4 ms·

> Untraceable money Bitcoin is not untraceable money, it can be even more traceable than normal currency. It could be stablished as a law that public money whe

by knocte 9y ago

> Untraceable money Bitcoin is not untraceable money, it can be even more traceable than normal currency. It could be stablished as a law that public money when being spent in the blockchain needs to be auditable by the people (identities of sender and recipient known), and this way you would end up with even less corruption than the current system. > Deflation means that the rich will get richer Wrong. Rich people don't have money, they have holdings. Most of the holdings that rich people nowadays have are not money. Deflation just benefits the savers, as opposed to the spenders. Some savers might be rich but not all. Incentivising saving instead of consumption may make the planet a bit greener. Plus, if one day we stop measuring cryptocurrency value with a fiat-unit of measure, maybe we find out that the cryptocurrency value is actually the stable value. The asset that is not stable is the fiat currency because it's being depreciated all the time. The day all stores in the planet denominate prices in cryptocurrency, the bad consequences of deflation (hoarding for the sake of profit) will be almost imperceptible.

simias 9y ago
>> Deflation means that the rich will get richer >Wrong. Rich people don't have money, they have holdings. Most of the holdings that rich people nowadays have are not money. Isn't one reason for not hoarding cash (and instead investing it in various holdings, stock market, etc...) is that money loses value? If I was a millionaire in dollars I definitely wouldn't keep that on my bank account, slowly having it lose its value. If I was a millionaire in BTC I'd have a hardware wallet with my secret keys in a safe and that's about it. >Deflation just benefits the savers, as opposed to the spenders. Some savers might be rich but not all. Sure, but conversely I can tell you that the people who don't save money are overwhelmingly poor. For a big chunk of humanity saving money is a luxury. >Incentivising saving instead of consumption may make the planet a bit greener. Coin mining will take care of filling that gap, don't worry. If rich people reduce their investments because of deflation how do you redistribute wealth? >Plus, if one day we stop measuring cryptocurrency value with a fiat-unit of measure, maybe we find out that the cryptocurrency value is actually the stable value. Well yeah, 1BTC == 1BTC, that's stable I guess. If BTC replaces fiat it'll stabilize eventually but it will still be deflationary. My arguments were about that, not the current instability. >The asset that is not stable is the fiat currency because it's being depreciated all the time. The day all stores in the planet denominate prices in cryptocurrency, the bad consequences of deflation (hoarding for the sake of profit) will be almost imperceptible. That's kind of the hand waving I was talking about in my previous comment. I don't see how you can justify you jumping to that conclusion. How can you assume that switching from an inflationary to a deflationary economy "will be almost imperceptible"?
- knocte 9y ago
  > If I was a millionaire in BTC I'd have a hardware wallet with my secret keys in a safe and that's about it. Lending or investing your BTC would always make you net more than just hoarding it (at least when all prices are denominated in BTC already). > Sure, but conversely I can tell you that the people who don't save money are overwhelmingly poor. For a big chunk of humanity saving money is a luxury. True, I didn't say that low-class can save. But most savers are middle class IMO. > Coin mining will take care of filling that gap, don't worry. Wrong, 2 links: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-07/bitcoin-is-greener-than-its-critics-think https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-07/bitcoin-i... https://blog.bitcoin.org.hk/bitcoin-mining-and-energy-consumption-4526d4b56186 https://blog.bitcoin.org.hk/bitcoin-mining-and-energy-consum... > How can you assume that switching from an inflationary to a deflationary economy "will be almost imperceptible"? Because when all prices get denominated in BTC, you won't see your holdings appreciate. The only effect you will see, caused by deflation, is that prices of things diminish over time. Which is kind of what happens nowadays with hardware (because it's the goods where the effects of technology improvements are noticed in the most sensible way), however I don't know anyone that hoards their holdings to be able to buy a better and cheaper computer tomorrow.
  - ufo 9y ago
    The problem with a deflationary currency is that prices, wages and income go down over time. Someone borrowing 100 BTC today will have a hard time paying back that 100 BTC one year from now (let alone the interest) because they will be earning less than they do today.
    - knocte 9y ago
      So loans would need to be short-lived and with high scrutiny, to make sure they are payed back. I consider this a good thing, as opposed to the other extreme: give everyone a loan no matter what (the root cause of the 2008 financial crisis).
  - knocte 9y ago
    > Wrong, 2 links: One link more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T0OUIW89II https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T0OUIW89II
MintPattern 9y ago
> The asset that is not stable is the fiat currency because it's being depreciated all the time. Checking accounts (M1) have grown by (only) 8%/year over the past 2 years. Savings accounts (M2) have grown by (only) 6%/year over the past 2 years. Physical cash in circulation has grown by (only) 5%/year over the past 2 years. Even if we value bitcoin today only by it's future 0% emission rate starting at around the year 2036, bitcoin shouldn't have been rising more than 7 or 8% per year relative to the US Dollar. Anymore is unlikely to be sustainable. Am I missing anything? Citation: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/current/default.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/current/default.h...

by knocte 9y ago

simias 9y ago

>> Deflation means that the rich will get richer >Wrong. Rich people don't have money, they have holdings. Most of the holdings that rich people nowadays have are not money. Isn't one reason for not hoarding cash (and instead investing it in various holdings, stock market, etc...) is that money loses value? If I was a millionaire in dollars I definitely wouldn't keep that on my bank account, slowly having it lose its value. If I was a millionaire in BTC I'd have a hardware wallet with my secret keys in a safe and that's about it. >Deflation just benefits the savers, as opposed to the spenders. Some savers might be rich but not all. Sure, but conversely I can tell you that the people who don't save money are overwhelmingly poor. For a big chunk of humanity saving money is a luxury. >Incentivising saving instead of consumption may make the planet a bit greener. Coin mining will take care of filling that gap, don't worry. If rich people reduce their investments because of deflation how do you redistribute wealth? >Plus, if one day we stop measuring cryptocurrency value with a fiat-unit of measure, maybe we find out that the cryptocurrency value is actually the stable value. Well yeah, 1BTC == 1BTC, that's stable I guess. If BTC replaces fiat it'll stabilize eventually but it will still be deflationary. My arguments were about that, not the current instability. >The asset that is not stable is the fiat currency because it's being depreciated all the time. The day all stores in the planet denominate prices in cryptocurrency, the bad consequences of deflation (hoarding for the sake of profit) will be almost imperceptible. That's kind of the hand waving I was talking about in my previous comment. I don't see how you can justify you jumping to that conclusion. How can you assume that switching from an inflationary to a deflationary economy "will be almost imperceptible"?

knocte 9y ago
> If I was a millionaire in BTC I'd have a hardware wallet with my secret keys in a safe and that's about it. Lending or investing your BTC would always make you net more than just hoarding it (at least when all prices are denominated in BTC already). > Sure, but conversely I can tell you that the people who don't save money are overwhelmingly poor. For a big chunk of humanity saving money is a luxury. True, I didn't say that low-class can save. But most savers are middle class IMO. > Coin mining will take care of filling that gap, don't worry. Wrong, 2 links: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-07/bitcoin-is-greener-than-its-critics-think https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-07/bitcoin-i... https://blog.bitcoin.org.hk/bitcoin-mining-and-energy-consumption-4526d4b56186 https://blog.bitcoin.org.hk/bitcoin-mining-and-energy-consum... > How can you assume that switching from an inflationary to a deflationary economy "will be almost imperceptible"? Because when all prices get denominated in BTC, you won't see your holdings appreciate. The only effect you will see, caused by deflation, is that prices of things diminish over time. Which is kind of what happens nowadays with hardware (because it's the goods where the effects of technology improvements are noticed in the most sensible way), however I don't know anyone that hoards their holdings to be able to buy a better and cheaper computer tomorrow.
- ufo 9y ago
  The problem with a deflationary currency is that prices, wages and income go down over time. Someone borrowing 100 BTC today will have a hard time paying back that 100 BTC one year from now (let alone the interest) because they will be earning less than they do today.
  - knocte 9y ago
    So loans would need to be short-lived and with high scrutiny, to make sure they are payed back. I consider this a good thing, as opposed to the other extreme: give everyone a loan no matter what (the root cause of the 2008 financial crisis).
- knocte 9y ago
  > Wrong, 2 links: One link more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T0OUIW89II https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T0OUIW89II

MintPattern 9y ago

> The asset that is not stable is the fiat currency because it's being depreciated all the time. Checking accounts (M1) have grown by (only) 8%/year over the past 2 years. Savings accounts (M2) have grown by (only) 6%/year over the past 2 years. Physical cash in circulation has grown by (only) 5%/year over the past 2 years. Even if we value bitcoin today only by it's future 0% emission rate starting at around the year 2036, bitcoin shouldn't have been rising more than 7 or 8% per year relative to the US Dollar. Anymore is unlikely to be sustainable. Am I missing anything? Citation: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/current/default.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/current/default.h...