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
Bank of England Governor Mark Carney wants to create a replacement reserve (digital) currency
World needs to end risky reliance on U.S. dollar - BoE's Carney - Reuters
The best solution to dislodge U.S. currency would be a diversified multi-polar financial system, something that could be provided by technology, Carney said.
Facebook’s (FB.O) Libra was the most high-profile proposed digital currency to date but it faced a host of fundamental issues that it had yet to address.
“As a consequence, it is an open question whether such a new Synthetic Hegemonic Currency (SHC) would be best provided by the public sector, perhaps through a network of central bank digital currencies,” Carney said.
tl;dr - buy bitcoin
And we should have unicorns and mermaids too!
Libra can't be an alternative currency because it is tied to other existing currencies and equities. We need stand alone currencies whether commodities or blockchain.
Do you mean it couldn’t be a reserve currency? Because I think it’s only option was ever to be an alternative, not a world’s reserve currency.
The bankers would require at least five years and billions of dollars just to figure out and agree on what a new system would look like. And then never launch it.
I also read somewhere today that a few of the Libra members are making noise about backing out due to all the regulatory hurdles. That thing may not launch either.
I just mean it isn't set up to be independent. It's value is determined by the $ and other assets, and those assets are all affected by the $.
France and Germany not going to play ball with Libra
Hayek quote from 1984
France and Germany run the ECB. The ECB manipulates currency more than ANYONE ELSE. Of course they don't want another currency of any kind.
Hayek was right. But we still don't have a trustworthy money when thinking about Bitcoin or Libra. The government run central banks won't allow it. They write the rules so they have the power to block true alternatives.
The only way to establish a good money is to have it run in a black market and not assent to taxation.
Hayek wasn't radical enough. Need to follow Mises or Rothbard.
What's somewhat ironic about this is that France and Germany gave their monetary power away to the European Central Bank.
Yeah, but Germany and France kind of run the ECB don't they?
On paper they don't, and the President of the ECB is an Italian. However, Germany (and to a lesser extent, France) obviously has tremendous clout at the ECB.