Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Dionysus, Jun 19, 2019.
Trump is doing a great job overall, but I agree with your statement.
We are just going to disagree about that assertion.
So stability only works in one direction?
Okay. That principle would mean that only 21 million people could buy everything with Bitcoin. That is ludicrous. It ignores other currencies and common sense. I guess the other 8 or 9 billion people convert to barter or starve.
Just store it in your secret dehydration wallet with your super secret key like you would with Bitcoin. It will be just fine. Trust me.
A bitcoin is divisible to 8 decimal places (100 million units, called a Satoshi).
How much does a satoshi cost?
1/100,000,000 of the bitcoin price
The situation is fluid
That sounds great. Hell, even I can buy some of those to help the newfangled currency gain liquidity. I'll take three satoshis please. How do I pay for them?
I might know a guy. You speak Russian?
Maybe one day a fancy pants computer money will be minted by you computer boys with your fancy bits and bytes, but not today boy! Now, git!
I think we disagree on what backing means. Metal backing assured you could exchange paper money at the bank for a commodity of value that could be used on its own to procure other goods. In that sense the $ has no backing. You can buy other goods that have market value, but the currency itself isn't backed. That is what fiat means. Having an army really doesn't change those facts.
In the context of our discussion, yes. Your previous question was about limiting the supply of a currency. Limiting the amount of a currency helps purchasing power of that currency. It does not contribute at all to decreasing the purchasing power of the currency. Sam Houston knew this very well and saved the Texas economy after Lamar sent the Republic into a serious recession. Houston literally removed a % of the paper money out of the market and held the amount constant while having that paper backed by gold.
That is not what that implies actually. The principle is about the total amount of currency in a system. Obviously if there are competing currencies, there will not be one that is used for 100% of business. Maybe I wasn't clear enough.
The principle is about the fact that you don't need to increase overall money supply in order for consumers to buy the goods they want as the amount of goods increases. What happens is the purchasing power of the money increases to compensate for the change in goods. The principle isn't about Bitcoin itself or limited to owners of Bitcoin when most people are using $s.
Help me out because I'm clearly misunderstanding your point. If there were 3, five dollar bills in our economy (and no other currency), would that be enough to handle all of the transactions?
Theoretically, if you could subdivide the $15 in more ways. But I see your point practically. 3 bills can't facilitate an economy. So there must be a minimum amount that works.
I think the back drop of the principle is that the supply of money considered was gold or silver. Those things have value independent of it being used for money, so mining was done not just for the sake of having coins. But that meant there was a slow but steady increase in money supply that was constrained by physics and economics.
The point is that in that system you didn't have to print additional paper bills in order to have enough to run your economy.
Thanks for making me think through this further.
The money supply issue has always been a tough nut for me to crack. There may be an answer for the correct amount, but I haven't found it yet.
The term "shitcoin" is now in the Congressional Record, thank you Congressman Warren Davidson
Google search trends for shitcoin are through the roof
one thing that seems to be overlooked ...
the value is from the labor of ... people. Not machines. Machines don't make decisions on purchasing "stuff." People do.
Hence ... the population has a direct affect on the value of currency, too, regardless of the base