Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Dilla]

I think the water is starting to boil now. Exciting times ahead

[1714113738]

1714113738

[1714113738]

1714113738

[1714113738]

1714113738

[1714113738]

1714113738

[1714113738]

1714113738

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Why would this not work?

I tend to assume it would. It just wasn't initially clear what you meant by "identical to Bitcoin" but "with a peg."

However, I'm not sure they'd feel comfortable about having China possibly incentivized to perform a 51% attack just to mess with them. The rest of the world also may not like the Fed having coinbase transaction privileges (or a massive premine, whichever way they did it), so I imagine there'd be a big fear of forking.

[cypherdoc]

I think the water is starting to boil now. Exciting times ahead

i like where we stand at the moment.  at opposite ends of the respective cycles of every asset fiat-denominated.

down but not out and ready to rebound.

[Peter R]

The rest of the world also may not like the Fed having coinbase transaction privileges (or a massive premine, whichever way they did it), so I imagine there'd be a big fear of forking.

It's interesting how cryptocurrency forces one to rethink what one previously took for granted in terms of paper money.  The Fed has effectively had "coinbase transaction privileges" for US dollars since 1913 and yet the USD has only really "forked" in 1933, 1971, and is possibly at risk of doing so again this decade.

I agree that FedCoin has obstacles that Bitcoin neatly solves by its trustless design.  But I thought Andolfatto's article was still interesting because FedCoin probably is technically feasible and the power bestowed upon the Fed to administer it is the power the Fed already has now in terms of fiat dollars.  

[marcus_of_augustus]

I really like this utxo discussion. It's been helpful.

you're welcome.

[Erdogan]

[..]

Why would this not work?

If they take away all of anonymity, non-intervention in payments and the hard limit, there is not much left that can compete, and it will not take off.

If they take away only the hard limit, that could work for a while, because people seem to like the alleged stability of dollars, and it could be a softer transition.

In the end, it will not work, because market actors will always prefer one money type over all others, the one that is most liquid. All other money types will be marginal, and will only exist to the degree that they have some trait that is substantially better than the primary money. There is no room for a long standing balance, it will tip over to one side or the other.

[marcus_of_augustus]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/magazine/how-bitcoin-is-disrupting-argentinas-economy.html?_r=0

"JPMorgan belongs to an association of big banks, the Clearing House, that has been confidentially putting together a “proof of concept” for a decentralized ledger, or blockchain, that would run on the computers of all the participating banks. According to people involved, this network, which is still in the conceptual phase, could allow instant transfers between accounts at all the member banks and eliminate the current risks involved in having billions of dollars in limbo for days at a time. For many bankers, the most valuable potential use of the blockchain is not small payments but very large ones, which account for the vast majority of the money moving around the world each day. The banks, though, are moving slowly, even as several start-ups are trying to use the Bitcoin blockchain to do the same thing on a global basis, cutting out the banks altogether."

When they inevitably realize that the only truly secure, decentralized blockchain is the original, well, you can't move "very large payments" with a 3.5 billion dollar marketcap.  

Bitcoin technology, as it exists, is well-suited to a settlement/clearing network. It has a "value gap" problem (chasm of value). It is settling-clearing small-mid size transfers using tech. that is more advanced than SWIFT.

The first big banks that grok the logic of why they must use bitcoin/Bitcoin and choose to cut and run from the pack get all the marbles.

[Peter R]

Why would this not work?

If they take away all of anonymity, non-intervention in payments and the hard limit, there is not much left that can compete, and it will not take off.

So that it functions like cash, Andolfatto suggests that FedCoin transactions should be processed by disinterested third parties (e.g, miners).

Like Rocks touched on earlier, this is important as it's contrary to the "can't-trust-anonymous-Chinese-miners" rhetoric. 

If they take away only the hard limit, that could work for a while, because people seem to like the alleged stability of dollars, and it could be a softer transition.

In the end, it will not work, because market actors will always prefer one money type over all others, the one that is most liquid. All other money types will be marginal, and will only exist to the degree that they have some trait that is substantially better than the primary money. There is no room for a long standing balance, it will tip over to one side or the other.

OK, it sounds like both ZB and you agree that Fedcoin could be made to work technically.   

The question of whether the market would prefer it over Bitcoin is a different question.  I like Andolfatto's work because he forces me to think carefully about why exactly I'm such a fan of bitcoin.  In his own words, he views:

  1. "A payment system as a protocol (a set of rules) for debiting and crediting accounts"

  2. "Money as widely agreed-upon record-keeping device"

  3. "Monetary policy as a protocol designed to manage the supply of money over time"

His Fedcoin proposal is a thought experiment which uses (1) the same payment system, (2) the same media for money (digital entries recorded in a blockchain), but (3) a different monetary policy (Bitcoin has a fixed supply; Fedcoin has a fixed exchange rate).  From the comments already, I think most here (myself included) think the free market would choose bitcoin (it's obvious, isn't it ). 

Yet it doesn't appear Prof. Andolfatto sees it that way:

Finally, the proposal for Fedcoin should in no way be construed as a backdoor attempt to legislate competing cryptocurrencies out of existence. The purpose of Fedcoin is to compete with other cryptocurrencies--to provide a property that no other cryptocurrency can offer (guaranteed exchange rate stability with the USD).

Let the competition begin!

[marcus_of_augustus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYhEDxFwFRU
Interview with Hayek on Denationalisation of Money (some gems in there about Keynes too.)

"I don't believe we shall ever have a good money again before
we take the thing out of the hands of government,
that is, we can't take them violently out of the hands of government,
all we can do is by some sly roundabout way introduce something
that they can't stop."

Reposted here since directly relevant.

[Erdogan]

Why would this not work?

If they take away all of anonymity, non-intervention in payments and the hard limit, there is not much left that can compete, and it will not take off.

So that it functions like cash, Andolfatto suggests that FedCoin transactions should be processed by disinterested third parties (e.g, miners).

Like Rocks touched on earlier, this is important as it's contrary to the "can't-trust-anonymous-Chinese-miners" rhetoric. 

If they take away only the hard limit, that could work for a while, because people seem to like the alleged stability of dollars, and it could be a softer transition.

In the end, it will not work, because market actors will always prefer one money type over all others, the one that is most liquid. All other money types will be marginal, and will only exist to the degree that they have some trait that is substantially better than the primary money. There is no room for a long standing balance, it will tip over to one side or the other.

OK, it sounds like both ZB and you agree that Fedcoin could be made to work technically.   

The question of whether the market would prefer it over Bitcoin is a different question.  I like Andolfatto's work because he forces me to think carefully about why exactly I'm such a fan of bitcoin.  In his own words, he views:

  1. "A payment system as a protocol (a set of rules) for debiting and crediting accounts"

  2. "Money as widely agreed-upon record-keeping device"

  3. "Monetary policy as a protocol designed to manage the supply of money over time"

His Fedcoin proposal is a thought experiment which uses (1) the same payment system, (2) the same media for money (digital entries recorded in a blockchain), but (3) a different monetary policy (Bitcoin has a fixed supply; Fedcoin has a fixed exchange rate).  From the comments already, I think most here (myself included) think the free market would choose bitcoin (it's obvious, isn't it ). 

Yet it doesn't appear Prof. Andolfatto sees it that way:

Finally, the proposal for Fedcoin should in no way be construed as a backdoor attempt to legislate competing cryptocurrencies out of existence. The purpose of Fedcoin is to compete with other cryptocurrencies--to provide a property that no other cryptocurrency can offer (guaranteed exchange rate stability with the USD).

Let the competition begin!

Technical functionality: It could work, but not as well as bitcoin does, because the manager will have to control not only the coin volume, but also the mining rewards (the new coins in an expansion will go to the Fed, not to the miners), so they will have to also manage the miners.

The govcoin will have a marginally different value from dollar, since it has different traits. The Fed has control over both, so they can easily peg the two together in a narrow band, by buying one type with the other, this is different from pegging one national fiat to another.

The holding preference is the key parameter, if the public prefers govcoin, the volume of govcoin will have to increase, and dollar base money decrease. The debt, which can be regarded as a third money type in the dollar family, will complicate things a bit. The govcoin will be easier to transmit than debt (one reason to have a deposit, which is a loan from a person to a bank, is the debt's transmittability). I don't think they are interested in replacing the debt with govcoin, that will crash the pyramid.

In fact, I don't think they really are interested in creating a bitcoin lookalike. I think it is an attempt at diversion, or positively thinking, just fumbling with ideas around a hip technology.

[Peter R]

Technical functionality: It could work, but not as well as bitcoin does, because the manager will have to control not only the coin volume, but also the mining rewards (the new coins in an expansion will go to the Fed, not to the miners), so they will have to also manage the miners.

There can still be a coinbase reward for finding a new block, just like there is for Bitcoin miners.  In fact, this is necessary to allow what Andolfatto calls "disinterested third parties" (aka miners) to be paid for processing transactions and keep Fedcoin free from KYC requirements.  

What's new is that there would be a second type of coinbase transaction that only the Fed could issue.  This would be one of the Fed's tools for conducting monetary policy operations.  

The govcoin will have a marginally different value from dollar, since it has different traits. The Fed has control over both, so they can easily peg the two together in a narrow band, by buying one type with the other, this is different from pegging one national fiat to another.

Check out Andolfatto's actual article.  He makes the analogy that a Fedcoin would have the same value as a paper dollar for the same reasons that a $100 bill has the same value as 100 x $1 bills.  

The holding preference is the key parameter, if the public prefers govcoin, the volume of govcoin will have to increase, and dollar base money decrease. The debt, which can be regarded as a third money type in the dollar family, will complicate things a bit. The govcoin will be easier to transmit than debt (one reason to have a deposit, which is a loan from a person to a bank, is the debt's transmittability). I don't think they are interested in replacing the debt with govcoin, that will crash the pyramid.

It's not complicated.  Dollars in circulation are represented by liabilities on the Fed's balance sheet (offset by Treasury Bonds¹ on the asset side).  To create a Fedcoin, the Fed either buys a new asset and pays in Fedcoin or it extinguishes a dollar liability and creates a Fedcoin liability to take its place.

For example, the Fed can still purchase Treasury Bond or other high-grade collateral.  But now it can pay either by writing a cheque (creating USD in the legacy banking system) or by creating a new coinbase transaction and paying out in Fedcoins.  

In fact, I don't think they really are interested in creating a bitcoin lookalike. I think it is an attempt at diversion, or positively thinking, just fumbling with ideas around a hip technology.

I think it's the latter; David is just personally interested in bitcoin and blockchain technology and is working though some ideas on his blog.  


¹And other high-quality collateral (where the requirements for "high quality" have loosened recently).

[Erdogan]

Technical functionality: It could work, but not as well as bitcoin does, because the manager will have to control not only the coin volume, but also the mining rewards (the new coins in an expansion will go to the Fed, not to the miners), so they will have to also manage the miners.

There can still be a coinbase reward for finding a new block, just like there is for Bitcoin miners.  In fact, this is necessary to allow what Andolfatto calls "disinterested third parties" (aka miners) to be paid for processing transactions and keep Fedcoin free from KYC requirements.  

What's new is that there would be a second type of coinbase transaction that only the Fed could issue.  This would be one of the Fed's tools for conducting monetary policy operations.  

The govcoin will have a marginally different value from dollar, since it has different traits. The Fed has control over both, so they can easily peg the two together in a narrow band, by buying one type with the other, this is different from pegging one national fiat to another.

Check out Andolfatto's actual article.  He makes the analogy that a Fedcoin would have the same value as a paper dollar for the same reasons that a $100 bill has the same value as 100 x $1 bills.  

The holding preference is the key parameter, if the public prefers govcoin, the volume of govcoin will have to increase, and dollar base money decrease. The debt, which can be regarded as a third money type in the dollar family, will complicate things a bit. The govcoin will be easier to transmit than debt (one reason to have a deposit, which is a loan from a person to a bank, is the debt's transmittability). I don't think they are interested in replacing the debt with govcoin, that will crash the pyramid.

It's not complicated.  Dollars in circulation are represented by liabilities on the Fed's balance sheet (offset by Treasury Bonds¹ on the asset side).  To create a Fedcoin, the Fed simply extinguishes a dollar liability and creates a Fedcoin liability to take its place.

The Fed can still purchase Treasury Bond or other high-grade collateral.  But now it can pay either by writing a cheque (creating USD in the legacy banking system) or by creating a new coinbase transaction and paying out in Fedcoins.  

In fact, I don't think they really are interested in creating a bitcoin lookalike. I think it is an attempt at diversion, or positively thinking, just fumbling with ideas around a hip technology.

I think it's the latter; David is just personally interested in bitcoin and blockchain technology and is working though some ideas on his blog.  


¹And other high-quality collateral (where the requirements for "high quality" have loosened recently).

It is not just to invent a new type of coinbase transaction. The value of the govcoin will decrease with the dollar (as you know, the target inflation is about 2 percent per year). If inflation proves to be different, they have to adjust the mining reward accordingly. That means the mining speculation will be about guessing the Fed's actions, not about the publics demand for coins. So a totally different mining model.

I read the article you referred quickly, and he is right about the analogy to different bill sizes, and the article as such is marginally interesting. A problem is that he seems to get all the basic assumptions wrong.

Bitcoin is money, it is not a payment system, but the bitcoins themselves are easily transferable. The money is comparable to a commodity, so is gold, so is fiat base money. The preference to aquire it is what gives all things value, for money, that means the preference to hold. We are not in the business of registering sales and cost, we are in the business of enabling indirect exchange. My brain cell started to ake when I read his article. It is not virtual currency, it is crypto-money. There is no trust in money, there is only speculation of future value.

[justusranvier]

The comedians are the only ones left who can tell the truth:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/nation-just-hoping-next-president-can-prevent-coun,38512/

In addition, 87 percent of citizens confirmed that during the next presidential term, they merely hope to occasionally read something about their country in the news that doesn’t leave them feeling ashamed, angry, depressed, or completely mortified.

“It’s pretty simple, really: Just lay out a clear-cut, straightforward plan for a future in which we don’t totally go down in flames on a grand stage, and you’ve got my vote,” said Allison Joyce, a 47-year-old middle school teacher from Bethesda, MD. “Look, I don’t need to be inspired; I don’t need to be assured our future is bright; I don’t need to be told I’m strong and resilient in the face of hardship. Just convince me we can get through the next decade in the least demeaning way possible given all our problems with childhood poverty, gun violence, and people dying because they can’t afford medical treatment. That’s it.”

“That’s seriously all I want from my president going forward,” she added. “Just the faintest of silver linings that I can hold on to while everything else goes down the drain.”

Though they admitted to reporters that no one in the current field of presidential hopefuls seems likely to spare the country much humiliation while its infrastructure crumbles and its reputation is reduced to tatters, most voters expressed optimism that such a candidate will eventually emerge.

“We know what’s in store for America, so if we could elect someone who’s committed to keeping things somewhat tolerable while the whole place goes to hell, that’d be great,” said Seattle-based tax attorney Greg Hudson, 57. “It’s really our best hope at this point. The British Empire kind of just gradually fell by the wayside without too much embarrassment. Maybe we can, too. Who knows, we might still be able to go out with a little bit of class.”

“Then again,” Hudson added, “maybe at this point the best option is to put someone in the White House who will just bite the bullet and get this whole thing over with as quickly as possible.”

[STT]

Russia resumed its monthly central bank gold purchases.   13% of currency reserves are held in gold, China was at 1% some time ago and is still increasing but not reporting it.    The Ruble has strengthened vs dollar so rates are falling but with more gold backing it.

Im not sure what could break golds down trend for certain but its a long time since we saw any decent jump on news

[brg444]

Today we announced a major step forward in the execution of our vision and product strategy. We've closed a new $50 million strategic investment round co-led by Goldman Sachs and IDG Capital Partners.

And for the first time, we're giving Circle customers the ability to hold, send, and receive US dollars as well as bitcoin -- instantly, securely, and with no fees. In addition to sending and receiving dollars, customers can also enjoy the benefits of the Bitcoin network without the risk of price volatility.

Dollar account balances held by Circle customers are FDIC-insured.

http://blog.circle.com/2015/04/30/new-circle-investors-new-us-dollar-account-features-china-horizons/

Interesting moves from Circle.

Goldman Sachs investment sure to raise some eyebrows

[cypherdoc]

Today we announced a major step forward in the execution of our vision and product strategy. We've closed a new $50 million strategic investment round co-led by Goldman Sachs and IDG Capital Partners.

And for the first time, we're giving Circle customers the ability to hold, send, and receive US dollars as well as bitcoin -- instantly, securely, and with no fees. In addition to sending and receiving dollars, customers can also enjoy the benefits of the Bitcoin network without the risk of price volatility.

Dollar account balances held by Circle customers are FDIC-insured.

http://blog.circle.com/2015/04/30/new-circle-investors-new-us-dollar-account-features-china-horizons/

Interesting moves from Circle.

Goldman Sachs investment sure to raise some eyebrows

are you noticing a theme here?  don't bother to really credit Bitcoin as the plumbing underneath enabling the intl transfer of dollar balances:

Circle’s robust support for Bitcoin also gets even better. If customers choose to hold dollars instead of bitcoin balances, they can still pay any person or merchant who accepts payment in bitcoin, without ever holding bitcoin themselves. Circle will handle instant conversion from dollars into bitcoin at the time of the payment. The reverse is also true: customers can accept bitcoin and expect Circle to convert it instantly into dollars in their Circle accounts. This gives customers the benefits of bitcoin payments without the risk of price volatility.

This way, customers can choose to view Bitcoin not as a new currency to replace the dollar, but as an Internet payment network that enables secure, instant, global and nearly free payments.

[brg444]

Today we announced a major step forward in the execution of our vision and product strategy. We've closed a new $50 million strategic investment round co-led by Goldman Sachs and IDG Capital Partners.

And for the first time, we're giving Circle customers the ability to hold, send, and receive US dollars as well as bitcoin -- instantly, securely, and with no fees. In addition to sending and receiving dollars, customers can also enjoy the benefits of the Bitcoin network without the risk of price volatility.

Dollar account balances held by Circle customers are FDIC-insured.

http://blog.circle.com/2015/04/30/new-circle-investors-new-us-dollar-account-features-china-horizons/

Interesting moves from Circle.

Goldman Sachs investment sure to raise some eyebrows

are you noticing a theme here?  don't bother to really credit Bitcoin as the plumbing underneath enabling the intl transfer of dollar balances:

Circle’s robust support for Bitcoin also gets even better. If customers choose to hold dollars instead of bitcoin balances, they can still pay any person or merchant who accepts payment in bitcoin, without ever holding bitcoin themselves. Circle will handle instant conversion from dollars into bitcoin at the time of the payment. The reverse is also true: customers can accept bitcoin and expect Circle to convert it instantly into dollars in their Circle accounts. This gives customers the benefits of bitcoin payments without the risk of price volatility.

This way, customers can choose to view Bitcoin not as a new currency to replace the dollar, but as an Internet payment network that enables secure, instant, global and nearly free payments.

The only theme I'm noticing is you letting these absolutely inoffensive distractions bother you.

[cypherdoc]

Today we announced a major step forward in the execution of our vision and product strategy. We've closed a new $50 million strategic investment round co-led by Goldman Sachs and IDG Capital Partners.

And for the first time, we're giving Circle customers the ability to hold, send, and receive US dollars as well as bitcoin -- instantly, securely, and with no fees. In addition to sending and receiving dollars, customers can also enjoy the benefits of the Bitcoin network without the risk of price volatility.

Dollar account balances held by Circle customers are FDIC-insured.

http://blog.circle.com/2015/04/30/new-circle-investors-new-us-dollar-account-features-china-horizons/

Interesting moves from Circle.

Goldman Sachs investment sure to raise some eyebrows

are you noticing a theme here?  don't bother to really credit Bitcoin as the plumbing underneath enabling the intl transfer of dollar balances:

Circle’s robust support for Bitcoin also gets even better. If customers choose to hold dollars instead of bitcoin balances, they can still pay any person or merchant who accepts payment in bitcoin, without ever holding bitcoin themselves. Circle will handle instant conversion from dollars into bitcoin at the time of the payment. The reverse is also true: customers can accept bitcoin and expect Circle to convert it instantly into dollars in their Circle accounts. This gives customers the benefits of bitcoin payments without the risk of price volatility.

This way, customers can choose to view Bitcoin not as a new currency to replace the dollar, but as an Internet payment network that enables secure, instant, global and nearly free payments.

The only theme I'm noticing is you letting these absolutely inoffensive distractions bother you.

poor brg444.  over-reacting again.

[smooth]

Today we announced a major step forward in the execution of our vision and product strategy. We've closed a new $50 million strategic investment round co-led by Goldman Sachs and IDG Capital Partners.

And for the first time, we're giving Circle customers the ability to hold, send, and receive US dollars as well as bitcoin -- instantly, securely, and with no fees. In addition to sending and receiving dollars, customers can also enjoy the benefits of the Bitcoin network without the risk of price volatility.

Dollar account balances held by Circle customers are FDIC-insured.

http://blog.circle.com/2015/04/30/new-circle-investors-new-us-dollar-account-features-china-horizons/

Interesting moves from Circle.

Goldman Sachs investment sure to raise some eyebrows

are you noticing a theme here?  don't bother to really credit Bitcoin as the plumbing underneath enabling the intl transfer of dollar balances:

Circle’s robust support for Bitcoin also gets even better. If customers choose to hold dollars instead of bitcoin balances, they can still pay any person or merchant who accepts payment in bitcoin, without ever holding bitcoin themselves. Circle will handle instant conversion from dollars into bitcoin at the time of the payment. The reverse is also true: customers can accept bitcoin and expect Circle to convert it instantly into dollars in their Circle accounts. This gives customers the benefits of bitcoin payments without the risk of price volatility.

This way, customers can choose to view Bitcoin not as a new currency to replace the dollar, but as an Internet payment network that enables secure, instant, global and nearly free payments.

The only theme I'm noticing is you letting these absolutely inoffensive distractions bother you.

I wouldn't say it is offensive, but it does make Circle's contribution to the popularization of Bitcoin relatively marginal at best. Maybe that was always going to be the case, whether they offered auto-converting dollar-denominated accounts or not though.

Look elsewhere for developments that may actually help Bitcoin in a meaningful way, for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/magazine/how-bitcoin-is-disrupting-argentinas-economy.html?smid=tw-share

"With its volatile currency and dysfunctional banks, the country is the perfect place to experiment with a new digital currency" -- As I said several pages back on this thread recently on another thread (quote below), trying to compete with a reasonably well-functioning (at least in the short term) financial system in developed western countries is not going to work (again, in the short term).

Bitcoin has to find markets to serve that aren't well served by e.g. credit cards. I don't know what those are. Maybe the unbanked. Maybe the third world. Maybe it's people seeking refuge from an unstable fiat monetary and banking system. Maybe it's libertarians with a political agenda. Maybe its none of those. The one thing I know is that it isn't Sally Sixpack in the West using it instead of a credit card for no good reason at all.

[molecular]

OK, it sounds like both ZB and you agree that Fedcoin could be made to work technically.   

The question of whether the market would prefer it over Bitcoin is a different question. 

That fedCoin is no competition to Bitcoin, really. The killer app is sound money and fedCoin isn't sound.

If it's open to access for anyone and designed to dodge KYC, then anyone can be his own USD depository. So it's competition for entities storing USD for you (banks, exchanges,...). Using the fedCoin blockchain to store your USD definitely beats having it lay around at bitfinex (for example) and it also beats fed notes under the mattress, at least regarding security.