Bitcoin and everything associated with it. The home of cryptomaniacs and their adversaries. - page 10
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
I won't repost all the quotes I'm responding to, I just missed a lot.
About collateral: there are two sides to collateral: want and can. I want is realised through declarativity (the one who provides declares the receipt of funds for something), this same declarativity can be hidden. Simply an acceptance is made, although no one has explicitly declared that it will be made.
So, providing with scientific potential means that for your dollars we will work out your eternal life (for example). Take out of the equation the free exchange of one currency for another, and you realize that in order to develop science, it is better to have dollars than rubles or hryvnias. For dollars you can hire the best brains easily, for our tugriks, you do not know if you can find them or not. This is the collateral. Although they are going to charge that the currency must be secured by the goods. It's all Marxian bullshit. Currency is the belief that when you need an exchange you will get it, whether you exchange a good or a service, or even an idea, doesn't matter. So provision is what sustains faith.
And the belief is of course maintained by the traditional commodity, as well as the potential benefit that is dispersed in the field of regulation of this currency, as well as the opportunity to assert their interests by force. If a group of individuals takes control of a territory, then the currency of that group will automatically be valued higher than the currency of the territory itself, even if the controlling group itself produces nothing. That's why my post about army provision is also relevant. That's exactly the second part of collateral - I can.
About bitcoin's limitedness: it is not a problem if there is a regulator, remove/add 3/6/9 zeros (underline) and the whole deal, the problem is not in limitedness, but in absence of regulator, bitcoin has no regulator. And what is touted as the greatest good is actually the greatest problem.
About matches and cars: just a figurative example about what I said in the beginning, bitcoins are designed for electronic goods (it's just easier to pay for them), but electronic goods have a quality of spontaneously growing in quantity, tomorrow it will be the fashion for Linux, and bam! The process is almost instantaneous because time is short, communication is instantaneous, everybody knows immediately that it is a great product and there is a lot of it to trade. This means that today there is no need in new bitcoins, and tomorrow there will be not enough bitcoins to buy all of them. So, we need a regulator (maybe a borrowing tool).
But C-4 was right in the box example, the growth of an economy that uses a non-inflationary currency benefits the owner of the currency. Also, everyone ignored my post about edge development points. As soon as cryptocurrency becomes very expensive because of growth of economy, it will immediately fall into pockets, and because of inertia of mind it will be very difficult to get it into real sector, because the more currency lies in pockets (and not working to serve economy), the more the remaining currency becomes expensive (because it is not enough). I wrote that the remaining currency is only accounted for as currency that serves the exchange, but the whole currency becomes more expensive. It's like in the MetaDrivera example with Person and Wallet, the Person object has access to the private variable wallet of the other Person object only on the basis that they are both people.
This problem (with money lying around in pockets) could be solved as it is currently solved in banks - money in an account while it is lying idle is automatically made available to banks as credit assets, this mechanism does not allow money to lie idle. If a person does not want to share the risk with the bank (the bank may make a mistake when giving credit), then the person simply buys gold, brulant, or land (as Mark Twain used to say: gentlemen, buy land, because it is no longer being produced).
But every way bitcoin was created as alternative of modern banking system (because many people consider it flawed), but without mechanisms, created by banking system, bitcoin itself is flawed.
In order to become a full-fledged regulator of the electronic goods market, bitcoin needs (regulator, credit system), as it is clear from all Andrei's posts, bitcoin loses all its charm as a rebellious currency that opposes the whole corrupted banking sector.
Decentralisation is super. Collateralisation - by trust. For the basic function of exchange money, that's good enough. The function of accumulation - transferred to commodities. The idea of rewarding with transaction costs (fee and at first stage via mining) those who soporate the system is also super.
What I don't like is the issuance model. With this model, as C-4 rightly pointed out, the best strategy is to get the plushies (bits) as early as possible and shove them under the bed. The volume of money supply should be proportional to the volume of exchange. A flexible dependency function that both increases and decreases the money supply. I think this issuance puncture, coupled with energy costs, will bury the bitcoin at some point.
I looked at PPCoin, but it's not the same yet.
What I do not like is the emission model. With such a model, as rightly pointed out by C-4, the most optimal strategy is to get some chips as soon as possible and put them under my bed.
Well, you can't eat with a stash under the bed. You got to eat. And not only that.
The volume of money supply must be proportional to the volume of exchange.
No, it's too... trivial. A means of manipulation. No, I think the emission curve is almost the only right one.
I was looking at PPCoin, but it's not the same yet.
It seems that it would be a strong solution to create a currency with the possibility of emission. The issue itself would be transparent and algorithmically open. It would automatically take place when the volume of goods on the market increases. The details are still hazy, but its mechanism could resemble the open interest of futures contracts.
Where's Saneek? Where's the second front? He's probably on the cooker.
In fact, I exchanged one box of matches for a car. The money system allowed me to do this. If I profited, someone lost. Apart from the owner of the box of matches, there is no one else in the system, so he has lost. The system creates an asymmetry: it is more profitable to be in the cache than to keep the goods on hand. This is not right. The risk must be the same for everyone. Without issuance, this is impossible.
In fact you've got it wrong, matches are a basic necessity, a car is absolutely unnecessary in an economy with 3 components: 1 bitcoin, 1 box of matches and 1 car.
You're the one who thinks matches are a basic necessity. I haven't burnt a single one in the last year. If you choose a box of matches over a car - well, that's your choice. But mentally healthy people will still choose a car, so don't judge others by yourself.
you see you have built a 3-component economy in which there is nothing but, you are on a desert island (only there can you adequately assess the value of matches in a 3-component economy).
what would you choose now?
If I were to choose from three one thing where I am now, I would also choose a car (even though I actually have a couple of bitcoins in my trunk), but then it wouldn't be a three-part economy.
ZS: items are not for what they are, they are for what they can be used for.