Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[billington.mark]

This is sort of nonsense...

For there to be only a single money, there would be no money, as nothing could be exchanged with it.

All things are a type of money when there are people that exchange them.

I think your getting confused between money and currency. two different things.

[1714918062]

1714918062

[1714918062]

1714918062

[1714918062]

1714918062

[1714918062]

1714918062

[1714918062]

1714918062

[1714918062]

1714918062

[notme]

In the first place it was always kind of retarded or economically idiosyncratic to speak of "$100,000" in your bank account. The only reason we'd talk about numbers of "dollars" or "ounces" of gold is simply that we don't know how many dollars or ounces of gold there really are available in the world. There is also the complication that dollars and gold aren't the only moneys; there are also euros, yen, yuan, silver, etc. As a practical matter, therefore, we end up having to speak in terms of monetary units. It's incredibly obfuscating way to talk, though.

A world where a single money had taken over, and where we knew exactly how much had been issued, would be different. In that case - if we knew there was exactly $10 trillion dollars out there - we should simply refer our $100,000 in the bank as "a hundred-millionth." That is, 1/100,000,000 (that is, 0.000001%) of all the purchasing power in the world.

Instead of this:



We would see this, but without the parenthetical explanation since it would be standard:




Now since this IS the case with Bitcoin - we do know how many coins have been issued - we can easily switch to speaking of 100,000 BTC as "about 1%" and 1000 BTC as "about 0.01%" (eventually to become about half that over the course of the next century).

Assuming that Bitcoin does take over the world, the present-day price of 0.000008% ("1 BTC") is around $200. You can own 0.000008% of all the purchasing power in the whole world in the future for just $200 today. Or instead of buying a house now for $240,000, you could own 0.01% (one ten-thousandth) of the global economy in the future, no matter how much huger that global economy may be. Quite a deal.

It doesn't matter what the price is in dollars if Bitcoin does become the standard.

Chamath Palihapitiya controls a two-hundredth of the future global economy and would like to control a one-hundredth or a sixtieth of it. These are the terms I'm sure he's thinking of it in.

Well at least it makes the inflation obvious when your wallet goes from 0.000008% to 0.0000079%.  If you're going to inflate (as bitcoin must to initially distribute the coins) you should at least be up front with it.

[rocks]

Chamath Palihapitiya controls a two-hundredth of the future global economy and would like to control a one-hundredth or a sixtieth of it. These are the terms I'm sure he's thinking of it in.

To me this centralization is the biggest potential threat to bitcoin's long term full global scale adoption. If bitcoin started to take a significant role and a large +$1T market cap value, the public would howl over the "massive unearned wealth" of the few large scale early adoptors.

Especially if bitcoin took off because of a global scale fiat meltdown where everyone suffers and food/basic needs are in short supply. To think that a few people in that situation would be allowed to just own almost all the wealth is crazy. Just look to Germany and how they responded to the hyperinflation. Bitcoin may be rule based, but humanity decides to break rules in ugly ways when times are tough and a small number are viewed to have had unfair advantage.

This link explains:
http://xkcd.com/538/

Well at least it makes the inflation obvious when your wallet goes from 0.000008% to 0.0000079%.  If you're going to inflate (as bitcoin must to initially distribute the coins) you should at least be up front with it.

I wonder how people would respond if this feature was added to the standard client. i.e. In addition to seeing your BTC value, you saw your % of supply value, and that value decreased slowly over time. I'm sure there would be a ton of FUD spread regarding bitcoins losing value.

Then again, most people who speak percentages seem to focus on the fixed end state supply of 21M. In that case the % shown would remain stable. Additionally if the bankers of the future tried to convince the world of the benefits of a hard fork to "expand the balance sheet", the cost would be clearly obvious to people. Unlike today where people seem to think $10K in 2012 equals $10K in 2013.

[NewLiberty]

This is sort of nonsense...

For there to be only a single money, there would be no money, as nothing could be exchanged with it.

All things are a type of money when there are people that exchange them.

I think your getting confused between money and currency. two different things.

This comment is almost useful.
Money and currency are distinct, yes.  Which of the many distinctions is the difference that matters for this analysis?

If there were to be only a single money.  It would not be bitcoin anyway.  It would be time.  This is what I mean when I say that for there to be only a single money, there would be no money.

[Melbustus]

To me this centralization is the biggest potential threat to bitcoin's long term full global scale adoption. If bitcoin started to take a significant role and a large +$1T market cap value, the public would howl over the "massive unearned wealth" of the few large scale early adoptors.

Especially if bitcoin took off because of a global scale fiat meltdown where everyone suffers and food/basic needs are in short supply. To think that a few people in that situation would be allowed to just own almost all the wealth is crazy. Just look to Germany and how they responded to the hyperinflation. Bitcoin may be rule based, but humanity decides to break rules in ugly ways when times are tough and a small number are viewed to have had unfair advantage.

On the optimistic side of that, concentration should drop as bitcoin gains a greater percentage of the pie. People will diversify into other holdings, spend it, invest, etc. That'll happen progressively along the way, though, yes, some pretty striking concentration could still survive.

Even more optimistically, perhaps the holders of that much wealth would effectively give it away in the end. Chamath says he will. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are. Most uber-wealthy give most of it away to charity in the end. What the heck else are they gonna do with it, anyway? Perhaps charity on such a grand scale would begin to supercede the social-safety-net functions of government, just without the coercion and perverse political incentives.

Again, that's the optimistic view...

[molecular]

To me this centralization is the biggest potential threat to bitcoin's long term full global scale adoption. If bitcoin started to take a significant role and a large +$1T market cap value, the public would howl over the "massive unearned wealth" of the few large scale early adoptors.

Especially if bitcoin took off because of a global scale fiat meltdown where everyone suffers and food/basic needs are in short supply. To think that a few people in that situation would be allowed to just own almost all the wealth is crazy. Just look to Germany and how they responded to the hyperinflation. Bitcoin may be rule based, but humanity decides to break rules in ugly ways when times are tough and a small number are viewed to have had unfair advantage.

On the optimistic side of that, concentration should drop as bitcoin gains a greater percentage of the pie. People will diversify into other holdings, spend it, invest, etc. That'll happen progressively along the way, though, yes, some pretty striking concentration could still survive.

Even more optimistically, perhaps the holders of that much wealth would effectively give it away in the end. Chamath says he will. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are. Most uber-wealthy give most of it away to charity in the end. What the heck else are they gonna do with it, anyway? Perhaps charity on such a grand scale would begin to supercede the social-safety-net functions of government, just without the coercion and perverse political incentives.

One can certainly hope this will happen. A common argument against anarchy (or minarchy or whatever) is: who's going to take care of the poor?

[Spaceman_Spiff]

In the first place it was always kind of retarded or economically idiosyncratic to speak of "$100,000" in your bank account. The only reason we'd talk about numbers of "dollars" or "ounces" of gold is simply that we don't know how many dollars or ounces of gold there really are available in the world. There is also the complication that dollars and gold aren't the only moneys; there are also euros, yen, yuan, silver, etc. As a practical matter, therefore, we end up having to speak in terms of monetary units. It's incredibly obfuscating way to talk, though.

A world where a single money had taken over, and where we knew exactly how much had been issued, would be different. In that case - if we knew there was exactly $10 trillion dollars out there - we should simply refer our $100,000 in the bank as "a hundred-millionth." That is, 1/100,000,000 (that is, 0.000001%) of all the purchasing power in the world.

Instead of this:



We would see this, but without the parenthetical explanation since it would be standard:


Now since this IS the case with Bitcoin - we do know how many coins have been issued - we can easily switch to speaking of 100,000 BTC as "about 1%" and 1000 BTC as "about 0.01%" (eventually to become about half that over the course of the next century).

Assuming that Bitcoin does take over the world, the present-day price of 0.000008% ("1 BTC") is around $200. You can own 0.000008% of all the purchasing power in the whole world in the future for just $200 today. Or instead of buying a house now for $240,000, you could own 0.01% (one ten-thousandth) of the global economy in the future, no matter how much huger that global economy may be. Quite a deal.

Maybe I am wrong, but aren't you confusing purchasing power & GDP with the value of the money supply?

[User705]

This is sort of nonsense...

For there to be only a single money, there would be no money, as nothing could be exchanged with it.

All things are a type of money when there are people that exchange them.

I think your getting confused between money and currency. two different things.

This comment is almost useful.
Money and currency are distinct, yes.  Which of the many distinctions is the difference that matters for this analysis?

If there were to be only a single money.  It would not be bitcoin anyway.  It would be time.  This is what I mean when I say that for there to be only a single money, there would be no money.

Reminds me of a movie. Was pretty damn interesting.

Wasn't very popular as I recall.  It highlighted the failure and personal pains that come with a centrally controlled currency but I think the general movie going public missed that point.

[windjc]

This is sort of nonsense...

For there to be only a single money, there would be no money, as nothing could be exchanged with it.

All things are a type of money when there are people that exchange them.

I think your getting confused between money and currency. two different things.

This comment is almost useful.
Money and currency are distinct, yes.  Which of the many distinctions is the difference that matters for this analysis?

If there were to be only a single money.  It would not be bitcoin anyway.  It would be time.  This is what I mean when I say that for there to be only a single money, there would be no money.

Reminds me of a movie. Was pretty damn interesting.

Wasn't very popular as I recall.  It highlighted the failure and personal pains that come with a centrally controlled currency but I think the general movie going public missed that point.

Well the movie kinda sucked. It was a great concept for a script but poorly executed in the writing and directing.

[BitcoinAshley]

One can certainly hope this will happen. A common argument against anarchy (or minarchy or whatever) is: who's going to take care of the poor?

A common argument but also one of the stupidest arguments. It's just like "a common argument against vegetarianism is where do you get your protein?" Or perhaps "a common argument against Bitcoin is that it's a hacker currency that's worth nothing and you can't hold in your hand." Indeed, "who will take care of the poor without the government" is right up there with "who will build the roads" - i.e., one of the first topics thoroughly deconstructed by the vast majority of introductory/elementary literature. It just so happens that most of the people who make arguments against minarchy, anarchy, vegetarians, or bitcoins, know absolutely nothing of the subject except a few sound bites they've picked up along the way from the media, public schools, and their friends. A common argument is not necessarily a valid argument. If the government does not do a very good job taking care of the poor, and in fact has many policies actively oppressing the poor, why is the first concern (when discussing a smaller or nonexistent government) "Who will take care of the poor?" Well, it seems to me that if you remove the entity that is actively oppressing a certain group, as well as actively making it more difficult for others to help that group (i.e. you need a permit to feed the homeless, and here, let's take more taxes and divert it to war and corruption so you have less money that could potentially be used for good) then the first concern should not be "Well NOW who's going to take care of this group?" As if the established entity isn't attacking the group and is in fact helping it. A clever farce!

One needs only look at government's actions - government does anything and everything possible to keep the poor poor and the rich rich. Subsidies, tax breaks, regulations carefully crafted to hurt small business, the poor, and new market entry? We could go on and on - that's just the tip of the iceberg, and none of this is conspiracy, it's all out there in the lawbooks plain to see.

It has nothing to do with what we "hope" "rich people" will "do" with their money, but what we KNOW government will do to poor people, and what virtually every single government in the history of hierarchy has done to poor people, and the inequalities that inevitably result from those in power making laws that are enforced against those who aren't in power.

Amen! 

EDIT: Yes I know I'm mostly preaching to the choir here, but I'm sure there are a few big gov't buttholes kicking around that I can drag out of the woodworks with a well-worded rant Every so often I swear I see someone supporting the Bernankster's policies or the War on Dark-Skinned People... I mean Drugs. 
EDIT 2: Gotta keep this on topic: GOLD down. BITCOIN up.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Spaceman_Spiff: You may be right about that. I was wondering the same myself. GDP is right out, but is it X% of all purchasing power or X% of the total "value of the economy" (whatever that really means)? The answer eludes me at the moment.

BitcoinAshley: Even though everything you said is true, there is still a far bigger way governments keep the poor poor. By hampering the economy through all manner of regulations, taxes, patents, inflation, protectionism, and regime uncertainty, thereby radically slowing the development of cheaper, better goods. Every single thing the government does hurts the poor (including welfare, although in the very short term it helps). Without a central government there wouldn't be any poor people in advanced countries, except by choice or disability (but the latter would be more than covered by charity, as it both would take way less money and people would be way richer).

[molecular]

One can certainly hope this will happen. A common argument against anarchy (or minarchy or whatever) is: who's going to take care of the poor?

A common argument but also one of the stupidest arguments. It's just like "a common argument against vegetarianism is where do you get your protein?" Or perhaps "a common argument against Bitcoin is that it's a hacker currency that's worth nothing and you can't hold in your hand." Indeed, "who will take care of the poor without the government" is right up there with "who will build the roads" - i.e., one of the first topics thoroughly deconstructed by the vast majority of introductory/elementary literature. It just so happens that most of the people who make arguments against minarchy, anarchy, vegetarians, or bitcoins, know absolutely nothing of the subject except a few sound bites they've picked up along the way from the media, public schools, and their friends. A common argument is not necessarily a valid argument. If the government does not do a very good job taking care of the poor, and in fact has many policies actively oppressing the poor, why is the first concern (when discussing a smaller or nonexistent government) "Who will take care of the poor?" Well, it seems to me that if you remove the entity that is actively oppressing a certain group, as well as actively making it more difficult for others to help that group (i.e. you need a permit to feed the homeless, and here, let's take more taxes and divert it to war and corruption so you have less money that could potentially be used for good) then the first concern should not be "Well NOW who's going to take care of this group?" As if the established entity isn't attacking the group and is in fact helping it. A clever farce!

One needs only look at government's actions - government does anything and everything possible to keep the poor poor and the rich rich. Subsidies, tax breaks, regulations carefully crafted to hurt small business, the poor, and new market entry? We could go on and on - that's just the tip of the iceberg, and none of this is conspiracy, it's all out there in the lawbooks plain to see.

It has nothing to do with what we "hope" "rich people" will "do" with their money, but what we KNOW government will do to poor people, and what virtually every single government in the history of hierarchy has done to poor people, and the inequalities that inevitably result from those in power making laws that are enforced against those who aren't in power.

Amen! 

EDIT: Yes I know I'm mostly preaching to the choir here, but I'm sure there are a few big gov't buttholes kicking around that I can drag out of the woodworks with a well-worded rant Every so often I swear I see someone supporting the Bernankster's policies or the War on Dark-Skinned People... I mean Drugs. 
EDIT 2: Gotta keep this on topic: GOLD down. BITCOIN up.

Thanks for your rant, BitcoinAshley. Yes, you're probably preaching to the choir mostly here, but who knows. Also: some of the choir can use your rant for having good arguments.

I agree the argument isn't valid, but it's hard as hell to argue this with some (most!) people.

A comment on your rant: You say the government is oppressing the poor and I agree (although not exclusively, of course). In a sense I'd even go further and say the government is actively generating poor people. It's probably not hard to see for the choir how. We can also simply observe the result (increasing jobless count, people on food stamps, decreasing size of middle class, falling real income, people on the streets because they can't fucking pay for housing any more). It's not that peoples income is falling per se (although it probably is on average in most western countries I would guess, due to higher unemployment and underemployment), but the (central) banks are pumping so much money into the housing and commodity (into all markets really) that the prices skyrocket and therefore real income falls. This is called inflation and the process is one of the most unjust and evil things I have ever seen happen on this planet. The result is absolutely devastating for all but a few people.

My girlfriend often asks me about my recent obsession with money/bitcoin and why I do this (she despises money and the rich and I can understand that to an extent). Of course I admit that part of my obsession is that I control quite a few bitcoins. In fact I've never been as wealthy as I am now through bitcoin. But the more fundamental reason is that I want a better, more just and freer world for all people. What good is it to be rich in a poor world? This truly is the main reason for my involvement here... should bitcoin fail and be replaced by some altcoin I own 0 of, I would still be pro cryptocurrency just as much as I am now. I just want to live in a world that at least makes it possible for people to live a good life.

I'm secretly hoping the debt empire will destroy itself, but honestly: that wouldn't be pretty and many people would suffer greatly. I'm also unsure bitcoin would come out as the winner in such a scenario. There is a danger that we'd end up with some kind of global communism and a "new money" that is just like the old (debt-based and centrally controlled), only "digital" this time around and even more tightly monitored/controlled in it's flow.

So what do you guys think: is the idea of a "peaceful revolution and shift of power back to the people through use of sound money" viable? What needs to be done to make it possible?

At times I think it isn't likely, because a lot of people are too stubbornly holding on to the idea that we need a strong state to control every aspect of our lives and they will go to the streets and shout "fuck capitalism" instead of "fuck bad money and oppression". It seems to be a gut reaction for many to want to create and enforce rules to prevent bad stuff from happening. I fear this could lead to an era of fascism again.

So,... now I went off on a rant Please put some hope into me if you can.

[vokain]

So what do you guys think: is the idea of a "peaceful revolution and shift of power back to the people through use of sound money" viable? What needs to be done to make it possible?

I'm willing to give agorism a shot. Sounds logical enough to me.

My girlfriend often asks me about my recent obsession with money/bitcoin and why I do this (she despises money and the rich and I can understand that to an extent). Of course I admit that part of my obsession is that I control quite a few bitcoins. In fact I've never been as wealthy as I am now through bitcoin. But the more fundamental reason is that I want a better, more just and freer world for all people. What good is it to be rich in a poor world? This truly is the main reason for my involvement here... should bitcoin fail and be replaced by some altcoin I own 0 of, I would still be pro cryptocurrency just as much as I am now. I just want to live in a world that at least makes it possible for people to live a good life.

And this is why we're here

[User705]

@molecular Rants are cool.  Whatever releases your stress.  But you seem to have two conflicting emotions.  First you want things to be fair but if that's true then smarter more capable people will of course be more wealthy.  Remember half the population has below average intelligence.  But then you want some peaceful revolution that takes wealth away from current holders and redistributes it to the people?  Bitcoin isn't magic.  Idiots using bitcoin will still be idiots and likely end up broke given a long enough time frame.  Given the two choices I'll take fair over socialism any day and twice on Sunday.

[vokain]

@molecular Rants are cool.  Whatever releases your stress.  But you seem to have two conflicting emotions.  First you want things to be fair but if that's true then smarter more capable people will of course be more wealthy.  Remember half the population has below average intelligence.  But then you want some peaceful revolution that takes wealth away from current holders and redistributes it to the people?  Bitcoin isn't magic.  Idiots using bitcoin will still be idiots and likely end up broke given a long enough time frame.  Given the two choices I'll take fair over socialism any day and twice on Sunday.

yeah but under this new bitcoin society without welfare states and whatnot  the cost of being stupid is greater => long run net society benefit

[Spaceman_Spiff]

Spaceman_Spiff: You may be right about that. I was wondering the same myself. GDP is right out, but is it X% of all purchasing power or X% of the total "value of the economy" (whatever that really means)? The answer eludes me at the moment.

I don't think it represents all purchasing power.  The value of all the money does not equal the value of all valuables (stocks, housing, commodities etc.).  Rather, I think you should see money as an asset class of its own, whereby all moneys represent only a certain percentage of the world purchasing power.

[molecular]

@molecular Rants are cool.  Whatever releases your stress.  But you seem to have two conflicting emotions.  First you want things to be fair but if that's true then smarter more capable people will of course be more wealthy.  Remember half the population has below average intelligence.  But then you want some peaceful revolution that takes wealth away from current holders and redistributes it to the people?  Bitcoin isn't magic.  Idiots using bitcoin will still be idiots and likely end up broke given a long enough time frame.  Given the two choices I'll take fair over socialism any day and twice on Sunday.

No, I don't want wealth taken from the rich... not at all. I just want noone to be able to unfairly acquire wealth by printing money.

I consider things "fair" when everyone has equal possibilities... a level playing field. It can be totally fair that some have less money than others (if sound money is used). It just reflects how well they have acted. They received that money for a reason.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

So what do you guys think: is the idea of a "peaceful revolution and shift of power back to the people through use of sound money" viable? What needs to be done to make it possible?

Absolutely. The Internet has been a peaceful revolution on centralized media so far, despite Hollywood and old media throwing a fit and trying some legal shenanigans. These decentralized, anti-fragile systems simply hollow the establishment structures out little by little, without much fanfare.

Bitcoin will incite a much bigger reaction because banks are bigger than media, but there's not a lot that can really be done. No wars will work; centralized power just cannot beat decentralized power. It's too late now anyway, the big-time nerds are jumping aboard the ship:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOubCHLXT6A

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

I don't think it represents all purchasing power.  The value of all the money does not equal the value of all valuables (stocks, housing, commodities etc.).  Rather, I think you should see money as an asset class of its own, whereby all moneys represent only a certain percentage of the world purchasing power.

It's the purchasing power within the Bitcoin panarchy. That is, it's the purchasing power within the community of people who agree to use Bitcoin for trade. (Technically, only insofar as they use bitcoins exclusively, which may be your point.)

[molecular]

So what do you guys think: is the idea of a "peaceful revolution and shift of power back to the people through use of sound money" viable? What needs to be done to make it possible?

Absolutely. The Internet has been a peaceful revolution on centralized media so far, despite Hollywood and old media throwing a fit and trying some legal shenanigans. These decentralized, anti-fragile systems simply hollow the establishment structures out little by little, without much fanfare.

Bitcoin will incite a much bigger reaction because banks are bigger than media, but there's not a lot that can really be done. No wars will work; centralized power just cannot beat decentralized power. It's too late now anyway, the big-time nerds are jumping aboard the ship:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOubCHLXT6A

Thanks Zangelbert for getting me back on track, I was a bit down this morning.

Still: there's dangers, we need to be watchful.