for designing the currency this way. I mean fuck, can none of you add the pieces together? Inability to trace who controls what coins, completely buttfucking anonymous creator, creator has disappeared without a word of what his intentions are... and you just buy this shit up and assume he's doing it for the good of the world? How naive do you have to be?

do you begrudge all the hedge funds and investment banks that rented out all those oil tankers at sea to store oil in anticipation of higher prices?

Because companies in the real world hurt the real world economy in pursuit of their own greed, that makes it ok for bitcoin to do it and should be a system you recommend to everybody? I'm not sure I see your logic, broseph.

you clearly know nothing of how Bitcoin works nor anything about economics.  your posts are getting more and more frenetic and insane.

[Etlase2]

Supply has been overpowering demand for the past few months, one of the reasons we're in decline.

It's a massive correction, not a decline. Bitcoins should have never been worth more than a buck or two.

You are asking others to release their holdings, what do you think would happen if there were 3 million bitcoins offered for sale at the same time? - super cheap bitcoins, and who knows how that would be treated by the market and rest of the world. Wouldn't people be asking themselves if early adopters mass selling their holdings, is it safe and worth getting in to?

If the early adopters had said "hey we're going to keep selling off some of our hordes every time bitcoin creeps above $1 so that there is a controlled inflation of the money supply until we run out" the system would have worked BEAUTIFULLY from an economic standpoint, and those early adopters would have made a lot of money for their "effort" in creating a stable economy. Problem is, not many people would have signed up because there was no profit to be had (no ponzi scheme here, just an obvious profit for those "hardworking" early CPUs). In reality, there is still no profit to be had and never has for the great majority of people.

Far too many coins exist for what is actually being used. The money supply and economy are so unbelievably out of whack that it's almost funny that anyone thinks there is a stable economy somewhere in here. If the money supply and the economy grow together, then you could eventually halt the money supply and allow deflation to take over. As it is now, it is a blatant, intentional transfer of wealth.

The part where everybody profits is when there is actual PRODUCTIVITY created from bitcoin. And this is absolutely possible for the values it has as a cryptocurrency. The ponzi scheme screws this from ever happening for years if not decades though, if ever because bitcoin is likely to fail because of it.

No. I am not talking about the amount of 'paper' in circulation, I am talking about M0 being a fraction of M2.

But M0 is physical currency... M1 which includes "funds that are readily accessible for spending" is around 25% today of M2, and was 30-35% in 1990--all for the US, obviously it differs from country to country.

edit: I see M1 includes fractional reserve. So there is no real total measure of liquid, non-debt based assets. Pretty shitty.

[Etlase2]

you clearly know nothing of how Bitcoin works nor anything about economics.  your posts are getting more and more frenetic and insane.

To be honest, I barely even read your second statement because all it is is another poor rationalization for how fucked up the bitcoin economy is and how early adopters deserve to profit off of doing absolutely nothing productive, and profit in the millions of percent ROI.

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

[cypherdoc]

you clearly know nothing of how Bitcoin works nor anything about economics.  your posts are getting more and more frenetic and insane.

To be honest, I barely even read your second statement because all it is is another poor rationalization for how fucked up the bitcoin economy is and how early adopters deserve to profit off of doing absolutely nothing productive, and profit in the millions of percent ROI.

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

honestly, whats with you and the early adopters?  geez.  i'm not one and i respect them for what they've done.  they spent all those hard earned USD's and time in the form of hardware, electricity, labor, and innovation in verifying and securing all those early tx's that went on before the ramp in the Spring.  they took risks when Bitcoin was worthless.  how many billions of USD's do we pay the banksters to verify and secure our corrupt banking system?

so why shouldn't they be paid off via a ramping Bitcoin price?