Limited coins and hoarding

[Etlase2]

Splitting hairs.  Gold has the potential as a currency and it has been used as a currency in the past.  It is generally not used as currency for various reasons as outlined in the post that your replied to.

Gold has fallen out of favor as a medium or exchange because
* it can be counterfitted relativley easily
* the amount of gold in coin can be altered
* it is difficult to have small units of exchange.  For example making a 1/1000th ounce coin would be inpractical.
* as a medium of exchange some value will be lost due to abrasion
* difficult to transport large amounts safely

Bitcoin doesn't have the issues that Gold has and thus would be a more viable global currency.

All of those issues are based on the actual metal and all are solved by using a currency backed by gold. Which, crazily enough, most of the world did until the great depression. Then the world stopped because it caused a deflationary spiral.

This won't happen in Bitcoin because (quoting the wiki) "The key difference is that people don't foresee a fixed cost (unit amount) that they must pay with Bitcoin." So that somehow prevents hoarding, obviously.

[1713466166]

1713466166

[1713466166]

1713466166

[1713466166]

1713466166

[MoonShadow]

Splitting hairs.  Gold has the potential as a currency and it has been used as a currency in the past.  It is generally not used as currency for various reasons as outlined in the post that your replied to.

Gold has fallen out of favor as a medium or exchange because
* it can be counterfitted relativley easily
* the amount of gold in coin can be altered
* it is difficult to have small units of exchange.  For example making a 1/1000th ounce coin would be inpractical.
* as a medium of exchange some value will be lost due to abrasion
* difficult to transport large amounts safely

Bitcoin doesn't have the issues that Gold has and thus would be a more viable global currency.

All of those issues are based on the actual metal and all are solved by using a currency backed by gold. Which, crazily enough, most of the world did until the great depression. Then the world stopped because it caused a deflationary spiral.

See, this is a perfect example.  The term 'deflationary spiral' implies a negative feedback loop occurred, which was true on it's face.  But that same feedback loop would not have occured if not for the monetary intervention of the Federal Reserve, which officially exists to temper the ridgidity of the gold standard.  The depression of 1929-1930 occurred as a correction to the bubble of the 'roaring twenties', which was a bubble, in part, because of loose monetary policy by the Federal Reserve.  It then became "Great" because of misguided fiscal & trade policies of Congress, with the added bad luck of a concurrent famine known as the "dustbowl".  In short, if we were really on a gold standard (without fractional reserve lending to add 'flexibility') then the Great Depression wouldn't have been so great.

[Etlase2]

But fractional reserve primarily existed because there simply isn't enough gold to go around when the population and economy grows. Either a dollar must be worth less than a dollar in gold--pissing off everyone who holds dollars, or fractional reserve must be implemented to help ease the demand of a dollar being worth wayyy more than a dollar of gold--because a relatively fixed supply of money will otherwise eventually cause massive deflation. The reserve was supposed to keep purchasing power stable. Obviously they failed then and continue to fail now on purpose because it is the only way to ease debt.

A fixed supply of money that slowly trickles in for some useful amount of work would be a nice system, if that were anywhere near what happened with bitcoin. Instead, in layman's terms, one half has the other half by the balls.

[MoonShadow]

But fractional reserve primarily existed because there simply isn't enough gold to go around when the population and economy grows.

The 5000 years of history preceeding 1913 is a glaring contradiction to your premise here.  And even if not all 5000, the preceding 137 years of American experiences with a gold standard and two prior national banks certainly does.

[Giraffe.BTC]

As the the question, "what do you think will motivate a consumer to use an irreversible method like Bitcoins to buy something online instead of their Visa card?" the answer is very simple.  Lower transaction fees over the Internet, and eventually merchant discounts.  Once upon a time, cash was cheaper than using a credit card, until the credit card companies got wise and started demanding vendors sign contracts to not advertise prices lower than the credit card prices.  This is why the dual price displays on gas pumps disappeared in the 1980's.  But you can still get a cash discount from such vendors on larger items, such as a new tv, if you know who it is in the store you have to talk to. 

So you think a possible savings of 1-2% will be enough to make most consumers willing to forego the fraud protections and grievance procedure that come with their credit cards?  Won't scammers take advantage of this and set up online Bitcoin shops that advertise lower prices without ever actually delivering anything?  I'm no expert in economics, but as a consumer I can tell you that I value the peace of mind that comes with using my credit card for online shopping far more than a tiny potential discount.  For Bitcoin to have a chance at becoming a currency, this issue can't be shrugged away:  the case will have to be made that one won't lose their money if they buy from what turns out to be an unscrupulous vendor or no one is going to use it.

Online vendors, for the most part, don't sign such agreements; and even if they did, they could be undercut by another website selling the exact same products for bitcoin only.

This sounds like something you completely made up.  Do you have any evidence that online vendors aren't under contractual agreement with the credit card companies to not offer discounted prices on other forms of payment?

[Etlase2]

But fractional reserve primarily existed because there simply isn't enough gold to go around when the population and economy grows.

The 5000 years of history preceeding 1913 is a glaring contradiction to your premise here.  And even if not all 5000, the preceding 137 years of American experiences with a gold standard and two prior national banks certainly does.

It's great that you ignore where I said the goal was to keep purchasing price of a dollar stable. But besides that, if you are of a mind that no one should be able to lend to spur economic growth, good for you, but it isn't going anywhere and any system that tries to thwart that (bitcoin) is going to fail as an economy nowadays. There must be a balance between no lending (leading to stagnation) and terrible lending (leading to eventual collapses). Bitcoin and pure-gold standards will and have led to stagnation.

[MoonShadow]

As the the question, "what do you think will motivate a consumer to use an irreversible method like Bitcoins to buy something online instead of their Visa card?" the answer is very simple.  Lower transaction fees over the Internet, and eventually merchant discounts.  Once upon a time, cash was cheaper than using a credit card, until the credit card companies got wise and started demanding vendors sign contracts to not advertise prices lower than the credit card prices.  This is why the dual price displays on gas pumps disappeared in the 1980's.  But you can still get a cash discount from such vendors on larger items, such as a new tv, if you know who it is in the store you have to talk to. 

So you think a possible savings of 1-2% will be enough to make most consumers willing to forego the fraud protections and grievance procedure that come with their credit cards?  

For most, no.  The credit cards also have the advantage that consumers are used to the system, and thus demand that system from vendors.  Which is why vendors use credit cards despite hating them.  But Bitcoin doesn't need most, only some.  As it chips away at the online market share of PayPal and Visa, it will become ever less obscure to the common consumer, and savvy vendors are going to start offering discounts for bitcoin.  Success need not be defined by the destruction of credit card companies, and likely couldn't anyway.  The advantages of credit cards could literally be added to bitcoin by those same credit card companies, if they so choose.

Won't scammers take advantage of this and set up online Bitcoin shops that advertise lower prices without ever actually delivering anything?

Some will try, undoutedly.  But try to undercut Walmart.com without a high level of trust from an established customer base.

  I'm no expert in economics, but as a consumer I can tell you that I value the peace of mind that comes with using my credit card for online shopping far more than a tiny potential discount.

Why?  Do you send your CC data to vendors online that you wouldn't trust to deliver on their promise?  If so, why would you trust them with your CC data?  There is more criminal profit to be had from selling or using the list of customers' data than from taking your bitcoin purchause and never sending you anything.  This is also why Ebay has vendor feedback, because you can still be screwed by a trickster.  Keep extending your trust online when it's unwarranted, and eventually you are going to have a real consequence.  Perhaps you are always protected by your CC company, but if you're gulible enough, eventually they will drop you like any other insurance company.

  For Bitcoin to have a chance at becoming a currency, this issue can't be shrugged away:  the case will have to be made that one won't lose their money if they buy from what turns out to be an unscrupulous vendor or no one is going to use it.

Bitcoin is already a currency, what you ask for is a complete banking structure.  That will come, eventually, to whatever extent the market may demand.  As I mentioned, there is literally noting stopping Visa form issuing Bitcoin credit.

Online vendors, for the most part, don't sign such agreements; and even if they did, they could be undercut by another website selling the exact same products for bitcoin only.

This sounds like something you completely made up.  Do you have any evidence that online vendors aren't under contractual agreement with the credit card companies to not offer discounted prices on other forms of payment?

Not that I will present, but I'm sure that you could find enough for yourself if you thought about it for a minute.

[MoonShadow]

But fractional reserve primarily existed because there simply isn't enough gold to go around when the population and economy grows.

The 5000 years of history preceeding 1913 is a glaring contradiction to your premise here.  And even if not all 5000, the preceding 137 years of American experiences with a gold standard and two prior national banks certainly does.

It's great that you ignore where I said the goal was to keep purchasing price of a dollar stable. But besides that, if you are of a mind that no one should be able to lend to spur economic growth, good for you, but it isn't going anywhere and any system that tries to thwart that (bitcoin) is going to fail as an economy nowadays. There must be a balance between no lending (leading to stagnation) and terrible lending (leading to eventual collapses). Bitcoin and pure-gold standards will and have led to stagnation.

There was no lending before fractional reserve banking?  There is much history that is going to have to be updated!  Even the Bible must have been mistranslated!

BTW, what you call a 'dollar', isn't.  It's a federal reserve bank note.  A 'dollar' is historicly, and legally, defined as a particular weight in pure silver.  Roughly a troy ounce.  A 'bit' was a silver coin cut into 8 pieces, which is why 'two bits' is a quarter.  The term 'dollar' was an American distortion of the word "Thaler" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaler) and is still very much, legally, a reference to a silver coin.

[Etlase2]

There was no lending before fractional reserve banking?

Did I say that? I don't see where, so I guess like the Bible I'm going to have to update my post to fit!

But the reality is that if holding on to gold/dollars/bitcoins is a better bet than lending because of the "guaranteed" increase in value, there isn't much point in lending! Or if you do lend, it is at a very high interest. This may or may not be a primary cause of stagnation depending on whether you ask the bitcoin wiki or post-global economy history.

BTW, what you call a 'dollar', isn't.  It's a federal reserve bank note.  A 'dollar' is historicly, and legally, defined as a particular weight in pure silver.  Roughly a troy ounce.  A 'bit' was a silver coin cut into 8 pieces, which is why 'two bits' is a quarter.  The term 'dollar' was an American distortion of the word "Thaler" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaler) and is still very much, legally, a reference to a silver coin.

Wow thanks for that pedantic and enlightening definition! People might have gotten confused without it, because we know how easy it is to confuse people via obfuscation around here. 

[DeathAndTaxes]

So you think a possible savings of 1-2% will be enough to make most consumers willing to forego the fraud protections and grievance procedure that come with their credit cards?  Won't scammers take advantage of this and set up online Bitcoin shops that advertise lower prices without ever actually delivering anything?  I'm no expert in economics, but as a consumer I can tell you that I value the peace of mind that comes with using my credit card for online shopping far more than a tiny potential discount.  For Bitcoin to have a chance at becoming a currency, this issue can't be shrugged away:  the case will have to be made that one won't lose their money if they buy from what turns out to be an unscrupulous vendor or no one is going to use it.

How many times have you been scammed by amazon or newegg or other major brand.  Also true cost of credit cards is more like 5%+ not 1%.  If you could buy everything you currently buy on amazon (or insert favorite retailer here) for 5% less would you?

[MoonShadow]

There was no lending before fractional reserve banking?

Did I say that? I don't see where,

It's great that you ignore where I said the goal was to keep purchasing price of a dollar stable. But besides that, if you are of a mind that no one should be able to lend to spur economic growth, good for you, but it isn't going anywhere and any system that tries to thwart that (bitcoin) is going to fail as an economy nowadays. There must be a balance between no lending (leading to stagnation) and terrible lending (leading to eventual collapses). Bitcoin and pure-gold standards will and have led to stagnation.

I thought it was implied, considering I assumed that you were responding to me.  If I was in error, I apologize for my arrogance.

But the reality is that if holding on to gold/dollars/bitcoins is a better bet than lending because of the "guaranteed" increase in value, there isn't much point in lending! Or if you do lend, it is at a very high interest.

This is actually backwards.  The rising purchausing power of a deflationary currency tends to suppress interest rates in the absence of fractional reserve lending.

 This may or may not be a primary cause of stagnation depending on whether you ask the bitcoin wiki or post-global economy history.

You do not understand the 'post-global' economic history.

BTW, what you call a 'dollar', isn't.  It's a federal reserve bank note.  A 'dollar' is historicly, and legally, defined as a particular weight in pure silver.  Roughly a troy ounce.  A 'bit' was a silver coin cut into 8 pieces, which is why 'two bits' is a quarter.  The term 'dollar' was an American distortion of the word "Thaler" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaler) and is still very much, legally, a reference to a silver coin.

Wow thanks for that pedantic and enlightening definition! People might have gotten confused without it, because we know how easy it is to confuse people via obfuscation around here. 

Just thought I might through that little bit in there to enlighten you. I've got many more.

[Giraffe.BTC]

So you think a possible savings of 1-2% will be enough to make most consumers willing to forego the fraud protections and grievance procedure that come with their credit cards?  Won't scammers take advantage of this and set up online Bitcoin shops that advertise lower prices without ever actually delivering anything?  I'm no expert in economics, but as a consumer I can tell you that I value the peace of mind that comes with using my credit card for online shopping far more than a tiny potential discount.  For Bitcoin to have a chance at becoming a currency, this issue can't be shrugged away:  the case will have to be made that one won't lose their money if they buy from what turns out to be an unscrupulous vendor or no one is going to use it.

How many times have you been scammed by amazon or newegg or other major brand.  Also true cost of credit cards is more like 5%+ not 1%.  If you could buy everything you currently buy on amazon (or insert favorite retailer here) for 5% less would you?

That's the problem:  there's no way for that to happen.  Imagine Amazon started offering 5% off with Bitcoin.  Visa tells them to stop it or they'll lose their account.  What do you think comes next?  

The big retailers have too much to lose if they can't process credit cards.  Small retailers are unknowns and thus potential scammers.  

Stop living in the fantasy of what the world would look like if everyone used Bitcoin and start thinking through how one could actually get there.  It's far from easy and probably impossible without some fundamental changes to Bitcoin itself.

[tvbcof]

How many times have you been scammed by amazon or newegg or other major brand.

Never.  I've had one or two people attempt to cheat me on e-bay, but have had no trouble getting my money back.

Also true cost of credit cards is more like 5%+ not 1%.  If you could buy everything you currently buy on amazon (or insert favorite retailer here) for 5% less would you?

Not from a Bitcoin vendor, or at least one which did not have a long and stellar history.  The ethics of a high percentage of the people in the community are appalling to me, but this is not surprising when one thinks about it a little bit given the nature of the strengths of the solution.

I'll start to think about patronizing Bitcoin merchants when they start to think about sending my the item first then I pay when I receive it.

I would suspect that it will be a fairly long time before BTC is good for run-of-the-mill mail-order crap (absent an undesirable scenario where it is highly regulated.)  BTC strikes me as being pretty good for either paying periodically for services (e.g., a shell account) or for face-to-face transactions.  And not much more.

[cbeast]

That's the problem:  there's no way for that to happen.  Imagine Amazon started offering 5% off with Bitcoin.  Visa tells them to stop it or they'll lose their account.  What do you think comes next?  

The big retailers have too much to lose if they can't process credit cards.  Small retailers are unknowns and thus potential scammers.  

Stop living in the fantasy of what the world would look like if everyone used Bitcoin and start thinking through how one could actually get there.  It's far from easy and probably impossible without some fundamental changes to Bitcoin itself.

Imagine if Borders bookstore told Amazon that they cannot compete with brick and mortar stores because customers can't send cash through the mail? Would it now be Amazon that is bankrupt instead of Borders? Whodathunk it? Stop living in fantasyland that never sees technology advance progress. Visa does not run on magic. Once venture capitalists see the potential of investing in decentralized payment processing, they will flock to places like MT Gox, Trade Hill, Intersango, etc.

[Giraffe.BTC]

Imagine if Borders bookstore told Amazon that they cannot compete with brick and mortar stores because customers can't send cash through the mail? Would it now be Amazon that is bankrupt instead of Borders? Whodathunk it?

You know this is pretty much word salad, right?  This isn't about one business telling another that it can't work for some made-up reason, this is about a real, fundamental disadvantage one payment method has over another that isn't going to go away just because you want it to.

[Etlase2]

I thought it was implied, considering I assumed that you were responding to me.  If I was in error, I apologize for my arrogance.

Saying there must be a balance between no lending and too much lending implies that there was no lending before fractional reserve?
Logic 101? Bueller?

This is actually backwards.  The rising purchausing power of a deflationary currency tends to suppress interest rates in the absence of fractional reserve lending.

6 of one... Either you lend only to the most credit-worthy to bring down the risk premium, or you raise the risk premium higher as the value of the money will be worth more when it is due. Either way, it is much more difficult to obtain investment because the currency itself is a safe investment, regardless of some one-liner on economic theory.

You do not understand the 'post-global' economic history.

Ooh look an ad hominem to follow up the logic 101 fail.

Bear with me for some US-centric wikipedia quotes:

"The Federal Reserve System (also known as the Federal Reserve, and informally as the Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. It was created on December 23, 1913 with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, largely in response to a series of financial panics, particularly a severe panic in 1907."

"The Panic of 1907, also known as the 1907 Bankers' Panic, was a financial crisis that occurred in the United States when the New York Stock Exchange fell almost 50% from its peak the previous year. [...] Primary causes of the run include a retraction of market liquidity by a number of New York City banks[.]"

You mean to tell me that the federal reserve was created because a few banks had the power to take down the New York economy? I wonder why that was able to happen.

Surely the time of year had nothing to do with it:

"the money supply in New York City fluctuated with the country's annual agricultural cycle. Each autumn money flowed out of the city as harvests were purchased and—in an effort to attract money back—interest rates were raised. Foreign investors then sent their money to New York to take advantage of the higher rates."

LOL

I'll let you finish reading up on the rest since I'm sure you can figure it out.

[DeathAndTaxes]

That's the problem:  there's no way for that to happen.  Imagine Amazon started offering 5% off with Bitcoin.  Visa tells them to stop it or they'll lose their account.  What do you think comes next?  

Today (at least in the US) merchant agreements can't prohibit discounts for alternatives they can only prohibit increased cost for credit cards.

Here is an example of gas stations offering cash discounts:
http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/gas-discounts-for-cash-1275.php

Now the one con in the article was that cash is inconvenient.  Hmm imagine if someone made a digital cash like system so consumers wouldn't need to carry around cash to get discounts?  Someone should think of that.

I am not saying this will happen tomorrow or that it will EVER happen but VISA and the other CC demand ever increasing profits.  Those costs combined with chargeback fees, and losses due to fraud do add up.  Credit cards aren't free for the merchant and thus aren't free for the consumer either. 

It was asked why a consumer would use Bitcoin over CC.  There is your answer.  Cost savings.  Now trust matters more in Bitcoin but I would have no problem trusting many of the places I shop online with Bitcoins.  I can't remember the last time I made a chargeback but I pay a hidden cost of 5% to 10% tacked onto every item even when no chargeback occurs.  Some transactions are risk and you can always use CC there (or some reversable system built on top of Bitcoin).

[FreeTrade]

Since you're obviously an expert in both, what do you think will motivate a consumer to use an irreversible method like Bitcoins to buy something online instead of their Visa card? 

Some have mentioned cost savings. Another big reason is that the two parties do not need the permission and approval of a third party (Visa) in order to do business. In some situations, this is a huge advantage.

[FreeTrade]

your point: hoarding is bad because of low liquidity.

How does hoarding impact liquidity? If everyone stopped hoarding, the price of bitcoin would just go down. then it's trading as usual.

You're right, hoarding doesn't impact liquidity. There are enough Bitcoin users and speculators that there will always be buyers and sellers, and hence liquidity. To increase liquidity, we need more buyers and sellers, not more Bitcoin.

I've noticed that folks who talk about liquidity are usually ones who are just unwilling to accept the price a market is putting on a good. Hence banks talk about being 'illiquid' rather than being insolvent. House owners talk about the market being 'stagnant' rather than bust.

[FreeTrade]

Waiting patiently for your block chain to overtake Bitcoin because of it's incredible advantages.

Now, just to keep us all intellectually honest, it is probable that Bitcoin would prevail over an improved crypto-currency simply because of its momentum and first mover advantage.

That said, the limit on BTC is one of its big advantages. Even Krugman can see that.