The Bitcoin Thread or, How The Fed Is Going To Fuck You

[SuburbanFarmer]

I'm confused by this notion that Bitcoin is inflationary at all ... it's a fixed known amount.

Here, let me guys help you out in trying to find and argument against Bitcoin as a legit currency:
https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexc ... 4/04/money

It is known that Bitcoin is deflationary because there is a set amount and there is a legit argument among economist on how society can function in terms of wages on a token of account that ends up running out. This is known, and honestly it is a valid point of concern. But I find figuring out a system based on code and math to be far more superior than funding a corrupt system of political gain and interest rates made out of thin air. We already are getting paid Zimbabwean cock rings...

Dude. You're talking about a "limit" on something determined only by the amount of time it takes the development group to change their minds. You've also got an explosion of 1,000s of competing tokens flying around, and devaluing the entire concept.

Regardless of those 2 points, the 'inflationary' aspect of bitcoin is pretty obviously not related to the supply of coins. The actual value of them has plummeted by half in a couple of months. Anyone that accepted payment in bitcoin a few months ago just watched half of their money vaporize for absolutely no reason. You can't run a business like that, and nobody will.

[floam412]

I'm confused by this notion that Bitcoin is inflationary at all ... it's a fixed known amount.

Here, let me guys help you out in trying to find and argument against Bitcoin as a legit currency:
https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexc ... 4/04/money

It is known that Bitcoin is deflationary because there is a set amount and there is a legit argument among economist on how society can function in terms of wages on a token of account that ends up running out. This is known, and honestly it is a valid point of concern. But I find figuring out a system based on code and math to be far more superior than funding a corrupt system of political gain and interest rates made out of thin air. We already are getting paid Zimbabwean cock rings...

Dude. You're talking about a "limit" on something determined only by the amount of time it takes the development group to change their minds. You've also got an explosion of 1,000s of competing tokens flying around, and devaluing the entire concept.

Regardless of those 2 points, the 'inflationary' aspect of bitcoin is pretty obviously not related to the supply of coins. The actual value of them has plummeted by half in a couple of months. Anyone that accepted payment in bitcoin a few months ago just watched half of their money vaporize for absolutely no reason. You can't run a business like that, and nobody will.

Ok, I'm curious... what do you propose then? Just curious.

And I take it that you aren't familiar with open sourced projects (like Bitcoin). But the code is available for everyone and anyone can see it and change it as they please, but it's not an problem because no one in the "core" group of developers or anyone in the community wouldn't accept it in the code they are using. The core team can decide if they want to accept changes or not if the proposed code is accepted by all the users, but there is also the ability for users to "fork" the coin to something completely different, which wouldn't be the end of "Bitcoin".

You can change the amount of supply yourself technically by submitting a proposal here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin

The developers decide what goes in but if they accept your controversial change to increase the supply by 10000X, its the miners who run the program that decide if the changes are accepted or not. Since the code is reviewed by lots of people it would be hard to have the developers "change their minds" about something.

I totally agree though it is hard to have a currency fluctuate in value, priced in fiat. But it's early in the game... Would you like to throw out the idea of using a gold based currency system based on the issues of inflation during the gold rush in the 1800's?

[Speaker to Animals]

Just convert the "price in fiat" to a basket of goods and you will see the problem.

[floam412]

Just convert the "price in fiat" to a basket of goods and you will see the problem.

I admit there is a problem. We're still in the "wild west" era of all this... I'd like to find a better way to have more sound money than to repeat the same failed fiat system.

I don't know why that's a bad thing?

[Speaker to Animals]

Wild West was far superior to anything we have now. Let's go back to real money, okay?

[SuburbanFarmer]

I'm confused by this notion that Bitcoin is inflationary at all ... it's a fixed known amount.

Here, let me guys help you out in trying to find and argument against Bitcoin as a legit currency:
https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexc ... 4/04/money

It is known that Bitcoin is deflationary because there is a set amount and there is a legit argument among economist on how society can function in terms of wages on a token of account that ends up running out. This is known, and honestly it is a valid point of concern. But I find figuring out a system based on code and math to be far more superior than funding a corrupt system of political gain and interest rates made out of thin air. We already are getting paid Zimbabwean cock rings...

Dude. You're talking about a "limit" on something determined only by the amount of time it takes the development group to change their minds. You've also got an explosion of 1,000s of competing tokens flying around, and devaluing the entire concept.

Regardless of those 2 points, the 'inflationary' aspect of bitcoin is pretty obviously not related to the supply of coins. The actual value of them has plummeted by half in a couple of months. Anyone that accepted payment in bitcoin a few months ago just watched half of their money vaporize for absolutely no reason. You can't run a business like that, and nobody will.

Ok, I'm curious... what do you propose then? Just curious.

And I take it that you aren't familiar with open sourced projects (like Bitcoin). But the code is available for everyone and anyone can see it and change it as they please, but it's not an problem because no one in the "core" group of developers or anyone in the community wouldn't accept it in the code they are using. The core team can decide if they want to accept changes or not if the proposed code is accepted by all the users, but there is also the ability for users to "fork" the coin to something completely different, which wouldn't be the end of "Bitcoin".

You can change the amount of supply yourself technically by submitting a proposal here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin

The developers decide what goes in but if they accept your controversial change to increase the supply by 10000X, its the miners who run the program that decide if the changes are accepted or not. Since the code is reviewed by lots of people it would be hard to have the developers "change their minds" about something.

I totally agree though it is hard to have a currency fluctuate in value, priced in fiat. But it's early in the game... Would you like to throw out the idea of using a gold based currency system based on the issues of inflation during the gold rush in the 1800's?

There’s a coded limit of 21 million Bitcoin, put in place by the devs. What do you think happens when somebody mines the last bitcoin?

And yes, I’m completely in favor of going back to the gold standard. Or platinum. Or shells. Anything not fiat would be a wonderful thing.

[Hastur]

Bitcoin is a speculation mania commodity like beany babies, MtG cards, South Sea Company shares or tulip bulbs. Here's a comparison between the tulip bulb mania of 1634-1637 and bitcoin. What we see is a recurring pattern. Whatever Bitcoin is it's not a currency.



The Nasdaq bubble:


South Sea Company:


They often follow the same pattern. Don't be a sucker. Here's how to recognize the phases in the most common pattern.

[ssu]

And yes, I’m completely in favor of going back to the gold standard. Or platinum. Or shells. Anything not fiat would be a wonderful thing.

You say that now.

In fact being inside the Euro-system has basically functioned as if there would be a gold standard: the efficient countries like Germany prosper in the system, for countries with dysfunctional economies like Greece it's a burden, because they cannot use their age old tactic of debasing their currency either through devaluation or inflation or both. A true gold standard punishes immediately lousy economies.

Hence countries would definately get into trouble in a gold standard. Likely sooner or later the US, because in an functioning gold standard system the US couldn't borrow as it can now. We already saw this when the US defaulted, or, shall we politically correctly say went of the gold standard during the Nixon years.

[floam412]

Dude. You're talking about a "limit" on something determined only by the amount of time it takes the development group to change their minds. You've also got an explosion of 1,000s of competing tokens flying around, and devaluing the entire concept.

Regardless of those 2 points, the 'inflationary' aspect of bitcoin is pretty obviously not related to the supply of coins. The actual value of them has plummeted by half in a couple of months. Anyone that accepted payment in bitcoin a few months ago just watched half of their money vaporize for absolutely no reason. You can't run a business like that, and nobody will.

Ok, I'm curious... what do you propose then? Just curious.

And I take it that you aren't familiar with open sourced projects (like Bitcoin). But the code is available for everyone and anyone can see it and change it as they please, but it's not an problem because no one in the "core" group of developers or anyone in the community wouldn't accept it in the code they are using. The core team can decide if they want to accept changes or not if the proposed code is accepted by all the users, but there is also the ability for users to "fork" the coin to something completely different, which wouldn't be the end of "Bitcoin".

You can change the amount of supply yourself technically by submitting a proposal here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin

The developers decide what goes in but if they accept your controversial change to increase the supply by 10000X, its the miners who run the program that decide if the changes are accepted or not. Since the code is reviewed by lots of people it would be hard to have the developers "change their minds" about something.

I totally agree though it is hard to have a currency fluctuate in value, priced in fiat. But it's early in the game... Would you like to throw out the idea of using a gold based currency system based on the issues of inflation during the gold rush in the 1800's?

There’s a coded limit of 21 million Bitcoin, put in place by the devs. What do you think happens when somebody mines the last bitcoin?

And yes, I’m completely in favor of going back to the gold standard. Or platinum. Or shells. Anything not fiat would be a wonderful thing.

Then people still "mine", or verify blocks using their computer power, to get rewarded the fees people pay to get their transactions included in the blocks the miners verified by solving the blocks "puzzle"... which could be the equivalent of randomly guessing answers for "X" to a highly complicated mathematical problem. It's all purely people outbidding one another to entice the miner to include your, and everyone elses transaction that pays the highest price and be able to fit in the 1 MB block. Bigger the transaction, bigger the transaction size, bigger the incentive you have to pay for the miner to include the transaction.

So where is your justification based on to prefer gold standard over Bitcoin or any other deflationary currency system? Precious/scarce asset that other humans highly value and can barter with. There is no person controlling the amount of gold (or sea shells) out there in the world. It's non volatile, but why? Over centuries upon centuries humans bartered with gold, and maybe they just figured out just how much gold should be valued?

It's just hard for me not to see not only similarities, but the benefits on top, which including microtransations (0.0001 Bitcoin type transactions) and the ability to transfer them "like" cash over the Internet.

[floam412]

And yes, I’m completely in favor of going back to the gold standard. Or platinum. Or shells. Anything not fiat would be a wonderful thing.

You say that now.

In fact being inside the Euro-system has basically functioned as if there would be a gold standard: the efficient countries like Germany prosper in the system, for countries with dysfunctional economies like Greece it's a burden, because they cannot use their age old tactic of debasing their currency either through devaluation or inflation or both. A true gold standard punishes immediately lousy economies.

Hence countries would definately get into trouble in a gold standard. Likely sooner or later the US, because in an functioning gold standard system the US couldn't borrow as it can now. We already saw this when the US defaulted, or, shall we politically correctly say went of the gold standard during the Nixon years.

If you're talking about the gov. defaulting, all in the name of self defence and industry/GDP... or even anything else that could benefit the country by borrowing; then I wonder how we survived economically much longer after the major wars we fought in pre Cold War using a gold backed currency system.