| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ensign_lee
United States1178 Posts
On December 11 2013 05:09 Pandemona wrote: Well how fucking random is Cyrpus being the world hub for BTC haha Not that much when you consider that Cyprus was the country who basically said "Hey, I'm taking 10% of everyone's money in this country that's in a bank in order to bail out the banks who blew themselves up. We'll give you an IOU. We promise we'll pay you back" | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
On December 12 2013 03:33 BakedButters wrote: Wait, going back to Shival to Mstring debate that I skimmed through, what is wrong with a deflationary economy with a fixed money supply? The argument is that no one will invest, since it's more profitable to hoard than to risk investing. But if no one invest, then the value of the currency wouldn't increase. The value of units of a deflationary currency grows because the number of products and services in the economy increases, while the units of money stays the same, meaning you could buy more food for less money because more food was produced. But if no one invested, there wouldn't be any additional products and services and so the currency would stay the same value. Hence, deflation is a true measure of productivity. So the market will find an equilibrium between investments and savings. If everyone saves there would be no benefit to saving anymore. As for borrowing, today's lenders build in an extra ~2% to interest rates to account for inflation. But if bitcoins were were to gain 2% value a year, then lenders would just subtract the interest rates by 2%. The so called economic "growth" would be less but we get more sound investments since one has to compete with the deflationary currency/ savings. In an inflationary economy, one is encouraged to spend and be in debt, which only benefit the banks who make money off the interest rates. In an deflationary economy, people will spend their money carefully, on things they truly want, and this will shift the job-sector and competition towards things which people deem necessary. Uneven distribution. Those who have tons of money - given the money is deflationary - will be able to hoard. Normal folks will still have to buy the necessities, prices and salaries will decline while at the same time the value of the money will increase. When those who control the amount of money simply decides to "remove" money from the market that will happen. Perhaps the situation would be different if money were evenly distributed, but that is not the case. This doesn't happen today since the "big players" need to keep their currency in the market. | ||
|
Shival
Netherlands643 Posts
On December 12 2013 03:33 BakedButters wrote: The argument is that no one will invest, since it's more profitable to hoard than to risk investing. But if no one invest, then the value of the currency wouldn't increase. The value of units of a deflationary currency grows because the number of products and services in the economy increases, while the units of money stays the same, meaning you could buy more food for less money because more food was produced. But if no one invested, there wouldn't be any additional products and services and so the currency would stay the same value. Hence, deflation is a true measure of productivity. Why? Currency's intrinsic value is not dependend on the amount of services or products. Especially not a commodity. Either way the point being is that less investments, means higher unemployment. Not whether you can buy the same amount of products if you've got bitcoins. Besides, why would you want to have such a connection? That would mean there's never going to be any economic growth beyond a certain point. So the market will find an equilibrium between investments and savings. If everyone saves there would be no benefit to saving anymore. That's not the point, a deflationary currency will keep rising, if ever so slightly. As opposed to an inflationary, it would always mean less investments, and more savings. No matter what equilibrium. As for borrowing, today's lenders build in an extra ~2% to interest rates to account for inflation. But if bitcoins were were to gain 2% value a year, then lenders would just subtract the interest rates by 2%. Why? If they had kept it for themselves they would've had 2% raise on their value. Now that they're lend out, they suddenly substract that amount? Of course they wouldn't. That would mean they're losing out on 2% by lending. They won't substract anything, they will ask for a certain amount of interest, for the risk they take on the chance the person is unable to pay back. The only thing they won't ask anymore is the interest rate accounting for inflation. The so called economic "growth" would be less but we get more sound investments since one has to compete with the deflationary currency/ savings. Makes no sense, why would you get more sound investment? If anything you will get the exact same investments, but less of them. Whether you have 2% inflation, or 2% deflation, both mean you would invest into things that are likely to return atleast 2%+ In an inflationary economy, one is encouraged to spend and be in debt, which only benefit the banks who make money off the interest rates. No, you're not encouraged to be in debt. You're encouraged to spend, but never to be in debt. If anything it's the opposite, inflation means you will get charged a higher interest, thus you would be discouraged to go in debt. If you can lend for less, to no interest, what is stopping you from lending? This is much more a human nature issue than that it has to do with inflationary economies. People just like to have everything now, and damn the future. Which is why they lend more than they can chew in the long term. In an deflationary economy, people will spend their money carefully, on things they truly want, and this will shift the job-sector and competition towards things which people deem necessary. How does that help anything? See above. I also doubt people would spend their money more carefully, they will simply spend less. Edit: Good point made by the poster above me. | ||
|
3772
Czech Republic434 Posts
On December 12 2013 03:45 c0ldfusion wrote: That's just media hype right? Any proof of assassinations actually completed? Anonymous individual paid in currency with irreversible transactions to kill people. What's the incentive, when he can disappear with the money just as easily? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21336 Posts
On December 12 2013 05:27 3772 wrote: Anonymous individual paid in currency with irreversible transactions to kill people. What's the incentive, when he can disappear with the money just as easily? Not to mention that all bitcoins are well tracked making any criminal investigation that much easier. No, I don't take this new site seriously at all. | ||
|
Shival
Netherlands643 Posts
Nice coin... if you want this to replace our current financial system, you're supportive to having half the currency wealth distributed among very few (worse than it is now, as it's already bad with our current system). This coin is anything but egalitarian. 47 of them owning 28.1% of the wealth. I'm calling it now: the coin is artificially held high by a few after every drop. They've already made themselves rich, and stand to gain so much more if it actually does become mainstream. | ||
|
MaestroSC
United States2073 Posts
On December 12 2013 07:03 Shival wrote: http://www.businessinsider.com/927-people-own-half-of-the-bitcoins-2013-12 Nice coin... if you want this to replace our current financial system, you're supportive to having half the currency wealth distributed among very few (worse than it is now, as it's already bad with our current system). This coin is anything but egalitarian. 47 of them owning 28.1% of the wealth. I'm calling it now: the coin is artificially held high by a few after every drop. They've already made themselves rich, and stand to gain so much more if it actually does become mainstream. at the same time... their making BTC prices go higher... makes the value of your BTC go up... so its not against your interest for these people to want to increase BTC's value. Havent you heard of "the 1%" this isnt any different in reality. At least in America. IDK what the financial spread is like in Sweden tho to be 100% honest and as polite as possible. This is no different than the USD, which is pretty much the standard most currencies are weighed against currently. | ||
|
Eggi
478 Posts
On April 19 2013 00:08 KillerSOS wrote: I don't think Bitcoin is useful as a real method of payment yet. I for one wouldn't accept it from anyone. oh how wrong you were! | ||
|
Shival
Netherlands643 Posts
On December 12 2013 07:39 MaestroSC wrote: at the same time... their making BTC prices go higher... makes the value of your BTC go up... so its not against your interest for these people to want to increase BTC's value. Havent you heard of "the 1%" this isnt any different in reality. At least in America. IDK what the financial spread is like in Sweden tho to be 100% honest and as polite as possible. This is no different than the USD, which is pretty much the standard most currencies are weighed against currently. Merely pointing out that the much proclaimed benefit of bitcoin is its egalitarian qualities, while it is very far from being so. It's its exact opposite. 41% of the wealth in the world is owned by 1% of the adult people. 1% out of 5 billion is quite a bit higher than 927 out of 1 million, let alone the top level of 47 people. Not to mention that quite alot of the richest in the world have atleast actually accomplished something which legitimately gave them their money. With BTC, you had to be pretty much given them in the first stages of the game. Is that a personal accomplishment worthy of such wealth? Also interesting to note, 500.000 bitcoins are already out of circulation due to loss of password or seizure by government. | ||
|
BakedButters
United States748 Posts
On December 12 2013 05:18 Shival wrote: "Why? Currency's intrinsic value is not dependend on the amount of services or products. Especially not a commodity. Either way the point being is that less investments, means higher unemployment. Not whether you can buy the same amount of products if you've got bitcoins. Besides, why would you want to have such a connection? That would mean there's never going to be any economic growth beyond a certain point. I'm not talking about currency's intrinsic value, but it's purchasing power. In inflation, money becomes less valuable relative to other goods, and this can occur if 1) the supply of money goes up, 2) supply of other goods goes down, 3) demand of other goods goes down. There would be continuous sustainable growth, just not cancerous growth. In today's economy, there is incentive to spend money at whatever cost and use all available resources to keep consumption going is not sustainable in the long term. So the market will find an equilibrium between investments and savings. If everyone saves there would be no benefit to saving anymore. That's not the point, a deflationary currency will keep rising, if ever so slightly. As opposed to an inflationary, it would always mean less investments, and more savings. No matter what equilibrium. How is a decrease in investments a bad thing? If there is more investments in for example., painting rooftops, it might look good on paper, but is it good for the economy to spend money on a service no one needs? The so called economic "growth" would be less but we get more sound investments since one has to compete with the deflationary currency/ savings. Makes no sense, why would you get more sound investment? If anything you will get the exact same investments, but less of them. Whether you have 2% inflation, or 2% deflation, both mean you would invest into things that are likely to return atleast 2%+ When u have 2% inflation, you try to invest with a projected annual profit of 4%, giving u a net profit of 2%. However, with 2% deflation, you don't have to invest in a risky project to give you that net profit because your also competing against the deflationary currency. In an inflationary economy, one is encouraged to spend and be in debt, which only benefit the banks who make money off the interest rates. No, you're not encouraged to be in debt. You're encouraged to spend, but never to be in debt. If anything it's the opposite, inflation means you will get charged a higher interest, thus you would be discouraged to go in debt. If you can lend for less, to no interest, what is stopping you from lending? This is much more a human nature issue than that it has to do with inflationary economies. People just like to have everything now, and damn the future. Which is why they lend more than they can chew in the long term. I didn't mean personal debt, my bad, i meant it encourages lending, not saving, on macro-scale. In inflation, banks are allowed to sell their products without regards to the risk and consequences. And this lending leads to debt and overconsumption. In an deflationary economy, people will spend their money carefully, on things they truly want, and this will shift the job-sector and competition towards things which people deem necessary. How does that help anything? See above. I also doubt people would spend their money more carefully, they will simply spend less. When you have less incentive to spend, and more to save, there is less money to spend. You will spend on the things you care about more. | ||
|
Mstring
Australia510 Posts
On December 09 2013 20:56 Acrofales wrote: For a 0% loan to ever work, you'd need draconic punishments for those who do not pay back their loans. In the current system that "punishment" is an interest rate, which is estimated by the loaning party. When I lend (small amounts of) money to friends on a short-term basis, I know I'll get it back (soon) and I can do it informally at a 0% interest rate. However, most of the time this doesn't apply, and you need to pay for the risk I am taking that you will never give my money back. If I think the risk is high, I will only lend you money if you promise to pay a high % interest... and because I am lending lots of money to lots of people, that will allow me to break even in the end, because some people won't pay me back, and others will, including interest. All currency is issued against property, which can be repossessed in the case of default, exactly the same as it is by banks today. Given that payments will sum to depreciation of the property only and not include the bills of bankers, I imagine that default would be far less common than we see today. EDIT: actually even with draconic punishments, the person borrowing money can never completely guarantee he will pay the money back... and without some kind of way of incentivizing the borrower to lend that money anyway, he has absolutely no reason in your system to actually loan that money, rather than sticking it in a sock under his bed. There is no person who is lending, it's new currency issued, exactly the same way it is today, against unrepresented property. One obvious incentive for humanity to have such a system (which mind you, we already have, just sucked dry by parasites) is that the financial industry, which services and innovates zip zilch nada when it comes to human needs, will all but disappear. Every cent instead flowing elsewhere, to jobs that aren't tantamount to busywork. | ||
|
0x64
Finland4519 Posts
"People get money from BitCoins and are getting rich without doing anything." "BitCoin is worthless and has no future" Sorry, but if you think the BTC is worthless then 1. you are wrong because you are in this thread and it has captivated your time. 2. People are getting back big money, because they risked their money to create this BTC that you despise so much. They are still risking their fortune. | ||
|
Chrono000
Korea (South)358 Posts
On December 12 2013 17:33 0x64 wrote: The sceptic's paradox: "People get money from BitCoins and are getting rich without doing anything." "BitCoin is worthless and has no future" Sorry, but if you think the BTC is worthless then 1. you are wrong because you are in this thread and it has captivated your time. 2. People are getting back big money, because they risked their money to create this BTC that you despise so much. They are still risking their fortune. logic! | ||
|
Shival
Netherlands643 Posts
On December 12 2013 17:33 0x64 wrote: The sceptic's paradox: "People get money from BitCoins and are getting rich without doing anything." "BitCoin is worthless and has no future" Sorry, but if you think the BTC is worthless then 1. you are wrong because you are in this thread and it has captivated your time. 2. People are getting back big money, because they risked their money to create this BTC that you despise so much. They are still risking their fortune. The sceptic's paradox as you so call it, is no paradox at all. Tullips were pretty much worthless and had no real future, yet some people got their money from it while doing pretty much nothing. How is that a paradox? One has nothing to do with the other while it is still (artificially I may add) in a bubble. 1. That has nothing to do with whether something is actually worth anything. Let's say I'm in a topic about dust, can we then quantify dust as being worth something? Makes no sense at all. One does not follow the other. 2. Negative, the creation of bitcoin has cost virtually nothing and the ones who have the most have almost nothing invested. The miners during the early days had almost no costs, and gained quite alot of coins, coins were also given away to a lucky few. The creator himself has probably alot of coins. It's only a rare few who have more than 10.000 coins bought with their own money when the coins were close to their peak. Which would be a fortune, anything else, is relatively nothing. Those that have bought before the bubble have long cashed out their early investment and are only in for gains at the moment. On December 12 2013 07:57 BakedButters wrote: I'm not talking about currency's intrinsic value, but it's purchasing power. In inflation, money becomes less valuable relative to other goods, and this can occur if 1) the supply of money goes up, 2) supply of other goods goes down, 3) demand of other goods goes down. There would be continuous sustainable growth, just not cancerous growth. In today's economy, there is incentive to spend money at whatever cost and use all available resources to keep consumption going is not sustainable in the long term. 1. Demand of other goods goes up, I would think you mean. 2. It's very much sustainable as long as economic growth is higher on a yearly basis than the growth of debt. That is not to say I like the current system though. 3. Why would bitcoin miracalously make it a continuous sustainable growth? It's much the same capable of being wrongfully used, and much more capable of actually making a country go into recession. How is a decrease in investments a bad thing? If there is more investments in for example., painting rooftops, it might look good on paper, but is it good for the economy to spend money on a service no one needs? Unemployment. Besides, you're painting the wrong picture. Investments are usually done into things that are likely to give a return, thus not alot on a service people don't really need that much. When u have 2% inflation, you try to invest with a projected annual profit of 4%, giving u a net profit of 2%. However, with 2% deflation, you don't have to invest in a risky project to give you that net profit because your also competing against the deflationary currency. Non, you invest because you want to gain more than the current situation. This situation goes for both cases. If in a deflationary situation you only get a projected annual profit of 1%, you're still gaining on those that do not invest. The kicker is gaining, this will make you in both situations invest into the things that you feel gives you the best risk/reward. Thus the same exact situation, there's just less regular people investing because they don't lose out (while in fact they still do, but that's a long story). I didn't mean personal debt, my bad, i meant it encourages lending, not saving, on macro-scale. In inflation, banks are allowed to sell their products without regards to the risk and consequences. And this lending leads to debt and overconsumption. Yes, that's true. As I've said earlier, I don't like everything about the current financial market. I just don't feel we need to shift from one pole to the other. Rather than drastic change which may in fact destabilize entire countries, we should try to fix the current market through regulation. When you have less incentive to spend, and more to save, there is less money to spend. You will spend on the things you care about more. Yes, but is spending on those things you care more about, actually spending your money more carefully? If I care more about games, and thus spend more on those, is that actually careful spending? What I'm trying to say is; it's not careful spending, it's simply spending less overall. | ||
|
0x64
Finland4519 Posts
On December 12 2013 20:26 Shival wrote: The sceptic's paradox as you so call it, is no paradox at all. Tullips were pretty much worthless and had no real future, yet some people got their money from it while doing pretty much nothing. How is that a paradox? One has nothing to do with the other while it is still (artificially I may add) in a bubble. 1. That has nothing to do with whether something is actually worth anything. Let's say I'm in a topic about dust, can we then quantify dust as being worth something? Makes no sense at all. One does not follow the other. 2. Negative, the creation of bitcoin has cost virtually nothing and the ones who have the most have almost nothing invested. The miners during the early days had almost no costs, and gained quite alot of coins, coins were also given away to a lucky few. The creator himself has probably alot of coins. It's only a rare few who have more than 10.000 coins bought with their own money when the coins were close to their peak. Which would be a fortune, anything else, is relatively nothing. Those that have bought before the bubble have long cashed out their early investment and are only in for gains at the moment. I don't think you understood the paradox. Complaining that someone is making money from an investment, and at the same time complaining that the investment is bad. Tulips, as it turned out, were sadly pretty easy to multiply. I can also tell random vaguely related stories, like the one of the coin for a rat tail that ended the day some official caught a tailless rat. The creation of the BTC cost pretty much what people are willing to pay for it, that's the beauty of the system. | ||
|
Shival
Netherlands643 Posts
On December 12 2013 21:19 0x64 wrote: I don't think you understood the paradox. Complaining that someone is making money from an investment, and at the same time complaining that the investment is bad. Tulips, as it turned out, were sadly pretty easy to multiply. I can also tell random vaguely related stories, like the one of the coin for a rat tail that ended the day some official caught a tailless rat. The creation of the BTC cost pretty much what people are willing to pay for it, that's the beauty of the system. I very much understood it. I don't think you understood my explanation. Tulips were a good investment for the short term during the bubble, much the same as BTC. Yet on the long term its worth is absolutely nothing, thus a long investment is bad. I myself have invested in BTC for the short term during the rise from ~250 to ~900. It just is no paradox. | ||
|
aseq
Netherlands3969 Posts
On December 12 2013 21:36 Shival wrote: I very much understood it. I don't think you understood my explanation. Tulips were a good investment for the short term during the bubble, much the same as BTC. Yet on the long term its worth is absolutely nothing, thus a long investment is bad. I myself have invested in BTC for the short term during the rise from ~250 to ~900. It just is no paradox. Tulips are worth nothing? Look here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1380218/When-spring--The-Dutch-tulip-fields-spectacular-tourist-attraction.html  But seriously, I don't think long term investment is necessarily bad, just that the spectacular fluctuations and initial rise will be gone. It might level at some point for a while, then just change gradually, depending of the amount of people who are using it and see the benefits. Only then can we will be able to see whether people will keep using it and measure the succes of the product. | ||
|
Shival
Netherlands643 Posts
On December 12 2013 23:25 aseq wrote: Tulips are worth nothing? Look here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1380218/When-spring--The-Dutch-tulip-fields-spectacular-tourist-attraction.html But seriously, I don't think long term investment is necessarily bad, just that the spectacular fluctuations and initial rise will be gone. It might level at some point for a while, then just change gradually, depending of the amount of people who are using it and see the benefits. Only then can we will be able to see whether people will keep using it and measure the succes of the product. Hahaha, alright, next to nothing then if compared to its heyday. The problem with long term investments is that bitcoin is hyped at the moment, instead of gradually getting accepted. That spells disaster for long term investments, there's too much risk involved. | ||
|
Rachop
Canada1 Post
| ||
|
Chrono000
Korea (South)358 Posts
already on news site verge and motherboard vice infrastructure here 23rd cryptocurrency such awesome | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Sea Dota 2 2147Mong 1532Hyuk  1107Pusan  568GuemChi 322Zeus 321actioN 255Killer 171sorry 72Leta 66[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games Organizations Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
PiGosaur Monday
Replay Cast
SOOP
SKillous vs Spirit
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
PiG Sty Festival
The PondCast
Replay Cast
PiG Sty Festival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
