|
@rezoacken
That's the main thing. I don't see that happening with bitcoin (i.e. the pizza example of the bitcoin purchasing power today is the same tomorrow - without having to go through currency exchanges to figure out its value).
On the other hand, something like I heard I think Amazon is developing for its own version of bitcoin is feasible in the sense that they already have the global marketplace, so it is fairly easy to tell yourself that it would be okay for you as an end user to hold onto it today knowing you can buy something else with it tomorrow to foster trade.
And the cryptocurrency nature of it still bugs me. given that a max of 21 million unique bitcoins can exist and that each is unique through a hash, would a more complex keygen actually work to create the code necessary to simulate the missing values since no one technically has them yet? Or how about a forgery and swapping out from 1 e wallet to another's e wallet? Since the e wallet need a key (anyone knows locks can be broken just made more difficult by passowrds and protection present in the system you actually have that deters but not completely prevents it from happening). What if just for the sake of causing chaos, you flood the market with forged bitcoins and not for yourself but swapping them at "random" with other users and putting it into their wallets as well?
|
In my explanation I'm specifically talking about "bitcoins" the currency. Then there is Bitcoin the system which is something else entirely, feel free to point out any mistakes I make or if something is confusing.
Check out Coindesk.com, blockchain.info and the Bitcoin wiki to learn how some of this works. For one, 21 million units of bitcoins maximum isn't an issue. Second, you can't generate "missing" coins. It's near impossible due to every block chain being digitally signed once they are created. For someone to create coins out of thin air, they would have to take over the majority of processing power on the network and start reversing transactions in the blockchain, allowing them to double spend coins. You also can't generate future hashes because of the proof-of-work nature of how coins are generated. You have to solve a problem (mining) and then broadcast to the network you've solved it by offering a proof that you did it (the signature). There was an example posted earlier in the thread about one guy showing up with a different sheet of paper that didn't match everyone else's. That would literally be the same thing - you show up with a hash that doesn't match the blockchain or anyone else's proof of work. They have no incentive to accept your false hash and it's disregarded by the network.
I don't know why Amazon would develop their own digital currency, do you mean they are building something on top of the Bitcoin protocol? That would seem more sensible.
Or how about a forgery and swapping out from 1 e wallet to another's e wallet?[b] Since the e wallet need a key (anyone knows locks can be broken just made more difficult by passowrds and protection present in the system you actually have that deters but not completely prevents it from happening).[b]
It partially explains how some exchanges got hacked. Basically, it really is damn hard to crack SHA-256 encryption. The actual cryptography of the system isn't the problem that has led to lots of money being stolen. It's the design of some people's systems and horrible money exchange practices. The encryption to individual accounts aren't usually whats hacked, it's thieves cracking insecure systems where the money is sitting their in an assembly line waiting to be picked up.
There is something called cold storage and something called a hot wallet. cold storage are bitcoins stored offline. People rarely have access to it. The hot wallet is where bitcoin exchanges are done. It handles all the transactions. So, it should be obvious if you are an exchange your bitcoin transactions in the hot wallet should be doing everything. Cold storage should be untouched and hold the bulk of your reserves. There should also be a system in place that makes sure they are decoupled. Ie you never swap directly from cold storage to a hot wallet without a ton of safeguards in place. This is like security a high school student would think of. It's also pretty much how your bank works. They hold a certain amount of money in reserve ordered by the FDIC, and use the rest for day to day transactions. There is no exchange between what's held in reserve and what's used for transactions unless armored cars and guys with guns are involved. Well, some of these exchanges ignored this principle and lost customers money. Mt.Gox was actually the worst because there was a vulnerability known for 2 years that was solved that they didn't apply. Someone was taking money from them and they didn't know it went on for that long because to hell with basic accounting. All because they were coded by an idiot, bought by a greedy guy, and ignored warnings from people that actually knew what they were doing. The first question anyone should be asking is why would anyone leave a lot of money in an exchange, when Bitcoin really tries to make everyone their own bank? Speculation and a new technology leads to foolish behavior all of the time.
Now what rezoacken says is really the heart of the bitcoin situation. Why would people just not swap out coins for their local currency all the time?
Well, we know a few things are happening:
1.) Rampant speculation fueled the initial price surges of bitcoins along with utility.
2.) Obviously there was very low utility. bitcoin was a new currency with no businesses built around it
3.) We are starting to see vendors all over the world accepting bitcoins, and actual companies like Overstock.com dealing in bitcoins
4.) Governments are starting to take bitcoins seriously which is good for everyone
5.) Businesses manipulating bitcoin transactions, and consumer protection are popping up
The last point is really important. Since bitcoin is a buyer beware system through and through because of irreversible transactions, some businesses are looking into creating ways to protect the customer. There are also companies protecting the businesses by trading their bitcoins for local currencies in real time to protect them from volatility. (Aside, bitcoins price dropped ~5% due to a false report by a Chinese website about China banning bitcoins).
All in all, Bitcoin is still a very young development that is a combination of many high level technologies. It also has ongoing development, and a few user-friendly issues it needs to sort out.
Hope this didn't come off as a jumbled mess, I was trying to touch on a few concepts at once.
|
Please explain why a max of 21 million and in extension deflation isn't a problem for bitcoin. I still haven't heard a good answer to this.
|
With regards to amazon, the reason i find it feasiblr for them to implement something of the bitcoin nature is that they are a marketplace that has a global or almost global presence.
Ideally, i would prefer a new type of currency being developed and backed by a global market/markrtplace, not a bank or a concept really.
Bitcoins, i cant really see being able to pay suppliers or utilities.
However, a currency backed by a marketplace where the value comes from the market is something i can see working moving forward into the future because the value is.not synthetic.
Say market cryptocurrency of 1 unit is equal to 1 kg of rice. No matter the currency fluctuations outside of the market, that 1 uniy will always be able to buy 1 kg of rice.
Working backwards, you could convert it to an existing currency via the markey price they have for 1 kg of rice.
Hence, it wouldnt be gold backed currency but a product bavked currency. That way, the value is never lost or the risk of it becoming 0 is lower since it is backed by a market with essential products no less.
Bitcoins as it stands are the actual commodity for me with a synthetic demand and value, more than any currency we have at the moment. Which makes it more like a unit.of stock than can go bust rather than a currency the way it acts right now, especially the way the majority of holders seem to see it, which is bad in my.mind.
My two cents.
|
I don't think it will work like that. It would mean Amazon takes a huge currency risk. It'll probably be a free floating rate.
|
@RvB
Yes, I agree. Amazon is unlikely to do it but technically can.
As i mentioned, I would prefer it to be a cyptocurrency built by a global marketplace backed by a essential goods (my sample being the 1kg rice). That way, the value is never lost since you will always need food, but you will not always need dollars, gold or silver. That makes sense to me.
I know currency in its current form is flawed, but Bitcoin is more flawed where it's perceived value is based off currency which is also flawed to begin with. So rather than being currency, it is more of a unit of stock/commodity I would argue which doesn't work as a currency, so I would rather it not claim to be such.
Not only does it not have guarantee from any government or banking agency, but there is also no guarantee on what a specific unit of measure within the bitcoin can buy which makes it more flawed.
The value proposition does not exist, especially for essential trade to even happen.
If you want a global currency, it should work on a premise where in it doesn't lose its value wherever you go, hence my example of being backed by an essential good as a unit of measure or comparison. 1kg of rice in america is still 1 kg of rice in china. It maybe not worth the same in both countries using the measure of currency which we use now, but does not diminish what the 1kg of rice can do, which is feed you.
|
On March 22 2014 20:05 RvB wrote:
Please explain why a max of 21 million and in extension deflation isn't a problem for bitcoin. I still haven't heard a good answer to this.
Because bitcoins are traded in units smaller than 1 BTC. If you wanted to buy a bitcoin for .00001 BTC right now, you could go ahead and do it. There is also nothing that stops the bitcoin protocol from being updated with more decimal places in the event that they somehow ran out of space. I've explained this before, but there would be more bitcoin units (of 10^-8) in circulation than the entire physical supply of money in the world today.
Here is another way to look at it. If you could but a car for 50 cents, milk for .01 cents, and a house for $1.00 - would you really care that there are at most a trillion physical bank notes of US money floating around the world?
On March 22 2014 21:45 17Sphynx17 wrote:
With regards to amazon, the reason i find it feasiblr for them to implement something of the bitcoin nature is that they are a marketplace that has a global or almost global presence.
Ideally, i would prefer a new type of currency being developed and backed by a global market/markrtplace, not a bank or a concept really.
Bitcoins, i cant really see being able to pay suppliers or utilities.
Well 2 things:
1.) Amazon building their own currency on top of the Bitcoin network would be more sensible. They would have to of course get people to accept it, but that would make more sense. The creator of Bitcoin solved the problem of distributed computing with transactions, Amazon would be smart to just hop on instead of trying to figure something out that couldn't be done before.
2.) Bitcoin isn't paying anyone anything. There is no Bitcoin company or bank. It's just a protocol for exchanging data. It would be like if someone cut off your ability to view teamliquid.net and you blamed the Internet, when it's your Internet Service Provider you need to be talking to.
However, a currency backed by a marketplace where the value comes from the market is something i can see working moving forward into the future because the value is.not synthetic.
Say market cryptocurrency of 1 unit is equal to 1 kg of rice. No matter the currency fluctuations outside of the market, that 1 uniy will always be able to buy 1 kg of rice.
Working backwards, you could convert it to an existing currency via the markey price they have for 1 kg of rice.
Hence, it wouldnt be gold backed currency but a product bavked currency. That way, the value is never lost or the risk of it becoming 0 is lower since it is backed by a market with essential products no less.
Bitcoins as it stands are the actual commodity for me with a synthetic demand and value, more than any currency we have at the moment. Which makes it more like a unit.of stock than can go bust rather than a currency the way it acts right now, especially the way the majority of holders seem to see it, which is bad in my.mind.
My two cents.
bitcoins are afaik the first digital asset actually being traded. There is speculation, but don't just ignore that people are really out here making transactions with this money. Lots of people are saying it's just a speculative bubble (which may be true) but there is a lot of movement across the blockchain that shows this thing is being spent like real money.
|
On March 22 2014 22:56 17Sphynx17 wrote:
@RvB
Yes, I agree. Amazon is unlikely to do it but technically can.
As i mentioned, I would prefer it to be a cyptocurrency built by a global marketplace backed by a essential goods (my sample being the 1kg rice). That way, the value is never lost since you will always need food, but you will not always need dollars, gold or silver. That makes sense to me.
I know currency in its current form is flawed, but Bitcoin is more flawed where it's perceived value is based off currency which is also flawed to begin with. So rather than being currency, it is more of a unit of stock/commodity I would argue which doesn't work as a currency, so I would rather it not claim to be such.
Not only does it not have guarantee from any government or banking agency, but there is also no guarantee on what a specific unit of measure within the bitcoin can buy which makes it more flawed.
The value proposition does not exist, especially for essential trade to even happen.
If you want a global currency, it should work on a premise where in it doesn't lose its value wherever you go, hence my example of being backed by an essential good as a unit of measure or comparison. 1kg of rice in america is still 1 kg of rice in china. It maybe not worth the same in both countries using the measure of currency which we use now, but does not diminish what the 1kg of rice can do, which is feed you.
You're basically argueing for a gold standard which we got rid of for a reason. Maybe it could work I guess as long as its a secundary currency.
Because bitcoins are traded in units smaller than 1 BTC. If you wanted to buy a bitcoin for .00001 BTC right now, you could go ahead and do it. There is also nothing that stops the bitcoin protocol from being updated with more decimal places in the event that they somehow ran out of space. I've explained this before, but there would be more bitcoin units (of 10^-8) in circulation than the entire physical supply of money in the world today.
Here is another way to look at it. If you could but a car for 50 cents, milk for .01 cents, and a house for $1.00 - would you really care that there are at most a trillion physical bank notes of US money floating around the world?
The absolute values don't matter, even if you had to pay 0.0000001 cents for a house and there were 1000 trillion bank notes. You'd still have deflationary pressure and it still stimulates people to hold on to the coin instead of spending it since its gaining in value.
|
So then why are people actually spending them?
|
Deflation doesn't mean you completly stop spending money it just means that you'll postpone your buy untill a later time. For example you're walking in a shop and you're thinking of buying a tv but you don't actually need it. So what you'll do now is wait untill you do need the tv since at a later time you can get the same quality tv for less money.
There are multiple reasons to still spend bitcoins even with deflation; you're in need of liquidity, you're a speculator and want your profits etc. etc.
|
So if there are a segment of people hoarding coins based on speculation, and another segment purchasing things "now" with no regard to future price then do you think the system will have stability?
|
Ace, the problem with deflation is the actual deflation. The growing of value of the currency. It has literally nothing to do with the denominations of the bills. It has to do with investing, and whether investing in stocks compared to investing in cash. This has already been explained to you multiple times in multiple different ways.
Once again, the issue is not "there's not enough dollar bills to go around," the issue is investing and where people put their savings.
But yes, you can generally trust the math in a lot of these computations that you can't double-spend or forge coins. There may be vulnerabilities in specific implementations, but the math is absurdly strong. And even if Bitcoin has issues (like it's problems with anonymity), those specific issues could possibly be addressed with a newer cryptocurrency using different strategies. No, the fundamental problem is that there is no control over the scrip.
Anyway, Ace is clearly not understanding how inflation and deflation affect an economy. Here's a good article on recessions and basic macro:
Baby-Sitting the Economy
|
Actually I understand what you are saying. I just keep asking in many different ways - how are you so sure this economy will behave like anything you've seen before? Where are you getting this information from?
Investing in a fiat based economy due to inflation of the value of your bills, I get that. However, that applies to a debt based note. The notes themselves are not an asset. They have 0 use outside of what's printed on them. bitcoins however are tied to the Bitcoin network which is an asset. This is why I asked you earlier - how are you so sure that an asset based currency will behave in such a way that leads to runaway deflation, and where are you seeing signs of this?
No, the fundamental problem is that there is no control over the scrip.
What script are you talking about? If you mean the Bitcoin protocol there is the core development group. If you mean people running transactions off the block chain how is that a problem? If you mean majority of the users having to accept the same version of the program to verify each other, explain how this is a fundamental problem. There hasn't been a major hiccup of people not accepting the core group's releases, and if I'm wrong on this please show me.
|
Actually I understand what you are saying. I just keep asking in many different ways - how are you so sure this economy will behave like anything you've seen before? Where are you getting this information from?
Investing in a fiat based economy due to inflation of the value of your bills, I get that. However, that applies to a debt based note. The notes themselves are not an asset. They have 0 use outside of what's printed on them. bitcoins however are tied to the Bitcoin network which is an asset. This is why I asked you earlier - how are you so sure that an asset based currency will behave in such a way that leads to runaway deflation, and where are you seeing signs of this?
Gold is an asset-based currency. This is what happened with the gold standard. Why exactly do you think we moved away from the gold standard, the status quo? It's not easy to move away from the status quo, but we eventually did because we realized the technical problems with it.
There is nothing special about an asset-backed currency in this regard, other than the lack of control. I have no idea why you think there is.
What script are you talking about? If you mean the Bitcoin protocol there is the core development group. If you mean people running transactions off the block chain how is that a problem? If you mean majority of the users having to accept the same version of the program to verify each other, explain how this is a fundamental problem. There hasn't been a major hiccup of people not accepting the core group's releases, and if I'm wrong on this please show me.
You can't print money. Not coding script. Scrip. Money. You can't take money out of the economy. It's impossible with bitcoin. Just like gold, the only way to make more scrip is to mine more.
This not only means that we waste resources trying to mine gold/coins, it means that inflation/deflation is tied to the arbitrariness of our technology, rather than the situation that we're in. With fiat currency, the FED can look at the situation, and lower/raise interest rates as needed (which is what people mean by the FED 'printing money'). With gold, we had monetary expansions due to random goldmine discoveries and mining technological discoveries.
With bitcoins, we have this arbitrary logarithmic difficulty curve of mining coins. Is this because unemployment is lowering logarithmically or something? No. It's because that's just the way the algorithm is designed. It's completely arbitrary to the actual economy involved.
This is the fundamental problem. There is no steering. There is no control. If the economy tanks, it's going to tank all the way. If something goes wrong, the algorithm has no way to fix it. This is the only major difference between asset-based and fiat currencies. One you can steer, and the other you can't. It's not an advantage.
In the Baby-Sitting Economy example, the babysitters are just stuck in a recession until more bitcoins are mined.
|
While the "Gold Bugs" can be annoying, don't assume a free-floating currency (fiat currency) is any more stable or less problematic. It's just a different set of problems. Fiat currencies are "controlled" by the country of origin: which is the whole point and why they're here to stay. A Gold Standard puts control of the exchange rate on external factors. The real problem is when you're between a Hard Standard & a Free-Float. That's what the major countries were in from around 1930 through the 1980s.
Deflation in and of itself isn't bad. Especially when it's not massive. The entire late 1990s were actually deflationary in the USA, and that was one of the best chunks of the economy of the 20th century. The issue is when it's Debt Deflation (i.e. your debt becomes worth a whole lot more) without deflation in the rest of the economy (or what the USA got hit with due to the gas-price spike: Cost Inflation & Debt Deflation). Deflation is also a problem when it's driven by panic and not economics.
Further, given the "cost of holding money" calculations, Deflation actually has to be pretty high (over 6% I believe) to really drive you to hold currency. Not spending money happens when you don't get value for it. (Also, the economy can be roaring @ 10% household savings rate, as it was from the 1950s to 1990s in the States) So the built in minor deflationary aspects of Bitcoin isn't the issue.
The issue is which CryptoCurrency can properly monetize the "shadow economy". That's really the key to all of this. A Currency is worthless unless it can be traded for something. Currency is a middle-man barter system. So the emphasis is the "Crypto" part. If it can roughly monetize the "shadow economy" and be traded without much issue (i.e. money laundering), then they are here to stay. One will eventually dominate them all. This is why cellphone trading is so important. If you can do a deal, in person, just via cellphone without any true means to track it, then it's almost as good as cash (and, in certain instances, probably better).
That's also why the slight deflationary aspect is actually valuable. Loosely associated currencies will lose value quickly, as the group that can convert it to a "hard" currency has all of the power in transactions. So there's always a slight bias in the "more valuable" direction. Doesn't prevent wild swings nor assure the currency of utility, but it's actually not an issue.
The issue is one of the major countries declaring them illegal.
|
On March 23 2014 12:54 Taf the Ghost wrote:
The entire late 1990s were actually deflationary in the USA, and that was one of the best chunks of the economy of the 20th century. l.
wait what? I've never heard anyone describe the 90s as deflationary before...
|
On March 23 2014 16:10 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2014 12:54 Taf the Ghost wrote:
The entire late 1990s were actually deflationary in the USA, and that was one of the best chunks of the economy of the 20th century. l. wait what? I've never heard anyone describe the 90s as deflationary before...
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/historical_oil_prices_chart.asp
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/images/charts/Gold/Gold_inflation_chart.htm
In inflation adjusted terms, Gold lost roughly 1/2 its value from '95 to 2000. Oil hit an inflation adjusted all-time low. Also during that period, you had the major currency exchanges hit decade "highs" for the USD. (CPI also hit a multi-decade low in the '98-'99 range; without the Energy or Food measure in there, during an all-time gasoline value low)
The US dollar was appreciating rapidly and to historic levels. It gets a tad complicated because of the currency peg to China, as I've seen a strong argument that we were importing more deflation than goods from China. That's part of the reason the Tech Boom had so much money behind it.
It's also one of those topics that gets messy because you have entire chunks of the economy stuck in Deflation, while other parts are in Inflation at the same time. Much like the stock market. The entire market could be skyrocketing, but your stocks could be taking a bath. We tend to view the "whole economy" by a set of statistics, but depending where you sit in the economy, it makes a world of difference.
We might be a way of saying "you know, a lot of government Stats are amalgams and don't really mean a whole lot". Which is pretty much the truth.
Or, if you want a more practical application: the deflation in the USA during the '90s caused BMWs & Mercedes to be made really cheaply and damage their long-term reputations. (It's also why they build so many of them here now)
|
On March 23 2014 11:35 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +Actually I understand what you are saying. I just keep asking in many different ways - how are you so sure this economy will behave like anything you've seen before? Where are you getting this information from?
Investing in a fiat based economy due to inflation of the value of your bills, I get that. However, that applies to a debt based note. The notes themselves are not an asset. They have 0 use outside of what's printed on them. bitcoins however are tied to the Bitcoin network which is an asset. This is why I asked you earlier - how are you so sure that an asset based currency will behave in such a way that leads to runaway deflation, and where are you seeing signs of this? Gold is an asset-based currency. This is what happened with the gold standard. Why exactly do you think we moved away from the gold standard, the status quo? It's not easy to move away from the status quo, but we eventually did because we realized the technical problems with it. There is nothing special about an asset-backed currency in this regard, other than the lack of control. I have no idea why you think there is. bitcoins aren't gold. They don't behave like gold. You could hoard gold because people thought it was valuable and there was very little use for it outside of jewelry and electronics. Why do you keep thinking bitcoins will behave similarly? I keep asking, do you have any evidence of this occurring? You may very well be correct, but it would be helpful to see some signs of this behavior playing out. Show nested quote +No, the fundamental problem is that there is no control over the scrip. What script are you talking about? If you mean the Bitcoin protocol there is the core development group. If you mean people running transactions off the block chain how is that a problem? If you mean majority of the users having to accept the same version of the program to verify each other, explain how this is a fundamental problem. There hasn't been a major hiccup of people not accepting the core group's releases, and if I'm wrong on this please show me. You can't print money. Not coding script. Scrip. Money. You can't take money out of the economy. It's impossible with bitcoin. Just like gold, the only way to make more scrip is to mine more. This not only means that we waste resources trying to mine gold/coins, it means that inflation/deflation is tied to the arbitrariness of our technology, rather than the situation that we're in. With fiat currency, the FED can look at the situation, and lower/raise interest rates as needed (which is what people mean by the FED 'printing money'). With gold, we had monetary expansions due to random goldmine discoveries and mining technological discoveries.
To mine 1 bitcoin costs iirc around 2 gigawatts of electricity (I'd have to go digging for this again). Which is cheap in most parts of the world, and Iceland has the cheapest costs AFAIR. That costs a few cents to make over $500 per coin. The investment is well worth it for the miners. Even the transaction fees offset the cost of electricity. As for "not being able to print money" - that's a drawback. Sure, but that's what you give up for a decentralized currency. I don't know whose economy in particular you speak of when you say bitcoin can't take money out of the economy, but it's sitting at over 7$Billion in market cap after ~5 years. Where did that come from?
With bitcoins, we have this arbitrary logarithmic difficulty curve of mining coins. Is this because unemployment is lowering logarithmically or something? No. It's because that's just the way the algorithm is designed. It's completely arbitrary to the actual economy involved.
This is the fundamental problem. There is no steering. There is no control. If the economy tanks, it's going to tank all the way. If something goes wrong, the algorithm has no way to fix it. This is the only major difference between asset-based and fiat currencies. One you can steer, and the other you can't. It's not an advantage.
In the Baby-Sitting Economy example, the babysitters are just stuck in a recession until more bitcoins are mined.
That's interesting. How is that any more arbitrary than the US economy being fiat money and speculators deciding to back the dollar based on oil and gas prices? If bitcoin was tied to anyone's economy I could see where you're going, but being that it is globally decentralized shouldn't the analysis of it be different? There could very well be a problem here, but since this currency belongs to no one, the problem space should look different, correct? Can you point to some actual bitcoin based data to back up these claims?
|
On March 23 2014 17:56 Ace wrote:
To mine 1 bitcoin costs iirc around 2 gigawatts of electricity (I'd have to go digging for this again).
This makes no sense. Watt (and Gigawatt and so on) is the unit used to quantify the rate of energy consumption. To get energy (which determines cost) you have to multiply it by time, so your measure should be something like "Gigawatt hours", or seconds instead of hours or something.
|
You don't judge inflation and deflation by oil/gas prices. They're far too unstable. You'll get random data and noise.
That's interesting. How is that any more arbitrary than the US economy being fiat money and speculators deciding to back the dollar based on oil and gas prices? If bitcoin was tied to anyone's economy I could see where you're going, but being that it is globally decentralized shouldn't the analysis of it be different? There could very well be a problem here, but since this currency belongs to no one, the problem space should look different, correct? Can you point to some actual bitcoin based data to back up these claims?
So let me get this straight: One currency we have the FED which looks at the economy and decides whether or not we need to lower interest rates. In the other case, this is entirely impossible and coins are mined at a rate determined by the initial algorithm we used to set it up.
And you're going to ask me why the second one is "any more arbitrary" than the first one. You're an idiot. Hell, even talking about speculators, at least the speculators are looking at something in the economy. That's not nearly as arbitrary.
Saying that it's a globally decentralized currency is just saying that the arbitrariness is inherent to the currency. Yes. I know. That's what I've been saying the whole time. If I'm selling you a minivan, and you say that you need a sports car, and then I say "Well yes but it's supposed to be a minivan." That's not an argument. What are you acting like it is?
You are the one that has to present monetary arguments why it is not the case. You don't just say "Yea but this time it'll be different because cryptocurrencies are NEW!" No, asset-based currencies are not new. Deflation isn't new. Even spending huge amounts of gigawatt-hours just to expand the money supply isn't new.
Deflation in and of itself isn't bad. Especially when it's not massive. The entire late 1990s were actually deflationary in the USA, and that was one of the best chunks of the economy of the 20th century. The issue is when it's Debt Deflation (i.e. your debt becomes worth a whole lot more) without deflation in the rest of the economy (or what the USA got hit with due to the gas-price spike: Cost Inflation & Debt Deflation). Deflation is also a problem when it's driven by panic and not economics.
Deflation is in of itself bad. And no, not just when it's massive. Even low inflation is in of itself bad. I have no idea what you're talking about with the 1990s being deflationary. Here's a link. Here's another link. Here's an inflation calculator. They all contradict you.
The FED tends to ignore the unstable data from gas/oil prices when it determines interest rates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
