5 ms·

thanks for the info, in Brazil you don't hear a lot about bitcoins so I didn't know about this "Limited amount" thing and that is a REALLY important info.

by cfontes 14y ago

icebraining 14y ago
You don't hear a lot about Bitcoins anywhere except the Internet, as far as I know ;) One of the best sources is the Bitcoin wiki, particularly the FAQ[1] and Myths[2] pages. [1]: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ [2]: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths
- Nursie 14y ago
  While those are good, they are obviously in the 'Pro' camp on all those things. For instance the entry on chargebacks basically just says "chargebacks are bad and you need to be careful who you send money to", neglecting to mention that the very point of chargebacks is to enable trusted commerce between parties with no prior trust relationship. The Web-of-Trust is not really a good solution to this as it keeps new players out of the game.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    I disagree it just says that; in fact, I don't think that's the most important thing it says. It also says that - just like CC companies do to USD, EUR, etc - a payment mechanism can be built on Bitcoin, providing chargebacks. It's just not builtin in BTC, much like it's not builtin in any other currency.
    - Nursie 14y ago
      I agree that payment mechanisms can indeed be built on bitcoin and it's not built in. Can we stop claiming it's the best payment method evar now?
      - icebraining 14y ago
        You won't hear that claim from me. I hold exactly 0 bitcoins.
        Nursie 14y ago
        Fair enough. You do see it in a lot of places though - that BTC is self-evidently the best payment method ever because of low fees, no middlemen and no chargebacks. Challenge this and someone will tell you it's not a payment method, it's more like cash, you shouldn't expect it to have these features. Tell them it doesn't have the features you'd look for in a currency and it'll be explained to you that it's more like gold, or an investment or... well anyway.
  - gasull 14y ago
    If you want a negative view on Bitcoin, the one from the Rational Wiki is pretty good: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bitcoin http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bitcoin Although after reading it I'm still convinced that Bitcoin is a good thing and that its use and value will go up.
    - Nursie 14y ago
      I'm pretty convinced it's a bad thing but that the same thing will happen!
    - Nursie 14y ago
      Interesting link from the 'Talk' page there - http://www.technollama.co.uk/a-look-at-the-bitcoin-network-transaction-history http://www.technollama.co.uk/a-look-at-the-bitcoin-network-t... This seems to confirm a lot of what people say about BTC - that it's a vehicle for speculation and hoarding, and that all the major economic activity is concentrated at the exchanges. Though it could be a little out of date now.
Nursie 14y ago
Yeah it is a fundamental part of the model. The limit is something like 21 million BTC ever. The reward from mining diminishes over time, halving every so often so that it will take quite a while to get to the 21 million. To BTC enthusiasts, this fixed supply is a major positive point as 'nobody can dilute my money!', but to others (like me) the idea of a currency with a fixed supply seems wrong. The more of the global economy BTC comes to represent the higher the value of each BTC, assuring that so long as it is used it will rise in value. This creates a big disincentive to spend and pretty much kills any idea of lending. What's more it concentrates wealth in the hands of people who put in a comparatively small effort a long time ago and now hold BTC, compared to those producing economic output now, meaning that if it became common currency we'd end up with even more extreme division of wealth than we see now. Note that I don't necessarily agree with the 'assumption' that BTC will collapse, that some people use to justify calling it a Ponzi or Pump'n'Dump scheme, but I do think it would be a terrible choice of primary currency for the reasons I've given.
- icebraining 14y ago
  if it became common currency we'd end up with even more extreme division of wealth than we see now I disagree. Unless BTC becomes the only common currency, you'd end up with more distributed wealth, since the holders of BTC aren't exactly the biggest holders of USD or EUR. By the way, how does the drop in prices relative to BTC kill lending? And tech devices are cheaper every year, from that argument, shouldn't it mean there's a great incentive not to buy them? By that logic, we should see a terrible market, with very few buyers. http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/01/boudreaux_on_mo.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/01/boudreaux_on_mo.htm...
  - Nursie 14y ago
    "I disagree. Unless BTC becomes the only common currency, you'd end up with more distributed wealth, since the holders of BTC aren't exactly the biggest holders of USD or EUR." This is why I said if it became common currency. --edit-- as A lot of bitcoin folks seem to think would be a good idea! If it stays a minority interest like gold then the particular problem of widening wealth disparity is not really an issue. But that doesn't seem to be the aim of many in the BTC community - they want society to adopt BTC or something very close to BTC as a main currency, because they think the limited supply model would be a good thing in this situation, which I think it would not. "By the way, how does the drop in prices relative to BTC kill lending?" Err, because if BTC are always going up in value, why would I bother lending them? As a borrower of currency with small, controlled inflation I pay a percentage in interest. This is eased by tomorrow's money being worth slightly less than today's. As a lender I need to lend or otherwise invest to maintain value, and lending with an interest rate a little above inflation (and a little more to account for risk) is a good way to do this. With a deflationary currency the burden on the borrower increases massively as tomorrow's currency is worth more and you'll have to do more to repay it. As a lender I'm not going to lend at a flat or negative interest rate because it's easier and lower risk just to hang on to the coins. "tech devices are cheaper every year, from that argument, shouldn't it mean there's a great incentive not to buy them?" Because they're useful and they're not the same every year? Also there is a small disincentive to buying computers when you can get more for your money if you hang on a bit.

thanks for the info, in Brazil you don't hear a lot about bitcoins so I didn't know about this "Limited amount" thing and that is a REALLY important info.

by cfontes 14y ago

thanks for the info, in Brazil you don't hear a lot about bitcoins so I didn't know about this "Limited amount" thing and that is a REALLY important info.

icebraining 14y ago

You don't hear a lot about Bitcoins anywhere except the Internet, as far as I know ;) One of the best sources is the Bitcoin wiki, particularly the FAQ[1] and Myths[2] pages. [1]: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ [2]: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths

Nursie 14y ago
While those are good, they are obviously in the 'Pro' camp on all those things. For instance the entry on chargebacks basically just says "chargebacks are bad and you need to be careful who you send money to", neglecting to mention that the very point of chargebacks is to enable trusted commerce between parties with no prior trust relationship. The Web-of-Trust is not really a good solution to this as it keeps new players out of the game.
- icebraining 14y ago
  I disagree it just says that; in fact, I don't think that's the most important thing it says. It also says that - just like CC companies do to USD, EUR, etc - a payment mechanism can be built on Bitcoin, providing chargebacks. It's just not builtin in BTC, much like it's not builtin in any other currency.
  - Nursie 14y ago
    I agree that payment mechanisms can indeed be built on bitcoin and it's not built in. Can we stop claiming it's the best payment method evar now?
    - icebraining 14y ago
      You won't hear that claim from me. I hold exactly 0 bitcoins.
      - Nursie 14y ago
        Fair enough. You do see it in a lot of places though - that BTC is self-evidently the best payment method ever because of low fees, no middlemen and no chargebacks. Challenge this and someone will tell you it's not a payment method, it's more like cash, you shouldn't expect it to have these features. Tell them it doesn't have the features you'd look for in a currency and it'll be explained to you that it's more like gold, or an investment or... well anyway.
- gasull 14y ago
  If you want a negative view on Bitcoin, the one from the Rational Wiki is pretty good: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bitcoin http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bitcoin Although after reading it I'm still convinced that Bitcoin is a good thing and that its use and value will go up.
  - Nursie 14y ago
    I'm pretty convinced it's a bad thing but that the same thing will happen!
  - Nursie 14y ago
    Interesting link from the 'Talk' page there - http://www.technollama.co.uk/a-look-at-the-bitcoin-network-transaction-history http://www.technollama.co.uk/a-look-at-the-bitcoin-network-t... This seems to confirm a lot of what people say about BTC - that it's a vehicle for speculation and hoarding, and that all the major economic activity is concentrated at the exchanges. Though it could be a little out of date now.

Nursie 14y ago

Yeah it is a fundamental part of the model. The limit is something like 21 million BTC ever. The reward from mining diminishes over time, halving every so often so that it will take quite a while to get to the 21 million. To BTC enthusiasts, this fixed supply is a major positive point as 'nobody can dilute my money!', but to others (like me) the idea of a currency with a fixed supply seems wrong. The more of the global economy BTC comes to represent the higher the value of each BTC, assuring that so long as it is used it will rise in value. This creates a big disincentive to spend and pretty much kills any idea of lending. What's more it concentrates wealth in the hands of people who put in a comparatively small effort a long time ago and now hold BTC, compared to those producing economic output now, meaning that if it became common currency we'd end up with even more extreme division of wealth than we see now. Note that I don't necessarily agree with the 'assumption' that BTC will collapse, that some people use to justify calling it a Ponzi or Pump'n'Dump scheme, but I do think it would be a terrible choice of primary currency for the reasons I've given.

icebraining 14y ago
if it became common currency we'd end up with even more extreme division of wealth than we see now I disagree. Unless BTC becomes the only common currency, you'd end up with more distributed wealth, since the holders of BTC aren't exactly the biggest holders of USD or EUR. By the way, how does the drop in prices relative to BTC kill lending? And tech devices are cheaper every year, from that argument, shouldn't it mean there's a great incentive not to buy them? By that logic, we should see a terrible market, with very few buyers. http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/01/boudreaux_on_mo.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/01/boudreaux_on_mo.htm...
- Nursie 14y ago
  "I disagree. Unless BTC becomes the only common currency, you'd end up with more distributed wealth, since the holders of BTC aren't exactly the biggest holders of USD or EUR." This is why I said if it became common currency. --edit-- as A lot of bitcoin folks seem to think would be a good idea! If it stays a minority interest like gold then the particular problem of widening wealth disparity is not really an issue. But that doesn't seem to be the aim of many in the BTC community - they want society to adopt BTC or something very close to BTC as a main currency, because they think the limited supply model would be a good thing in this situation, which I think it would not. "By the way, how does the drop in prices relative to BTC kill lending?" Err, because if BTC are always going up in value, why would I bother lending them? As a borrower of currency with small, controlled inflation I pay a percentage in interest. This is eased by tomorrow's money being worth slightly less than today's. As a lender I need to lend or otherwise invest to maintain value, and lending with an interest rate a little above inflation (and a little more to account for risk) is a good way to do this. With a deflationary currency the burden on the borrower increases massively as tomorrow's currency is worth more and you'll have to do more to repay it. As a lender I'm not going to lend at a flat or negative interest rate because it's easier and lower risk just to hang on to the coins. "tech devices are cheaper every year, from that argument, shouldn't it mean there's a great incentive not to buy them?" Because they're useful and they're not the same every year? Also there is a small disincentive to buying computers when you can get more for your money if you hang on a bit.