Bitcoin Forum
October 19, 2017, 10:11:01 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Serious flaws in Bitcoin monetary policy  (Read 6717 times)
sardokan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 04:07:43 PM
 #61

No, technically, paper BTC can't work, because, if the private key is obfuscated, you can have a publique key with no private key

even if I can give you a private key, I can pay with it seconds after giving it to you with a copy of it

plus you say no internet and use a mobile phone to check

never accept private key, or you'll get burn

You must own the private key, plus be the only one to know it

let's hope we keep internet, if society goes this down, food and ammo will be money  Wink
1508451061
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508451061

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508451061
Reply with quote  #2

1508451061
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
CDBAILEY
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 10


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 04:21:21 PM
 #62

Thank you for the link (still reading it)

I agree that it's specifications won't help bitcoin to be adopted TOP-DOWN, but I can see it gaining control bottom-up, because bottom will be fedup with the actual system going nowhere, and will want to control their money, keeping fiat to pay taxes and governments

Fiat as wallet money, Bitcoin as saving account during transition to a full Bitcoin world

If this happens, services will be sold for BTC, goods between bottom guys in direct decentralyzed open markets, and if the bottom adopt, fiat will fall, and the top will go where is the money.

We should try to push BTC Bottom UP (and it's already happening like that)

(Hope I'm not dreaming)  Grin


Bottom up is certainly right. It will never happen top down because commerce wont support it without a market to tap into.
The only way that market will be created is if people spend their BTC rather than save it.
So when you say 'Bitcoin as saving account during transition to a full Bitcoin world', the only way that transition will happen is if you dont just use it as a speculative savings account.

If you spend it, they will come.
Problem is, when playing in the same market as fiat, it's detrimental to spend our BTC.

Stan I like the link, innovation into new markets rather than competing with current ones is the only way BTC can thrive.


P.S. One last point that worries me. If I was BTC's creator and had a huge proportion of supply. I would want to encourage the adoption of my new technology by spending my BTC. Instead Mr Creator remains anonymous.
Is it to hide what he's really doing? That being maybe sitting on his BTC while hoping it gains traction through the support of others.
If Mr Creator came out and confirmed that he is not spending his BTC, then we'd all lose confidence very quickly and BTC would die.
GreenStox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 266


CHANGE — First Decentralised Global Crypto Bank


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 04:55:49 PM
 #63

No, technically, paper BTC can't work, because, if the private key is obfuscated, you can have a publique key with no private key

even if I can give you a private key, I can pay with it seconds after giving it to you with a copy of it

plus you say no internet and use a mobile phone to check

never accept private key, or you'll get burn

You must own the private key, plus be the only one to know it

let's hope we keep internet, if society goes this down, food and ammo will be money  Wink

No, you can test the private key, if it corresponds to the address.

You can also test if the address contains bitcoin.

After you accept the paper coin you quickly transfer it to another address, and wait for 1 confirmation.

Also remember it's not you who would issue the notes, it would be a trusted 3rd party, so you would not know the private key unless you would scratch it, but then if you do then the note would be compromized and it could not be traded.

So you see you just buy that note from a 3rd party who would keep the private keys safe like blockchain.info, and you can trade the note, until you dont scratch it, because when you do then it is already compromized, like this:



======================

Another way of doing it, if the previous version seems flawed,

Is to just issue a paper currency which would be denominated in BTC. The note would be exactly pegged to BTC, and would have watermark and other security features like normal notes, to prevent counterfeiting .

And of course 1 BTC NOTE can be redeemed for 1 BTC from anyone, so if you just happen to live in a zone where you have no internet, you could just use the BTC NOTE, and then when you get to an area with internet you can redeem it from an exchange to real BTC into your BTC wallet.

Or just have both versions, nothing is impossible , there are many creative and innovative people in bitcoin who thought about this Smiley


CHANGE FINANCE First Decentralised Global Crypto Bank
[color=#15B5E2 ]LINK TO ICO | LINK TO DISCUSSION
sardokan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 05:01:56 PM
 #64


No, you can test the private key, if it corresponds to the address.

You can also test if the address contains bitcoin.

After you accept the paper coin you quickly transfer it to another address, and wait for 1 confirmation.

Also remember it's not you who would issue the notes, it would be a trusted 3rd party, so you would not know the private key unless you would scratch it, but then if you do then the note would be compromized and it could not be traded.

Used like this, it work, but to sweep adress and make the transaction, you need internet, so it wouldn't work without it  Wink


For third party, I know, I have two Casascius coins, but the system isn't trustless anymore and you would have to trust the issuer.
I thought a lot of this trust issue, because I have wanted to create physical bitcoins in the past and concluded I would never have requiered trust for this to be a success.

I still think we need "internet" or just enough connected nodes on a kind of network, if we lose so many infrastructure, I don't see a lot of things keeping value
(food, water, guns, ammunitions) and maybe caps if you played fallout  Grin


For BTC backed paper money and other uses, as long as we can access internet sometimes, BTC can live, because we only need to change BTC sometimes to something that can be easily used (gold, paper money, caps)
GreenStox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 266


CHANGE — First Decentralised Global Crypto Bank


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 05:16:46 PM
 #65


For third party, I know, I have two Casascius coins, but the system isn't trustless anymore and you would have to trust the issuer.
I thought a lot of this trust issue, because I have wanted to create physical bitcoins in the past and concluded I would never have requiered trust for this to be a success.

I still think we need "internet" or just enough connected nodes on a kind of network, if we lose so many infrastructure, I don't see a lot of things keeping value
(food, water, guns, ammunitions) and maybe caps if you played fallout  Grin


For BTC backed paper money and other uses, as long as we can access internet sometimes, BTC can live, because we only need to change BTC sometimes to something that can be easily used (gold, paper money, caps)


Yes, but just think about Africans, there are not many internet connections there, so we have to think about everyone. Even if we survive the collapse with the internet intact (which we will, the internet is the last thing to go away, your pension savings will be the first  Cheesy), still you will have poor villages without acces to it, where the BTC Note as I call it would come handy, and they can just redeem that whenever they want in an exchange, to their wallet, if they get acces to internet.

Besides, i think the fallout games exagerate a little bit, i didnt played them but I sawed videos, so I think people in USA exagerate about those FEMA camps and survival kit and whatnot. Even the 1929 collapse wasnt that horrible, so it wont be worser than that, because we can recover from it much quicker with the internet intact.

If the dollar will collapse and it will, then the internet trading and bartering economy will grow by atleast 5 orders of magnitude  Grin

I mean you will see people in Facebook trading stuff because the local shops will be bankrupt and closed, and they will use postal service or whatever courier to exchange goods, that is how it will be.

It wont be a post apocaliptic world where armed vigilant mobs will be on the streets because you still have an army which would keep relative peace. It will be just that normal shops will be closed and a lot of services bankrupt.

So twitter,facebook, youtube and other social sites will become the global exchange 2.0  Cheesy

So do will be BitMessage and OpenBazaar.

So don't exxagerate, I know that people are scared and stuff but, really we need to put things in perspective, the majority of the collapse will only hit banksters, because they inflated the 1.6 quadrilion derivative bubble, and still they own the majority of it, so if it will pop, only they lose their money mostly Smiley. Middle strata and poor people doesnt have much to loose, but only gain freedom of commerce and trading, by bartering peer-to-peer and they would become much richer than before the crisis because there will be no central power to steal from them.

CHANGE FINANCE First Decentralised Global Crypto Bank
[color=#15B5E2 ]LINK TO ICO | LINK TO DISCUSSION
GingerAle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


View Profile WWW
January 20, 2015, 05:34:48 PM
 #66

i dunno if it was mentioned anywhere in the above pages (TLDR), but one of the things I think you forget is network consensus / forking

at any given point in time, for whatever reason, an alternate version of bitcoin core can be released that modifies the total amount of coins. This current experiment could run its course, and when 1.2 btc or whatever are trickling out, the world (because its all connected to bitcoin) could go "yeah this aint workin", and then participants download and install the new core and then vavooom, all of a sudden block rewards go up again.

(I think this is true).

Thus, it really is a decentralized central bank that the people control.

Of course, if such a fork were to happen (im assuming its some future where bitcoin (or some variant) is the global / solar-system wide currency), people would vote with their nodes / hashpower. Hence why real effort needs to be put into finding a way to decentralize mining.

< Monero Compile Instructions >   < Track your bitcoins! > < Track them again! > < Monero NVIDIA mining instructions > < MONERODO : An operating system for your dedicated decentralized node device > <<< What is fungibility? >>> 46P88uZ4edEgsk7iKQUGu2FUDYcdHm2HtLFiGLp1inG4e4f9PTb4mbHWYWFZGYUeQidJ8hFym2WUmWc p34X8HHmFS2LXJkf <<< Free subdomains at moneroworld.com!! >>> <<< If you don't want to run your own node, point your wallet to node.moneroworld.com, and get connected to a random node! >>> @@@@@ Simple Monero Node Installer and Monitor for Windows @@@@@
CDBAILEY
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 10


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 06:04:37 PM
 #67

Maybe his intentions are good, but don't you think if Satoshi came out and said "yes I have a lot of BTC, but I am committed to spending them, not for disposal, but for day to day purchases and in new innovative niche markets" then everyone would have a lot more confidence the growth of users long-term bottom up.
It would be akin to the majority stakeholder CEO endorsing his company rather than hiding in the shadows. that would be a company worth the majority considering investing in.
GreenStox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 266


CHANGE — First Decentralised Global Crypto Bank


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 07:17:49 PM
 #68


Really not sure on that, I'd imagine so but Bill Gates is doing good work with his billions and I think a lot of open source folks have changed their views of him on account of it, if he was still running microsoft I don't think it would have any effect on their views of the company.
It could be a bad thing for Satoshi to come out regardless of his actions, he's entirely respected as an anonymous benefactor but put a face on that and he could become a target, it doesn't matter what you do, you can't keep all the people happy all the time so you stand a better chance when you're unknown.

Yea i think he is afraid of the government, as they can charge him with some bogus charges , like money creation without authorization, and that only CB are allowed to create currency, and common people are not.

He would be probably constantly surveiled and threatened by the governments throughout the world.

It was a really big step to do this and he surely took a big risk to stand up against the global banking cartel...  Sad

So he is respected, and let's respect his privacy aswell.

CHANGE FINANCE First Decentralised Global Crypto Bank
[color=#15B5E2 ]LINK TO ICO | LINK TO DISCUSSION
sardokan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile
January 20, 2015, 07:19:24 PM
 #69

Huhu, fallout réf was mostly a joke, I dont think we will lose internet (even in fallout, some networks still work) or use cap.

For Africa, some online wallets accept SMS transactions, it would be possible to push signed transaction to nodes via radio wave, SMS, even telegraphs would do the job.

Decentralized mining exist if miners use p2ppool I think.

The remaining question would be hashrate.

But if some countries lose internet, they can even send signed transaction via post mail

We just need to keep enough loyal hashrate.
GreenStox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 266


CHANGE — First Decentralised Global Crypto Bank


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 07:32:59 PM
 #70

Huhu, fallout réf was mostly a joke, I dont think we will lose internet (even in fallout, some networks still work) or use cap.

For Africa, some online wallets accept SMS transactions, it would be possible to push signed transaction to nodes via radio wave, SMS, even telegraphs would do the job.

Decentralized mining exist if miners use p2ppool I think.

The remaining question would be hashrate.

But if some countries lose internet, they can even send signed transaction via post mail

We just need to keep enough loyal hashrate.

Yeah like BitPesa and other systems. I just saw a news on coindesk that they finished another new system for Kenya an it's now fully operational. So that is 1 thing with mobile phones and SMS as 1 phone tower can cover a large area.

However still the paper currency note or just the paper BTC with scratchable private key is still good as a backup plan.

Why not have both, and let people decide which one is better to use in an emergency situation.

Hashrate will be ok, there are enough miners in Iceland that are loyal, and they have very low mining cost there because the electricity is cheap due to geo-thermal energy.

Perhaps China can be a good place too if they stop the hostility, because many miners are there aswell.

And besides if the oil price remains low, then its even better, in a crash you generally have very low prices and deflation all out the board so, the mining cost will be very low.

I`m more concerned about the 51% attacks in a crisis like that, but I hope mining pools will think about that aswell.

CHANGE FINANCE First Decentralised Global Crypto Bank
[color=#15B5E2 ]LINK TO ICO | LINK TO DISCUSSION
toknormal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 09:59:23 PM
 #71


the flaw is in the mining/difficulty adjustment process/mechanism which makes the Bitcoin actually a heavy inflationary currency, and in some cases even worse than fiat.And also there are other problems.

Now i`m not saying that the fiat currencies are perfect, but surely the flaws of the fiat money has been thought about, and some solutions have been offered, while in Bitcoin i see none.

The main problem with bitcoin is the non-elasticity of the monetary supply, which means that it's monetary base it's capped. 21 million, and no more, which is not a good monetary policy.

I just discovered this thread and wanted to remark on the original point re. elasticity and inflationary/deflationary currencies.

First of all, you've kind of skipped over a very important point which lies at the heart of all this, and that is the concept of "base money". With me not being an economist, I define the concept of "base money" intuitively as being the "last asset in a chain of trust".

For example, lets say your a plumber and you do a plumbing job for me in exchange for my 1975 Fender Blond Stratocaster (it was a luxury bathroom  Wink ). At the end of the job, I don't actually give you the strat because your too busy to take it away for now, so you get a signed certificate stating you own it. We've now created a derivative - the certificate - which is backed by the base money of the deal: the strat.

Later, you find yourself in debt to the bank, and the bank (regarding '75 Strat's and my signature as AAA ranked assets) accepts the certificate to pay off the debt.

Now the bank goes to the FSA and gets them to endorse '75 strat' ownership certificates as approved reserve capital, so I can use it to sell mortgages levered off that capital according to the reserve ratio, thereby creating new credit money backed by the future economic activity of its respective mortgage holders.

So here we've created an elastic economy with liquidity which varies according to demand, all from a fixed supply base money system (namely 1 1975 Fender Stratocaster).

I realise it's a fractional reserve credit money system as far as the last step goes, but the principle would be the same, for example, in full reserve gold standard. The only difference is the value of the underlying collateral (i.e. the gold price) would increase as liquidity increased.

This is what would happen in a Bitcoin economy.

Bitcoin is *base money*. It is not backed by anything which is why it's such a powerful monetary medium and store of value. I don't think many people who have thought about this seriously think that in an advanced crypto-economy we would be using base money on a day to day basis. (We do today when we buy a packet of cornflakes with a fiat note, but most of the economy revolves around credit money).

A more realistic scenario for crypto-economy is that as its value grows, it serves as a base for a derivatives market which begins to deliver liquidity into various sectors of the economy. It can still be a full reserve derivative, but liquidity can grow and as it does so the value of the underlying cryptocurrency collateral will grow.

There is already a working model of this type of derivitive - Bitshares and its associated "Bit Assets". This provides an elastic monetary model whereby a limited supply base collateral is used to back an unlimited supply pegged asset which is borrowed into existence just like fiat. The only difference is that it's more than full reserve (200% collateral is required I think to create BitUSD) and margin calls are automatically generated by the blockchain when ratios fall below minimum.

Just a last note on the fiat economy - what serves as base money in the fiat economy ?

I like to look at this in very fundamental terms. Fiat is either backed by past economic activity (or "wealth") or future economic activity. When the world was on the gold standard or Bretton Woods system, gold served as base money. There was nothing backing gold (in the sense that there was nothing to exchange it for - it was the last man standing in the trust chain, equivalent to the Fender Strat above).

Gold was limited supply with an element of annual inflation, just as bitcoin is. Despite that we had an elastic financial system. Banks made loans and the value of the collateral went up to compensate so that there was always enough gold to represent the currency that it backed.

While we were on the gold standard base money could be regarded as being "past wealth". i.e. wealth already created.

AFTER the gold standard, however, base money became more ambiguous. But essentially it involved governments issuing bonds. The bonds then get sold to the commercial banking sector which levers it according to the capital reserve multiplier to create credit money.

Note the difference - here, the base money is *future wealth*. The government is selling the country's future economic activity ("debt" in other words) into the financial system instead of gold. This is where the corruptibility sets in because there is no limit on future wealth whereas there is a limit on past wealth. This brings us to where we are today, with governments inflating their base money supply on an almost permanent basis.

So the conclusion of all this for me is that there is no problem with elasticity as long as we are restricting ourselves to the specific domain of *base money* because a mature financial system has many layers and it isn't the job of the base layer to support elasticity - in fact the contrary, its job is to serve as a fixed capital base which gives integrity to the expanding / contracting liquidity supply that's circulating in the economy.




GreenStox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 266


CHANGE — First Decentralised Global Crypto Bank


View Profile
January 20, 2015, 10:17:47 PM
 #72

What to do in that situation was discussed a lot a few years ago but its been fairly quiet recently. Meshnets probably had most attention and they're pretty much a reality now, there's also space for broadcasting the blockchain over satellite TV Smiley Re-broadcasting it over digital radio is already being done, it allows vending machines to receive transactions without an internet connection and the internet equivalent used by ham radio is well worth a look both as a doomsday scenario precaution and for its innovation and robustness.

I think Bitcoin Foundation should do like Xapo, launch a few asic miners into space, and make a permanent mining pool that mines from the orbit, so that it can't be raided by swat teams.

Also it would be nice if it would have few metals in it, to make it undetectable by military missiles so that they can't take it out.

This way we would have a permanent mining base in the orbit that cannot be taken out so that even if miners on earth give up , still there would be enough mining capacity in the orbital miners that would sustain the network.

Oh and also they would use solar energy from solar panels so that they would be self sustainable Smiley


.....


Hehe, ratings are actually done by measuring the volatility of the assets and the trend's direction.Guitars are pretty deflationary because there's always a new version that comes along so it would actually have a very low rating  Cheesy

You actually complicate the things very much, that is not how banks loan out money, the collateral varies from credit to credit to compensate for the risk.

For a house mortgage the collateral is the house itself and perhaps some downpayment, if needed. For a short term loan like credit cards there are usually no collaterals, but if you dont pay them they will confiscate your wealth from any source available, and if you dont have any they`ll put you in jail and make you do forced labour to pay it off, or atleast in my country is that.

The credit instrument is issued from the loan itself, so that the bank can sell some of its loans to ease its balance sheet and get immediate cash. A credit sold is actually an asset because it generates income to whomever buys it, because of the interests.

Bitcoin's supply cant be grown because its hardcoded to be limited, you still can have a fractional reserve model here, but only if you take loans from others, you can't put money out of thin air.

This is actually what I was saying, that 1:1 leverage is the correct, and you can only get more if you prove your competence, a.k.a get a loan from someone who is willing to give one to you and not just print it yourself.

This is a very fair system we have here, but still the problem was not the fractional reserve that i tackled in post #1, it was the lack of liquidity which arises when people hoard money, this is what causes crashes, so a QE mechanism is imperative if we want stable prices, there is just no way around this.

1)Of course I emphasize again, I never said that CB should be the one doing it, it should be decentralized.

2)And QE should not be used to inflate bubbles, and support fractional reserve with leverage > 1:1.


If these 2 criterias are met, then QE is legitimate, otherwise it's just a scam tool.

CHANGE FINANCE First Decentralised Global Crypto Bank
[color=#15B5E2 ]LINK TO ICO | LINK TO DISCUSSION
toknormal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414


View Profile
January 21, 2015, 12:07:05 AM
 #73


I don't think you've quite understood me properly.

I'm talking about the fact that a monetary medium with a fixed or limited supply does not have any bearing on how "elastic" a financial system can be that uses that medium as a monetary base.

You don't need an economics degree to understand that - just an observation that when we were on a gold standard, people didn't have to wander around with lumps of yellow metal in their pockets just to buy a packet of cornflakes. Nor did the numerical balances in depositors accounts have to deplete so that new loans could be made to creditors.

Thats because a modern economy is complex and moves from "narrow" to "broad" money through various stages of abstraction and leverage. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply). The same thing would (and does) apply in  crypto-based economy.

You actually complicate the things very much, that is not how banks loan out money, the collateral varies from credit to credit to compensate for the risk.

For a house mortgage the collateral is the house itself and perhaps some downpayment, if needed.

We've maybe got our terminology 'transatlanticfied' here. In my country we'd call that "loan security" and the principle I described is indeed exactly how banks loan out money.

What you've understood as "collateral" is simply a condition of the mortgage agreement that minimises the lending risk. The "house" does not form part of the bank's capital reserves (though having it as loan security may enhance the leverage available on those reserves). I agree that the loan manifests itself as an asset and that such 'assets' can, to various extents, contribute to the bank's capital reserve, but none of that has anything to do with the basic principle of whether a limited supply monetary medium can serve as part of "M0" in an elastic financial system. There still has to be a progression from base to credit money (or "narrow" to "broad" money as the M0...M(x) would express it).

In the modern fiat system, this 'hierarchy' became somewhat obscured because, as you pointed out in your answer, the types and grades of asset that qualify as 'capital reserve' have diversified so much that the definition of what constitutes "base money" is much more obscure.

Nonetheless, the principle is still very much there, just with a more fancy name. It's now known as "Tier 1 Capital"...http://blog.usbasel3.com/slr-basel3-leverage-comparison/

(P.S. A 1975 Fender Strat valued at around $400 in 1975, $800 in 1990, $1500 in 2000. Today you'll be lucky if you can pick up just the neck for that price, so probably better or as good as most triple A bonds  Wink )
 

twiifm
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532



View Profile
January 21, 2015, 01:58:28 AM
 #74


I don't think you've quite understood me properly.

I'm talking about the fact that a monetary medium with a fixed or limited supply does not have any bearing on how "elastic" a financial system can be that uses that medium as a monetary base.

You don't need an economics degree to understand that - just an observation that when we were on a gold standard, people didn't have to wander around with lumps of yellow metal in their pockets just to buy a packet of cornflakes. Nor did the numerical balances in depositors accounts have to deplete so that new loans could be made to creditors.

Thats because a modern economy is complex and moves from "narrow" to "broad" money through various stages of abstraction and leverage. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply). The same thing would (and does) apply in  crypto-based economy.

You actually complicate the things very much, that is not how banks loan out money, the collateral varies from credit to credit to compensate for the risk.

For a house mortgage the collateral is the house itself and perhaps some downpayment, if needed.

We've maybe got our terminology 'transatlanticfied' here. In my country we'd call that "loan security" and the principle I described is indeed exactly how banks loan out money.

What you've understood as "collateral" is simply a condition of the mortgage agreement that minimises the lending risk. The "house" does not form part of the bank's capital reserves (though having it as loan security may enhance the leverage available on those reserves). I agree that the loan manifests itself as an asset and that such 'assets' can, to various extents, contribute to the bank's capital reserve, but none of that has anything to do with the basic principle of whether a limited supply monetary medium can serve as part of "M0" in an elastic financial system. There still has to be a progression from base to credit money (or "narrow" to "broad" money as the M0...M(x) would express it).

In the modern fiat system, this 'hierarchy' became somewhat obscured because, as you pointed out in your answer, the types and grades of asset that qualify as 'capital reserve' have diversified so much that the definition of what constitutes "base money" is much more obscure.

Nonetheless, the principle is still very much there, just with a more fancy name. It's now known as "Tier 1 Capital"...http://blog.usbasel3.com/slr-basel3-leverage-comparison/

(P.S. A 1975 Fender Strat valued at around $400 in 1975, $800 in 1990, $1500 in 2000. Today you'll be lucky if you can pick up just the neck for that price, so probably better or as good as most triple A bonds  Wink )
 



You are correct elasticity just means the money supply can expand contract.  Most money these days come from commercial banks making loans. 

The problem is though it's easier for banks to create money than destroy it.  They can't close out the loans unless the borrower pays it back.  What they do is " deleverage". The reason for QE is mainly to inject liquidity in the reserves can continue to make loans.  However, it didn't do that at all.  That's why earlier I said QE was a failure.  If you are interested in this topic I suggest Richard Koo and his theory of balance sheet recession

What QE probably did was make bonds expensive so the funds rebalanced their portfolios towards equities, hence the bull market

           ▄▄███████▄▄
        ▄███▀▀
▄▄▄▄    ▀▄
     ▄▄█████████████▄▄  ▀▄
  ▄▀▀██▀           ▀▀██▄▄▀▄
▄▀  ██                 ▀██
  ██       ▀▀█▀▀         █
█▀        █ █ █        ▄█▀▄
▀▄         █ █ █       ▄█  █
 ██         █▄▄▄█      ▄█  ▄▀
  ██▄                ▄█▀  ▄▀
  ▀▄▀██▄▄          ▄█▀  ▄▀
   ▀▄ ▀▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀▀
     ▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.UTRUST.▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
●  Download WHITEPAPER  ●
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▼ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
facebook      twitter      slack
▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
toknormal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414


View Profile
January 21, 2015, 02:49:36 AM
 #75

What QE probably did was make bonds expensive so the funds rebalanced their portfolios towards equities, hence the bull market

Ah ! I wondered about that. I realised that stocks were soaring due to QE and not the underlying corporate growth, but I couldn't really see what the actual mechanism was that drove money into the stockmarket. (Presumable there's only 4 places to go - stocks, bonds, cash or commodities. Under ZIRP, cash has no ROI, bonds are expensive as you point out, commodities have crashed so all thats left is stocks).

The reason for QE is mainly to inject liquidity in the reserves can continue to make loans.  However, it didn't do that at all.

Do you think the system is headed for trouble ?

I'd be interested to see what you thought of this guy's commentary. It's quite long (about an hour) but very listenable...

http://www.silverdoctors.com/jim-willie-swiss-dump-the-euro-go-long-gold/
twiifm
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532



View Profile
January 21, 2015, 04:06:52 AM
 #76

What QE probably did was make bonds expensive so the funds rebalanced their portfolios towards equities, hence the bull market

Ah ! I wondered about that. I realised that stocks were soaring due to QE and not the underlying corporate growth, but I couldn't really see what the actual mechanism was that drove money into the stockmarket. (Presumable there's only 4 places to go - stocks, bonds, cash or commodities. Under ZIRP, cash has no ROI, bonds are expensive as you point out, commodities have crashed so all thats left is stocks).

The reason for QE is mainly to inject liquidity in the reserves can continue to make loans.  However, it didn't do that at all.

Do you think the system is headed for trouble ?

I'd be interested to see what you thought of this guy's commentary. It's quite long (about an hour) but very listenable...

http://www.silverdoctors.com/jim-willie-swiss-dump-the-euro-go-long-gold/


I think the trouble has more to do with rise of shadow banking and derivatives.  A central bank like Fed has power to do is raise or lower the overnight interest rates or Fed Funds rate.  And now they can do QE, but not much else.

What happens in modern banking is that created new money is created when banks create loans. The whole fractional reserve thing is incorrect.  The Bank of England already put out a paper saying this.  Banks create loans THEN they look for reserves after.  They borrow the reserves from other banks.  If they can't get it by end of day they borrow it from the Central Bank. 

But as we know there's plenty of reserves.  So it's not for lack of reserves it's lack of good borrowers.

Where does shadow banking come in?  Well, not so good borrowers, like people who lack collateral or credit rating.  They don't go to commercial banks they go to shadow banks because there's less regulation there.  In the shadow bank sector the banks can't go to the Fed and borrow reserves so they go to the repo market.  Shadow banking ( which can also occur inside a traditional commercial bank like JPM or Citi) uses tools like securitization, (CDOs, ABS, ABCP), and derivatives (CDS).  In this system all the assets are highly leveraged and that's why an external shock can topple a bank.

Shadow banking is a recent phenomenon, With dramatic growth from 2000 fueling the housing bubble.  In 2008, prior to the GFC more than 50% of money was created from within shadow banking.  The St. Louis Fed has a paper about shadow banks if you want to read more.

But essentially, regardless of the Fed, money gets created either in commercial banks or shadow banks.  But the Fed only has minimal with commercial banks by adjusting the Fed Funds rate.  The systemic comes from the interconnectedness of commercial banks to shadow banks

It's unfair to blame central banks for everything that's happens in banking because regulations come from legislature/ Congress.  The difficulty in regulating shadow banking is that by definition it's off balance sheet.  So Dodd Frank, Vockker Rule, ring fencing, etc..  All those regulations only affect commercial banks.

The whole Bitcoin 1:1 reserve ratio, blah, blah is a non sequitur because it's so left field from how the entire financial industry operates.  In a thought experiment: if Bitcoin replaced the Central Bank, and people need money they would still go borrow it somewhere.  But without a Central Bank there's no lender of last resort.  Thats the big difference.  The system would still be fragile except you don't have this entity to print money and inject liquidity in recessionary times and raise interest to suck the money out of the system in times of inflation.





           ▄▄███████▄▄
        ▄███▀▀
▄▄▄▄    ▀▄
     ▄▄█████████████▄▄  ▀▄
  ▄▀▀██▀           ▀▀██▄▄▀▄
▄▀  ██                 ▀██
  ██       ▀▀█▀▀         █
█▀        █ █ █        ▄█▀▄
▀▄         █ █ █       ▄█  █
 ██         █▄▄▄█      ▄█  ▄▀
  ██▄                ▄█▀  ▄▀
  ▀▄▀██▄▄          ▄█▀  ▄▀
   ▀▄ ▀▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀▀
     ▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.UTRUST.▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
●  Download WHITEPAPER  ●
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▼ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
facebook      twitter      slack
▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
twiifm
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532



View Profile
January 21, 2015, 04:17:52 AM
 #77

My opinion on Euro is that it was mainly formed formed for political motives between France & Germany.

But for the Euro members like Greece had to default because they had no money printing mechanism to deal that crisis because their debt is not denominated in their own currency.

But I think the Euro was mainly a benefit to German economy.  It's raised the buying power of the periphery countries and lowered prices of German goods.  For example, people in Greece, Sapin, etc.  took on debt to buy German cars

But I don't follow forex so I don't know much about it.

           ▄▄███████▄▄
        ▄███▀▀
▄▄▄▄    ▀▄
     ▄▄█████████████▄▄  ▀▄
  ▄▀▀██▀           ▀▀██▄▄▀▄
▄▀  ██                 ▀██
  ██       ▀▀█▀▀         █
█▀        █ █ █        ▄█▀▄
▀▄         █ █ █       ▄█  █
 ██         █▄▄▄█      ▄█  ▄▀
  ██▄                ▄█▀  ▄▀
  ▀▄▀██▄▄          ▄█▀  ▄▀
   ▀▄ ▀▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀▀
     ▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.UTRUST.▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
●  Download WHITEPAPER  ●
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▼ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
facebook      twitter      slack
▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
zebedee
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 670



View Profile
January 21, 2015, 08:44:49 AM
 #78

Ok, I have a M.Sc in economics, so I know what I`m talking about

You mean you've been brainwashed.

The main problem with bitcoin is the non-elasticity of the monetary supply, which means that it's monetary base it's capped. 21 million, and no more, which is not a good monetary policy.

It's an excellent monetary policy.  We like it that way.  If you want inflatacoin, you can keep using what your govt doles out and be happy.
toknormal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414


View Profile
January 21, 2015, 08:57:35 AM
 #79

The whole Bitcoin 1:1 reserve ratio, blah, blah is a non sequitur because it's so left field from how the entire financial industry operates.  In a thought experiment: if Bitcoin replaced the Central Bank, and people need money they would still go borrow it somewhere.  But without a Central Bank there's no lender of last resort.  Thats the big difference.  The system would still be fragile except you don't have this entity to print money and inject liquidity in recessionary times and raise interest to suck the money out of the system in times of inflation.

Thanks for that interesting commentary.

To me, a big part of the problem is the huge disparity between ordinary people's understanding of banking / money and the reality.

For example, take the concept of interest and "loans". I think most people generally understand the word "loan" to mean the transfer of some some asset from one entity to another on a temporary basis while ownership clearly resides with the lender.

Note 1 very important aspect of this understanding: during the period of the loan, the lender's assets are *depleted* by the amount lent. So, for example if I run a car hire business with 10 cars and I lend you a car for a week, I will only have 9 cars left. It arises from this that an interest payment is reasonable to compensate the lender for the use they could otherwise have made on their asset.

Now lets look at banking. As we know, it doesn't remotely work like this. What happens instead is:

[1] - the bank creates new money levered off a capital reserve base

[2] - that new money is backed by THE BORROWER'S FUTURE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

Note that second part. It's actually the borrower who underwrites the value of the new money by signing a pledge to work for the next 25 years of their life in order to service and repay the loan. If their ability to do that is compromised then the loan defaults and the money is extinguished.

If the vast majority of ordinary people understood this principle, the banking system would not look anything like it does today. If they understood that the bank is only a liquidity provider but it is the borrower who endows that liquidity with 'value' then they would never accept the conditions under which such liquidity is provided.

What banks do as akin to supplying the paper to the book publishing industry, yet they are remunerated as if they were the authors generating the content.

The problem is with the words "loan" and "borrowing". They are misnomers which dupe the world into accepting a highly asymmetric financial system. The proof that it's asymmetric lies in headlines such as these...http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/19/global-wealth-oxfam-inequality-davos-economic-summit-switzerland


twiifm
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532



View Profile
January 21, 2015, 10:30:16 AM
 #80

The whole Bitcoin 1:1 reserve ratio, blah, blah is a non sequitur because it's so left field from how the entire financial industry operates.  In a thought experiment: if Bitcoin replaced the Central Bank, and people need money they would still go borrow it somewhere.  But without a Central Bank there's no lender of last resort.  Thats the big difference.  The system would still be fragile except you don't have this entity to print money and inject liquidity in recessionary times and raise interest to suck the money out of the system in times of inflation.

Thanks for that interesting commentary.

To me, a big part of the problem is the huge disparity between ordinary people's understanding of banking / money and the reality.

For example, take the concept of interest and "loans". I think most people generally understand the word "loan" to mean the transfer of some some asset from one entity to another on a temporary basis while ownership clearly resides with the lender.

Note 1 very important aspect of this understanding: during the period of the loan, the lender's assets are *depleted* by the amount lent. So, for example if I run a car hire business with 10 cars and I lend you a car for a week, I will only have 9 cars left. It arises from this that an interest payment is reasonable to compensate the lender for the use they could otherwise have made on their asset.

Now lets look at banking. As we know, it doesn't remotely work like this. What happens instead is:

[1] - the bank creates new money levered off a capital reserve base

[2] - that new money is backed by THE BORROWER'S FUTURE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

Note that second part. It's actually the borrower who underwrites the value of the new money by signing a pledge to work for the next 25 years of their life in order to service and repay the loan. If their ability to do that is compromised then the loan defaults and the money is extinguished.

If the vast majority of ordinary people understood this principle, the banking system would not look anything like it does today. If they understood that the bank is only a liquidity provider but it is the borrower who endows that liquidity with 'value' then they would never accept the conditions under which such liquidity is provided.

What banks do as akin to supplying the paper to the book publishing industry, yet they are remunerated as if they were the authors generating the content.

The problem is with the words "loan" and "borrowing". They are misnomers which dupe the world into accepting a highly asymmetric financial system. The proof that it's asymmetric lies in headlines such as these...http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/19/global-wealth-oxfam-inequality-davos-economic-summit-switzerland




Thats true, people often think of a house as asset but it's a liability first then an asset once it's paid off.  When you take on a mortgage you are technically speculating that once the house is paid off you can sell it for more than the value of loan plus interest minus the equivalent what you would have paid in rent.  However, they don't think about that when they are shopping.  It's more about if the house suits their style, the neighborhood, etc..

But a lot of the capital markets are funds that provide the capital for business.  It's just not many people use that or is in the finance industry so whenever talk about loans they think of either student loan or mortgages.

Yeah the inequality gap is a hot topic because it's getting crazy out of control.  A lot of people can feel this in their everyday life.  I think what will probably happen is that there will be some tax restructuring.  Especially on capital gains.

I think Bitcoins importance is that it's a broadast eminating from a wounded population.  Especially with the millennials.  Burdened with student loans in a thin job market.

The problem though it got appropriated by the libertarian/ anarcho capitalist crowd so some of the politics attached bit coin is contradictory. Made worse by YouTube celebs like Molyneux and Max Keiser.  These kids need a voice but it's do them more good if they rallied around less controversial people.  But the youth is attracted to controversy.

What Imfind funny is that the St Louis  Fed chairman tried to say something about banking is a protocol like Bitcoin and he got booed. (Figuratively).  That type of guy is who you want on your side.  He's extending an olive branch and he's got connections to the establishment.

           ▄▄███████▄▄
        ▄███▀▀
▄▄▄▄    ▀▄
     ▄▄█████████████▄▄  ▀▄
  ▄▀▀██▀           ▀▀██▄▄▀▄
▄▀  ██                 ▀██
  ██       ▀▀█▀▀         █
█▀        █ █ █        ▄█▀▄
▀▄         █ █ █       ▄█  █
 ██         █▄▄▄█      ▄█  ▄▀
  ██▄                ▄█▀  ▄▀
  ▀▄▀██▄▄          ▄█▀  ▄▀
   ▀▄ ▀▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀▀
     ▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.UTRUST.▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
●  Download WHITEPAPER  ●
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▼ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
facebook      twitter      slack
▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!