The Big Question: 21 Million Coins (yes, I know its been asked before)

[matthewh3]

I'm not an economist but if deflation becomes a problem won't they just add a a few digits to the eight bitcoin has already got?

Separate issues.

"Deflation" deals with the supply of money. The eight (or more) decimals of Bitcoin deals with notation. Adding zeros doesn't increase or decrease supply, it just changes the way it's notated, allowing smaller pieces (of the same supply) to be transferred.

Yeah so if there was deflation then smaller amounts would be more valuable and therefore more desired to be transferred.  I'm not saying it's the answer to deflation but it's very likely due to deflation.

[1713528635]

1713528635

[1713528635]

1713528635

[1713528635]

1713528635

[FreeMoney]

I think price stickiness refers to certain types of prices on (usually) short timescales. When there are strong economic incentives one way or the other prices will adjust. So I don't think it can be invoked as a serious factor when talking about whole economy destruction.

Other than that, the idea that people will always hold off on buying because their money will be worth more or (equivalently) prices are expected to be lower is empirically wrong.

The amount forfeit can be HUGE too. Like walking hungry into a burger place that has a half off sale on their Big Juicy Burger tomorrow. Or renting a hotel room on the weekend. Getting something today really is a different and more valuable (often) than getting it tomorrow and that keeps things moving very reliably.

[evoorhees]

Sigh. Those were due to A) fraction reserve banking and B) US laws which prevented banks in the 19th century from having multiple branches, thus preventing them from diversifying their risk pools (if anything bad happened in a town, there'd be a run on the bank, since it was known that bank couldn't by itself cover the deposits).

Fun how you only respond to the part of the post for which you have an answer.

Addressed above. Don't be so snide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1907

Primary causes of the run include a retraction of market liquidity by a number of New York City banks and a loss of confidence among depositors, exacerbated by unregulated side bets at bucket shops.

Again, 1907 still had those issues I mentioned. Fractional reserve banking, and laws which prevented banks from branching. Even regardless of this, let's assume such panics can happen in a free banking environment. So what? If you don't like banks that are prone to runs, don't bank with fractional reserve banks! In a free market, vulnerable institutions go away, because people don't like risk when they bear it themselves. Today instead, the Federal Government bails out banks meaning everyone has to pay for their failures. If a bank is so vulnerable that a panic/run ensues, then that bank shouldn't exist and the market will get rid of it in due time.

And let's also remember that even regardless of those short-term banking panics (which were not as common as you seem to indicate), the 19th century saw the rise of the most productive and powerful economy in the world, lifting tens of millions of people out of poverty and raising living standards immeasurably, even with multitudes of immigrants arriving. I'll take that over the stagnant, debt-riddled socialist mires of the modern era.

You go from bashing FRB to praising it within two sentences. http://www.economicsreform.com/index.php/the-industrial-revolution-a-new-view/ - this guy claims it is a new view but I have read it before and it does make sense. Although I will not claim it is the defining force of the industrial revolution like you would equate Mises to being an infallible economic god. Btw, he agrees that money supply != monetary base.

When did I praise the FRB (I assume this stands for Federal Reserve Board?)? The Fed was created in 1913... and I was referring to the 19th century, which is the 1800's, as a time of massive economic growth that occurred without the Fed.

The more you look into the "problems of free market capitalism" the more you will discover they tend to stem in fact from government policy. The free market is not perfect, but it gets unfairly shit on by people who seek to control others.

I think you mean free market banking, not capitalism. And what bitcoin is most certainly not is free market banking. It is the most extreme form of banking regulation you could possibly imagine.

Free market banking = capitalism. Capitalism refers to the absence of state coercion in the marketplace, meaning a free market in everything. And yes, Bitcoin permits "free market banking." I'm doing it right now, actually. Bitcoin is not "the most extreme form of banking regulation." Bitcoin is not regulation... regulation means mandates which come from the State. The fact that a bank can't "print" a Bitcoin doesn't mean the bank is "regulated." I can't magically make gold appear in my hands either, but I'm not "regulated" by gold. You need to work on your terminology I think.

[evoorhees]

I think price stickiness refers to certain types of prices on (usually) short timescales. When there are strong economic incentives one way or the other prices will adjust. So I don't think it can be invoked as a serious factor when talking about whole economy destruction.

+1

Price stickiness is always a short-term phenomenon, and economics is at its best when it tends to focus on the long-term effects of things.

[Etlase2]

I don't see what you mean by a "negative interest problem." Who cares if interest rates go negative? Is it that odd that under a world of falling prices, a rate of -2% might still be a good deal? If prices fall at a rate of -3% per year, then one should be happy with a -2% interest rate. It is not the nominal rate which is important for enabling an economy to function, but the real rate.  I see no reason to think interest rates can't or shouldn't go negative in a world of falling prices.

What is odd that anyone would lend if they would make more profit by not lending. And the act of not lending actually helps this. How does this not compute for you?

Sorry, what am I being unclear about?

Let's see, equating monetary base with monetary supply whenever it suits your view, blaming government regulation for all ills whenever it suits you, basically using any pseudo-facts to help your view and ignoring the rest. Basically a typical bitmiseslibtard.

If you believe you can honestly answer this question: "Is Bitcoin a form of currency that prevents the underlying unfairness of wealth transfer through monetary manipulation?" with a "yes", then there is obviously no hope for you. If you cannot see that wealth transfer via money manipulation is at the root of all recession, then I don't know what to tell you. It isn't that there are less productive people or less products/services available during recession, it is that money is less available per person. What causes this? Or, what does bitcoin do to fix it? Nothing. It even brandishes it in your face.

[Etlase2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1907

Primary causes of the run include a retraction of market liquidity by a number of New York City banks and a loss of confidence among depositors, exacerbated by unregulated side bets at bucket shops.

Again, 1907 still had those issues I mentioned. Fractional reserve banking, and laws which prevented banks from branching. Even regardless of this, let's assume such panics can happen in a free banking environment. So what? If you don't like banks that are prone to runs, don't bank with fractional reserve banks! In a free market, vulnerable institutions go away, because people don't like risk when they bear it themselves. Today instead, the Federal Government bails out banks meaning everyone has to pay for their failures. If a bank is so vulnerable that a panic/run ensues, then that bank shouldn't exist and the market will get rid of it in due time.

Here you go again. Blind to the reality. The overall issue is the retraction of market liquidity; it always is when there is a recession. And then again moving on to issues with the Fed which are irrelevant. The Fed didn't exist in 1907 broseph. Stop going off on tangents.

When did I praise the FRB (I assume this stands for Federal Reserve Board?)? The Fed was created in 1913... and I was referring to the 19th century, which is the 1800's, as a time of massive economic growth that occurred without the Fed.

lol wtf now I know you're just a troll. the fkin link talked about fractional reserve banking. Which did exist during the 1800s. Oh and by the way, most European countries already had a central bank by that point and experienced the same growth.

Free market banking = capitalism. Capitalism refers to the absence of state coercion in the marketplace, meaning a free market in everything.

Meaning that free market banking is a subset of capitalism, not capitalism. Capitalism is not the issue at hand, so you again try to conflate instead of making any real point.

Bitcoin is not "the most extreme form of banking regulation." Bitcoin is not regulation... regulation means mandates which come from the State.

Uh, the hell it does. "2.  A principle, rule, or law designed to control or govern conduct." There is no "state" in there. You just decided to, once again, exclude information that does not suit your view. Bitcoin has the most strict rules possible when it comes to money. It cannot change in supply and the supply cannot expand to meet demand. These are rules that are laid down and enforced by the protocol. That is regulation. The supply is highly regulated.

You need to work on your terminology I think.

No, actually, I don't.

[miscreanity]

The supply can deflate and inflate even against a fixed monetary base.

You're talking about stock to flow ratios. Provide a definition for common ground in relation to monetary base and supply.

Someone recommended this book, when I showed him this thread

http://www.amazon.com/This-Time-Different-Centuries-Financial/dp/0691152640/ref=tmm_pap_title_0

... provocatively argue that financial combustions are universal rites of passage for emerging and established market nations. The authors draw important lessons from history to show us how much--or how little--we have learned.

Overnighting this one!

Good book. I call that "growing pains"

You go from bashing FRB to praising it within two sentences. http://www.economicsreform.com/index.php/the-industrial-revolution-a-new-view/ - this guy claims it is a new view but I have read it before and it does make sense. Although I will not claim it is the defining force of the industrial revolution like you would equate Mises to being an infallible economic god. Btw, he agrees that money supply != monetary base.

When did I praise the FRB (I assume this stands for Federal Reserve Board?)? The Fed was created in 1913... and I was referring to the 19th century, which is the 1800's, as a time of massive economic growth that occurred without the Fed.

Forgive him, his reasoning and conclusions are often juvenile, lacking any practical or logical basis. Much like his failed efforts at creating a competing currency to Bitcoin. His discussions tend to devolve rapidly, so I quickly learned to ignore him when he's antagonistic over semantics. Don't feed the troll.

Moving on, as Bitcoin grows and the value of its base unit increases, prices denominated in BTC will decline. As they continue to decline, the decimal can be shifted to the right as market forces demand. Therefore, savings is preserved while prices are maintained within a stable range as seen in this chart (which assumes the base limit of 21mm units has been achieved):



In the reverse, when Bitcoin unit value decreases, the decimal simply shifts back to the left and prices rise. Off-the-cuff calculations extrapolating based on historical world economic growth placed a decimal shift occurring once every 12-20 years, creating a "reset" cycle of sorts in prices. Market infrastructure such as futures, options and the like may smooth the transition period significantly, if not entirely - instead of an instantaneous move in prices, it may be as gradual as a sine wave.

More in-depth:

In the history of this planet we haven't had a deflationary currency. And I'm referring to the currency supply deflation not the aftereffect of price deflation. Even fking gold is inflationary. And you little fart want to pretend and make statements of how the reality really works and what kind of currency would be best??!

A true deflationary currency would be one in which the money supply contracts, so it would have to start at an arbitrary amount and then basically self-destruct (inflation self-destructs by dilution/overabundance). As an example, food would fit this definition because it perishes over time.

Yes, gold is inflationary, as is Bitcoin. The distinction is that Bitcoin approaches an absolute limit whereas discovery of a large supply or mining gold on the moon could continue expansion of its unit base indefinitely.

I think I see what you're trying to get at: gold and Bitcoin inflate less than overall economic expansion grows. So it isn't the currency deflating, there is simply a divergence between the growth rates. In effect, that simulates a deflationary environment - the presentation is the same, but the reasons are different.

This chart illustrates that sequence of events:

Think of Altcoin as the translation layer between a consistent measure of value (Bitcoin or gold), and the fluctuating quantity and quality of goods and services in an entire economy. It doesn't matter whether there are 10,000 potatos or 1,000,000 - the price for them will still be the same in Altcoins. The more potatos there are, the cheaper they become in Bitcoins. Assume that potatoes are the only goods in our example economy, a maximum for Bitcoin of 1,000 Satoshis and an initial 10:1 Altcoin/Bitcoin to potato ratio:

Annual Potato Yield	>Total Altcoins	>Value in Altcoins	>Total Bitcoins	>Value in Bitcoins
100	1,000	10	1,000	10
1,000	10,000	10	1,000	1
10,000,000	100,000,000	10	1,000	0.0001

Can you imagine if potato crop yields fell significantly one year and people saw the US dollar-denominated price of potatoes go from $1/ea to $10,000?

Now under a fixed 2% annual rate rise for Altcoins, with the same starting assumptions as above:

Annual Potato Yield	>Total Altcoins	>Value in Altcoins	>Total Bitcoins	>Value in Bitcoins
100	1,000	10	1,000	10
1,000	1,020	1.02	1,000	1
10,000,000	1,040	0.000104	1,000	0.0001

The same problem arises as that with Bitcoin. A fixed absolute value increase would obviously be even more divergent. You can see from these tables that it is impossible for Bitcoin to serve both purposes alone. A second, more flexible Bitcoin system is necessary in the vein of Altcoin.

A significant change occurs when market forces shift the Bitcoin decimal. Let's take another look:

Annual Potato Yield	>Total Bitcoins	>Value in Bitcoins	>Decimal Shift	Value of 1 Bitcoin
100	1,000	10.000	none to hold 10.0	1.0
1,000	1,000	1.0000	>1 to hold 10.0	1.0
10,000,000	1,000	0.0001	>5 to hold 10.0	1.0

The end result is that anyone holding 1 Bitcoin at the beginning would still have 1 Bitcoin, only now smaller fractions of a Bitcoin are needed to conduct everyday transactions. The currency remains functional in regard to price stability while existing units are not devalued, meaning that savers neither harm the system nor are harmed by it.

In a fiat system, savers are actually the enemy because stockpiling puts strain on price stability and if the stored fiat is ever disbursed in size, it can cause sizeable price disruption. For an example, imagine that a major foreign holder of US debt (bonds and the like) decided to sell; several billion dollars flooding back into the system without an immediate, commensurate balance of trade reaction would be the same as printing that money into existence. Prices of goods and services would be affected within a year, potentially causing further chain reactions that could destabilize the entire system.

What is the universal response to an inflatable money supply that is experiencing excessive demand (i.e. a liquidity crisis)? Inflation is the only answer in the end. By inflating, the decimal point is moved to the left instead of the right. We've seen this with numerous national currencies which introduce a 'new' X fiat currency, just like the old one only several zeros have been lopped off. A 100.00 denomination becomes 1.00 for a left shift of 2 places. That dilutes existing units (savings) in order to maintain price stability.

Using a money supply that is essentially fixed, and is indefinitely divisible, completely negates that problem. Gold is the same, but can only do well to certain point because it is physical, offering practical usage down to about a gram denomination. While it is theoretically possible to use gold held in custodianship to lower the limits on practical usage, that returns to issues of trust regarding financial institutions.

Bitcoin also virtually eliminates the management concerns involved with trust (there will still be weak points, notably the developers, hashing power concentration and cryptographic security). The only real questions that remain (aside from those mentioned) are of eventual widespread adoption and whether the decimal expansion will be sufficiently smoothed by market forces. Therefore, a complementary inflationary currency might not be necessary.

It's hard for those with minimal understanding of their own financial system to grasp these distinctions, and even harder for those that have made it their livelihood and gospel in understanding the existing paradigm. All economic arguments against Bitcoin so far have been bunk. The shift in recognition will be a gradually accelerating process, much like this excellent analysis.

[matthewh3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1907

Primary causes of the run include a retraction of market liquidity by a number of New York City banks and a loss of confidence among depositors, exacerbated by unregulated side bets at bucket shops.

Again, 1907 still had those issues I mentioned. Fractional reserve banking, and laws which prevented banks from branching. Even regardless of this, let's assume such panics can happen in a free banking environment. So what? If you don't like banks that are prone to runs, don't bank with fractional reserve banks! In a free market, vulnerable institutions go away, because people don't like risk when they bear it themselves. Today instead, the Federal Government bails out banks meaning everyone has to pay for their failures. If a bank is so vulnerable that a panic/run ensues, then that bank shouldn't exist and the market will get rid of it in due time.

Here you go again. Blind to the reality. The overall issue is the retraction of market liquidity; it always is when there is a recession. And then again moving on to issues with the Fed which are irrelevant. The Fed didn't exist in 1907 broseph. Stop going off on tangents.

When did I praise the FRB (I assume this stands for Federal Reserve Board?)? The Fed was created in 1913... and I was referring to the 19th century, which is the 1800's, as a time of massive economic growth that occurred without the Fed.

lol wtf now I know you're just a troll. the fkin link talked about fractional reserve banking. Which did exist during the 1800s. Oh and by the way, most European countries already had a central bank by that point and experienced the same growth.

Free market banking = capitalism. Capitalism refers to the absence of state coercion in the marketplace, meaning a free market in everything.

Meaning that free market banking is a subset of capitalism, not capitalism. Capitalism is not the issue at hand, so you again try to conflate instead of making any real point.

Bitcoin is not "the most extreme form of banking regulation." Bitcoin is not regulation... regulation means mandates which come from the State.

Uh, the hell it does. "2.  A principle, rule, or law designed to control or govern conduct." There is no "state" in there. You just decided to, once again, exclude information that does not suit your view. Bitcoin has the most strict rules possible when it comes to money. It cannot change in supply and the supply cannot expand to meet demand. These are rules that are laid down and enforced by the protocol. That is regulation. The supply is highly regulated.

You need to work on your terminology I think.

No, actually, I don't.

Post 666 mark of the beast ban him!  Going on about the early 20th centuary pfft.  As any good Jehovah's Witness will tell you that's when Satan returend to earth FFS!

Sorry been missing all the trolling on bitcointalk.org recently

[Etlase2]

Excellent points. And, just in case a real, working example might help someone, this is *already* happening with computers and other electronic items. That is, consumers know that the PC or the hard disk they are  buying for $1k today will be much cheaper (say, $500) in a year, yet the PC market hasn't come to a standstill.

Secondly, compared to deflationary-currency scenario where /all/ prices tend to fall over time, the effect is more pronounced for today's PC market - because their price is falling /while/ others largely remain the same.  And, yet the PC market hasn't come to a standstill.

But wages are not falling which would be the case in a deflationary economy.

And I'll link to this again: http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/wiki/Deflation as to why this is such a piss-poor argument.

[evoorhees]

I don't see what you mean by a "negative interest problem." Who cares if interest rates go negative? Is it that odd that under a world of falling prices, a rate of -2% might still be a good deal? If prices fall at a rate of -3% per year, then one should be happy with a -2% interest rate. It is not the nominal rate which is important for enabling an economy to function, but the real rate.  I see no reason to think interest rates can't or shouldn't go negative in a world of falling prices.

What is odd that anyone would lend if they would make more profit by not lending. And the act of not lending actually helps this. How does this not compute for you?

Hehehe... you are so enamored with inflationary money that you forgot in a free market people (at least before Bitcoin) would use metals as a currency, not fiat. Metals require storage, and thus it is possible for interest to be negative, and for you to still lend. You don't want $1m in gold in your house, I assure you. But, if talking about Bitcoin with no storage cost, indeed there may never be a negative interest rate in a free market.

Sorry, what am I being unclear about?

Let's see, equating monetary base with monetary supply whenever it suits your view, blaming government regulation for all ills whenever it suits you, basically using any pseudo-facts to help your view and ignoring the rest. Basically a typical bitmiseslibtard.

If you believe you can honestly answer this question: "Is Bitcoin a form of currency that prevents the underlying unfairness of wealth transfer through monetary manipulation?" with a "yes", then there is obviously no hope for you. If you cannot see that wealth transfer via money manipulation is at the root of all recession, then I don't know what to tell you. It isn't that there are less productive people or less products/services available during recession, it is that money is less available per person. What causes this? Or, what does bitcoin do to fix it? Nothing. It even brandishes it in your face.

I've never "equated" monetary base with monetary supply. Base is a portion of supply. They are not equivalent. We agree on that point, right?

The issue of "money being less available" is only a problem if you assume prices do not adjust to money supply. Why do you assume this? It wouldn't matter if there were 2 million or 21 million or 210 thousand billion bitcoins. Prices will adjust to the supply. If prices are free to move (absent government price controls) then the supply of money really doesn't matter, so long as it doesn't change too quickly and so long as nobody gets special printing privileges (both of these are addressed by Bitcoin).

And what's with the namecalling? Your arguments aren't THAT bad that you need to reduce yourself to insults. Have some respect for yourself.

[evoorhees]

Bitcoin is not "the most extreme form of banking regulation." Bitcoin is not regulation... regulation means mandates which come from the State.

Uh, the hell it does. "2.  A principle, rule, or law designed to control or govern conduct." There is no "state" in there. You just decided to, once again, exclude information that does not suit your view. Bitcoin has the most strict rules possible when it comes to money. It cannot change in supply and the supply cannot expand to meet demand. These are rules that are laid down and enforced by the protocol. That is regulation. The supply is highly regulated.

LOL alright look man, this is just too careless of you.

1. I tell you that "regulation" in this context means "from the state" and that Bitcoin is unregulated because there is no state involvement.
2. You then retort by selecting a definition from The Free Dictionary of "regulation," citing "2.  A principle, rule, or law designed to control or govern conduct."
3. You then insult me by saying "I only select information that suits my view"
4. Then you go on to suggest Bitcoin IS regulated, because it fits the definition you cited.

Here's there full definition from the site you used:

reg·u·la·tion  (rgy-lshn)
n.
1. The act of regulating or the state of being regulated.
2. A principle, rule, or law designed to control or govern conduct.
3. A governmental order having the force of law. Also called executive order.

As you can see, the THIRD definition discusses the State, "governmental order." This is the kind of regulation to which I'm referring, as I mentioned specifically. I know Bitcoin has its own rules. But it is not REGULATED by the State, and thus exists within a free marketplace.

So basically, you selectively used information to counter my claim, then lampoon me for "selectively using information"... 

I understand you think currencies need to inflate with "economic activity" and grow at the pace of the economic growth. You're welcome to that opinion, but it is false. The world can operate just fine with a fixed money supply, so long as prices are free to move. I understand you like Altcoins, but it offers no advantage over Bitcoin. If I'm wrong, and your money wins in the end, then I'll buy you dinner and apologize.

[Etlase2]

What is odd that anyone would lend if they would make more profit by not lending. And the act of not lending actually helps this. How does this not compute for you?

Hehehe... you are so enamored with inflationary money that you forgot in a free market people (at least before Bitcoin) would use metals as a currency, not fiat. Metals require storage, and thus it is possible for interest to be negative, and for you to still lend. You don't want $1m in gold in your house, I assure you.

My god, how do you write so much that has so little to do with anything?

But, if talking about Bitcoin with no storage cost, indeed there may never be a negative interest rate in a free market.

So does this mean you agree that there will be hardly any lending bitcoin? That means in a few posts you no longer believe this:

When money is scarce, the price of money (interest rate) rises. This brings incentive for savers to deposit their money with those interest-bearing accounts and through this mechanism the supply and demand for money is brought into balance.

Because that "balance" can only mean negative real interest rates, or rates that are lower than simply holding currency.

I've never "equated" monetary base with monetary supply. Base is a portion of supply. They are not equivalent. We agree on that point, right?

How could the base be a portion of supply? Perhaps you mean supply is a portion of base?

Money supply should tend toward constancy. A rate of 0% inflation/deflation means money is unchanging

A rate of 0% inflation/deflation means the monetary base is unchanging. It doesn't directly affect how much money is in circulation, or its velocity. This can be controlled and manipulated by the people who have a large portion of the currency. They can retract market liquidity (here I go using that phrase again which has nothing to do with FRB or central banks) by not spending/lending.

The issue of "money being less available" is only a problem if you assume prices do not adjust to money supply. Why do you assume this?

I wouldn't assume this. I am assuming that most people with wealth are smart enough to understand how easy it is to game this system. The entire world economy was just gamed to the tune of trillions of dollars. Of course you'll blame this on FRB and inflation and government intervention and whatnot, but the truth is they had won either way. If the government doesn't bail them out, millions of people lose retirement savings et al, so there really was no difference in the outcome, the one that happened is just going to hurt more slowly for much longer.

Now I'm quite sure some smart people will figure out a good way to lend bitcoins. It will be tougher without Federal Reserve Board, er I mean Fractional Reserve Banking, but no matter what there will be successful businesses, loaning money or not, and they will be able to start acquiring significant portions of the total bitcoin supply. Then say, oh a new country adopts bitcoin as a currency and the forex markets take a sharp upturn. Well before any money supply is actually constricted to these big businesses, they can begin demanding lower prices from their suppliers. By spending less, they are now taking currency out of the supply. They can choose to expand their business with this "extra money" or they can hold it and wait for the price to rise even more.

Where in inflation, banks get the advantage by getting new money first, banks/big business get the advantage by having the money already and demanding cheaper goods/services before the price hike actually affects them. This will allow them to cheaply and unfairly expand, or to hoard money at no cost and then eventually release it into the market when the market least expects it and gain massive amounts of profit by only withholding money. Or if lending does somehow make a large portion of the economy, banks can just pretend there is a panic and stop lending like they're doing now and cause massive recessions where they get to buy up all kinds of actual wealth for bitpennies on the bitcoin. It is the exact same bunk as inflation except, for now, the power will be in the hands of early adopters instead of big banks. People will manipulate the money to earn wealth from nothing productive. Even if they don't do it on purpose, making money from money is not productive and wealth transfer to unproductive things is what leads to recession.

In bitcoin's case, people will simply just wise up and stop using the seesawing currency in favor of controlled inflation. To expect that prices will just fall in a happy, orderly fashion was already fantastically disproven in the summer of last year.

[Etlase2]

So basically, you selectively used information to counter my claim, then lampoon me for "selectively using information"...  

No, you are telling me what I meant by the word I used. It is obvious that I was not referring to government regulation (is there any point to saying "government" regulation if all regulation is government? I guess so in your mind) unless you have a learning deficiency, so we can assume I meant by "rule". And, btw, "rule" does not necessarily mean "by decree of a king." Just in case that was your counter. Words can have more than one meaning, especially similar but slightly different meanings. Picking and choosing which definition you think I meant when it is clearly not what I meant and then using this as an argument against my point just makes you look like a complete assclown.

[evoorhees]

Ohhhhhhhhh I see!!! Etlase2 has a problem with wealth inequality. THAT is why he hates bitcoin, because someone with more coins could "influence" the market more than someone without.

Etlase how does Altcoin counter this phenomenon?

[Etlase2]

ohhh hey look evoorhees is a complete assclown!!! can't actually counter any argument I have with actual logic, so must resort to strawmen!

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

ohhh hey look evoorhees is a complete assclown!!! can't actually counter any argument I have with actual logic, so must resort to strawmen!

Tread lightly my friend, tread lightly.

[Etlase2]

Tread lightly my friend, tread lightly.

oh man I just shat myself. internet threats from evoorhees's business partner

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

Tread lightly my friend, tread lightly.

oh man I just shat myself. internet threats from evoorhees's business partner

No threat, Im sorry you see everything as a threat.

My point was, let's not turn this into a troll fest and attempt to stay on topic.

I see you already kinda ruined that.

[Etlase2]

And you make that point by telling me to "tread lightly"?

What did you expect this thread to be? It's either gonna be filled with bitmiseslibtards who think a fixed supply is the cat's meow and will extol all its many virtues, or you'll have one of the rare non-groupthinkers around here like me who will actually argue against it. And what do I get for my arguments? "lol 2+2 equals potato" as a counter-argument. You've got two libtards in this thread using themselves as sources for crying out loud.

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

And you make that point by telling me to "tread lightly"?

What did you expect this thread to be? It's either gonna be filled with bitmiseslibtards who think a fixed supply is the cat's meow and will extol all its many virtues, or you'll have one of the rare non-groupthinkers around here like me who will actually argue against it. And what do I get for my arguments? "lol 2+2 equals potato" as a counter-argument. You've got two libtards in this thread using themselves as sources for crying out loud.

I expect this to be an argument and discussion where we can have a decent economic conversation without resorting to immature personal insults.

Hence the reason I said 'Tread lightly'