3 ms·

So? Is Gold a ponzi scheme too? I don't see a problem with the declining rate of generation because you can divide Bitcoin up to some pretty small fractions. Yo

by snitko 13y ago

So? Is Gold a ponzi scheme too? I don't see a problem with the declining rate of generation because you can divide Bitcoin up to some pretty small fractions. You have to really wrap your head around deflation, you know. It's a beautiful and healthy thing, it's just that we've been told it's not.

jbooth 13y ago
So you're saying it has ponzi-ish properties? Or not? If you're always incentivized to hold something and never incentivized to spend it, it becomes more of an asset than a currency. Gold is an asset, too, but it has much broader market participation in addition to being "special" as a value store due to 6,000 years of tradition. If you've got an asset with a lot of hype that's supposed to always increase in value, so you better get on board now unless you want to be a sucker, that looks a lot like a ponzi scheme to me. You can still make money on it, don't let me stop you. You're probably not going to refactor capitalism with it. Additionally, (I'm assuming you're a little young and naive here, apologies if that's not the case), additionally I'd really suggest decoupling your personal political beliefs from investment decisions with real money. It never ends well.
- snitko 13y ago
  No, I don't believe Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme at all. And I really don't think my age is relevant, you either have arguments or you don't. But let's come back to that notion of yours > If you're always incentivized to hold something and never incentivized to spend it, it becomes more of an asset than a currency." Let's say all you got is 10btc and $0 in your bank account. And you need some food. You're probably gonna decide not to starve yourself to death because being alive tomorrow is more valuable to you than having more money and being dead. Thus you are going to spend your bitcoins (either directly or by exchanging them into fiat). Now, what you probably wouldn't do is buy something you don't really need or want at the moment. And that's fine, in this case Bitcoin encourages responsible spending. Now, of course, you should understand why a deflationary currency grows long term - not speculation, but new products and services in the economy. If no one spends, then no new products and services appear, currency is not gaining in value. If it's not gaining in value anymore you have your incentives to spend back. The major differences with a deflationary currency are this: 1. No one forces you to spend (like governments inflating your money), so you make decisions on your own. 2. Deflation is an ultimate tax that rich cannot avoid. If you make money, you will inevitably share it with the rest (their money gaining in value).
  - jbooth 13y ago
    When it comes to thinking "this time is different" and "I have an idea to refactor the world economy", your age is VERY relevant. Everyone thinks they have a simple way to fix everything when they're 22. By the time you're 30-40 it's amazing how much smarter the rest of the world got. You can take my word for it as regards politics and investment, or not, it's your money. On the argument, you're implicitly admitting that you wouldn't spend bitcoins until you were completely out of dollars, because bitcoins will 'always appreciate'. That's kinda conceding my point as far as asset vs currency. You can sell stock for dollars if you're short on cash as well. It seems that we agree on the effects of deflationary currency incentivizing not spending money. There's a few examples of that phenomenon happening in the real world, and none of them were really great for GDP growth (severe understatement). You know that spending by a lot of people is what adds up to that 14T GDP number, right?
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > When it comes to thinking "this time is different" and "I have an idea to refactor the world economy", your age is VERY relevant. Its really not. If you are trying to evaluate how good of an idea someone is likely to come up with, their scope of understanding of economics and past efforts in that field is relevant, and age is an extremely poor proxy for that. (It's exactly the same problem as using age alone as a proxy for to measure programming skill would be.) If you have an actual idea in front of you, its better to just evaluate that rather than the source. > Everyone thinks they have a simple way to fix everything when they're 22. By the time you're 30-40 it's amazing how much smarter the rest of the world got. That's not universally true, and to the extent it is true, its significantly about increased focus on near-term self (or immediate-circle) interests rather than increased knowledge -- there's a reason why major advancements more often come out of work people do very early in their career.
      - jbooth 13y ago
        " their scope of understanding of economics and past efforts in that field is relevant, and age is an extremely poor proxy for that. (It's exactly the same problem as using age alone as a proxy for to measure programming skill would be.)" That's exactly the spot where I disagree. Understanding political-economy properly requires a certain amount of cynicism that can only come from observing the world for a while. Very different from programming skill. In programming, "this time it's different" can be true sometimes, we've only got 60-odd years of programming. In political economy, after 3,000 years or so, it's almost never the case. For what it's worth, I didn't feel that way when I was 22.
mugenx86 13y ago
>So? Is Gold a ponzi scheme too? No, gold is used in almost every electronic device because of its conductive properties.

by snitko 13y ago

jbooth 13y ago

So you're saying it has ponzi-ish properties? Or not? If you're always incentivized to hold something and never incentivized to spend it, it becomes more of an asset than a currency. Gold is an asset, too, but it has much broader market participation in addition to being "special" as a value store due to 6,000 years of tradition. If you've got an asset with a lot of hype that's supposed to always increase in value, so you better get on board now unless you want to be a sucker, that looks a lot like a ponzi scheme to me. You can still make money on it, don't let me stop you. You're probably not going to refactor capitalism with it. Additionally, (I'm assuming you're a little young and naive here, apologies if that's not the case), additionally I'd really suggest decoupling your personal political beliefs from investment decisions with real money. It never ends well.

snitko 13y ago
No, I don't believe Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme at all. And I really don't think my age is relevant, you either have arguments or you don't. But let's come back to that notion of yours > If you're always incentivized to hold something and never incentivized to spend it, it becomes more of an asset than a currency." Let's say all you got is 10btc and $0 in your bank account. And you need some food. You're probably gonna decide not to starve yourself to death because being alive tomorrow is more valuable to you than having more money and being dead. Thus you are going to spend your bitcoins (either directly or by exchanging them into fiat). Now, what you probably wouldn't do is buy something you don't really need or want at the moment. And that's fine, in this case Bitcoin encourages responsible spending. Now, of course, you should understand why a deflationary currency grows long term - not speculation, but new products and services in the economy. If no one spends, then no new products and services appear, currency is not gaining in value. If it's not gaining in value anymore you have your incentives to spend back. The major differences with a deflationary currency are this: 1. No one forces you to spend (like governments inflating your money), so you make decisions on your own. 2. Deflation is an ultimate tax that rich cannot avoid. If you make money, you will inevitably share it with the rest (their money gaining in value).
- jbooth 13y ago
  When it comes to thinking "this time is different" and "I have an idea to refactor the world economy", your age is VERY relevant. Everyone thinks they have a simple way to fix everything when they're 22. By the time you're 30-40 it's amazing how much smarter the rest of the world got. You can take my word for it as regards politics and investment, or not, it's your money. On the argument, you're implicitly admitting that you wouldn't spend bitcoins until you were completely out of dollars, because bitcoins will 'always appreciate'. That's kinda conceding my point as far as asset vs currency. You can sell stock for dollars if you're short on cash as well. It seems that we agree on the effects of deflationary currency incentivizing not spending money. There's a few examples of that phenomenon happening in the real world, and none of them were really great for GDP growth (severe understatement). You know that spending by a lot of people is what adds up to that 14T GDP number, right?
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > When it comes to thinking "this time is different" and "I have an idea to refactor the world economy", your age is VERY relevant. Its really not. If you are trying to evaluate how good of an idea someone is likely to come up with, their scope of understanding of economics and past efforts in that field is relevant, and age is an extremely poor proxy for that. (It's exactly the same problem as using age alone as a proxy for to measure programming skill would be.) If you have an actual idea in front of you, its better to just evaluate that rather than the source. > Everyone thinks they have a simple way to fix everything when they're 22. By the time you're 30-40 it's amazing how much smarter the rest of the world got. That's not universally true, and to the extent it is true, its significantly about increased focus on near-term self (or immediate-circle) interests rather than increased knowledge -- there's a reason why major advancements more often come out of work people do very early in their career.
    - jbooth 13y ago
      " their scope of understanding of economics and past efforts in that field is relevant, and age is an extremely poor proxy for that. (It's exactly the same problem as using age alone as a proxy for to measure programming skill would be.)" That's exactly the spot where I disagree. Understanding political-economy properly requires a certain amount of cynicism that can only come from observing the world for a while. Very different from programming skill. In programming, "this time it's different" can be true sometimes, we've only got 60-odd years of programming. In political economy, after 3,000 years or so, it's almost never the case. For what it's worth, I didn't feel that way when I was 22.

mugenx86 13y ago

>So? Is Gold a ponzi scheme too? No, gold is used in almost every electronic device because of its conductive properties.