5 ms·

Business cycles are the effect of under/overinvestments. With Bitcoin it's much harder to get a loan with near-0 interest rates, as money can't be printed out

Business cycles are the effect of under/overinvestments. With Bitcoin it's much harder to get a loan with near-0 interest rates, as money can't be printed out of thin air. The banks would have a real risk of not getting back their investment when they would be lending, so they would be forced to be much more conservative. The power would shift to angel investors, who use their own money to invest in / lend to businesses.

Nursie 8y ago
> With Bitcoin it's much harder to get a loan with near-0 interest rates, as money can't be printed out of thin air. But a new cryptocurrency can be. The network effect is literally all a specific chain has going for it. Though of course with an 'official' chain that's not the case.
- xiphias2 8y ago
  Sure, you can create a currency which can have bail outs by having a magic private key for yourself, just like how central banks work right now. Good luck getting other people to use that currency though :)
  - rrdharan 8y ago
    Isn't that exactly what ethereum eventually demonstrated via the DAO fork? The core developer team effectively wields this power, but people still seem to be using their currency.
    - throwawaylolx 8y ago
      Yes, people use central banks as well. However, if you want to opt-out of centralized control, you have the option to use Bitcoin instead of fiat, Ethereum, or any other coin that had an ICO.
    - xiphias2 8y ago
      Ethereum has very different philosophy (just as an example it's supposed to be an universal computer, not a cryptocurrency). I'm in the Bitcoin camp, and I think that the Ethereum developers are not careful enough with the changes they make to a multibillion dollar system, but you are right, many people like to use it.
      - throwawaylolx 8y ago
        > Ethereum has very different philosophy (just as an example it's supposed to be an universal computer, not a cryptocurrency). Etherum doesn't have much of a philosophy. They have recently been pivoting away from a "universal computer" rhetoric to one focused on "decentralized finance."
      - just_one_time_ 8y ago
        By Bitcoin we should mean only the Bitcoin Cash fork of the original code base. The addition of SegWit and RBF pivoted Core away from Bitcoin's titular claim to fame, Peer-to-Peer Digital Cash.
    - feanaro 8y ago
      Didn't Ethereum simply make a fork of the client and the rest of the network agreed to use that fork?
      - throwawaylolx 8y ago
        No, Ethereum didn't fork the client. The main client was patched to automatically use the bailout-chain, and anyone who upgraded their node was thus switched to the new chain. But this is merely a red herring: Ethereum was centralized from day 1 due to their distribution method, and the DAO is just a natural consequence of centralization.
        feanaro 8y ago
        Perhaps I didn't quite phrase that as clearly as I could have. I meant to say that changing a client incompatibly is effectively forking the blockchain. Naturally, you still have to be mindful about whether or not you want to upgrade to software you do not wish to use. Upgrading to the new version and continuing to use it was a conscious decision to continue using that branch of the chain, made by the majority.
  - Nursie 8y ago
    That's not actually a response to my point though. My point was that the limited quantity of BTC is really only 'limited' by perception. Sure, the amount on the BTC chain is limited, but copy the software, boot up a new chain and you have another 21 mil to play with. The reason the one has value and the other doesn't is pretty much down to brand recognition/network effect. Though as I also said - in a central bank situation where a single chain is mandated, that's less of a concern.
    - root_axis 8y ago
      Exactly. The BCH hard fork is a great demonstration of this. After the split the total value of BTC + BCH exceeded BTC before the split; that means new coins were printed out of thin air.
    - Geee 8y ago
      Well, you're still wrong. If someone wants a loan in BTC, they don't want your fake BTC. Infinite blockchains argument is not valid. Blockchains need to be secure and you can't get billions worth of mining power or POS investments from thin air. Certain blockchains have value because of this security and also from network effects. Both of these effects favor existing blockchains, not new ones. Strongest get stronger.
      - Nursie 8y ago
        > If someone wants a loan in BTC, they don't want your fake BTC. Which is purely down to branding. >Infinite blockchains argument is not valid. Because you say so? > Blockchains need to be secure and you can't get billions worth of mining power or POS investments from thin air. These follow value, they don't create it.
    - proy24 8y ago
      Is that true to most companies in tech? I mean granted google has ip behind its tech...but basic versions of social networks like facebook, reddit, twitter could be cloned by a couple of teenagers in a basement in a week.
andrewla 8y ago
Interest rates are driven by the market. In the late 1970s you couldn't get a dollar loan with near-0 interest rates either.

Nursie 8y ago

> With Bitcoin it's much harder to get a loan with near-0 interest rates, as money can't be printed out of thin air. But a new cryptocurrency can be. The network effect is literally all a specific chain has going for it. Though of course with an 'official' chain that's not the case.

xiphias2 8y ago
Sure, you can create a currency which can have bail outs by having a magic private key for yourself, just like how central banks work right now. Good luck getting other people to use that currency though :)
- rrdharan 8y ago
  Isn't that exactly what ethereum eventually demonstrated via the DAO fork? The core developer team effectively wields this power, but people still seem to be using their currency.
  - throwawaylolx 8y ago
    Yes, people use central banks as well. However, if you want to opt-out of centralized control, you have the option to use Bitcoin instead of fiat, Ethereum, or any other coin that had an ICO.
  - xiphias2 8y ago
    Ethereum has very different philosophy (just as an example it's supposed to be an universal computer, not a cryptocurrency). I'm in the Bitcoin camp, and I think that the Ethereum developers are not careful enough with the changes they make to a multibillion dollar system, but you are right, many people like to use it.
    - throwawaylolx 8y ago
      > Ethereum has very different philosophy (just as an example it's supposed to be an universal computer, not a cryptocurrency). Etherum doesn't have much of a philosophy. They have recently been pivoting away from a "universal computer" rhetoric to one focused on "decentralized finance."
    - just_one_time_ 8y ago
      By Bitcoin we should mean only the Bitcoin Cash fork of the original code base. The addition of SegWit and RBF pivoted Core away from Bitcoin's titular claim to fame, Peer-to-Peer Digital Cash.
  - feanaro 8y ago
    Didn't Ethereum simply make a fork of the client and the rest of the network agreed to use that fork?
    - throwawaylolx 8y ago
      No, Ethereum didn't fork the client. The main client was patched to automatically use the bailout-chain, and anyone who upgraded their node was thus switched to the new chain. But this is merely a red herring: Ethereum was centralized from day 1 due to their distribution method, and the DAO is just a natural consequence of centralization.
      - feanaro 8y ago
        Perhaps I didn't quite phrase that as clearly as I could have. I meant to say that changing a client incompatibly is effectively forking the blockchain. Naturally, you still have to be mindful about whether or not you want to upgrade to software you do not wish to use. Upgrading to the new version and continuing to use it was a conscious decision to continue using that branch of the chain, made by the majority.
- Nursie 8y ago
  That's not actually a response to my point though. My point was that the limited quantity of BTC is really only 'limited' by perception. Sure, the amount on the BTC chain is limited, but copy the software, boot up a new chain and you have another 21 mil to play with. The reason the one has value and the other doesn't is pretty much down to brand recognition/network effect. Though as I also said - in a central bank situation where a single chain is mandated, that's less of a concern.
  - root_axis 8y ago
    Exactly. The BCH hard fork is a great demonstration of this. After the split the total value of BTC + BCH exceeded BTC before the split; that means new coins were printed out of thin air.
  - Geee 8y ago
    Well, you're still wrong. If someone wants a loan in BTC, they don't want your fake BTC. Infinite blockchains argument is not valid. Blockchains need to be secure and you can't get billions worth of mining power or POS investments from thin air. Certain blockchains have value because of this security and also from network effects. Both of these effects favor existing blockchains, not new ones. Strongest get stronger.
    - Nursie 8y ago
      > If someone wants a loan in BTC, they don't want your fake BTC. Which is purely down to branding. >Infinite blockchains argument is not valid. Because you say so? > Blockchains need to be secure and you can't get billions worth of mining power or POS investments from thin air. These follow value, they don't create it.
  - proy24 8y ago
    Is that true to most companies in tech? I mean granted google has ip behind its tech...but basic versions of social networks like facebook, reddit, twitter could be cloned by a couple of teenagers in a basement in a week.

andrewla 8y ago

Interest rates are driven by the market. In the late 1970s you couldn't get a dollar loan with near-0 interest rates either.