Slashdot Mirror


Bitcoin Price Hits Fresh Record High Above $2,200 (cnbc.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Monday marks the seven-year anniversary of Bitcoin Pizza Day -- the moment a programmer named Laszlo Hanyecz spent 10,000 bitcoin on two Papa John's pizzas. More important than the episode being widely recognized as the first transaction using the cryptocurrency is what it tells us about the bitcoin rally that saw it break through the $2,100 mark on Monday. Bitcoin was trading as high as $2,185.89 in the early hours of Monday morning, hitting a fresh record high, after first powering through the $2,000 barrier over the weekend, according to CoinDesk data. Throughout the weekend, the value of cryptocurrency was looming around $2,000.

107 of 172 comments (clear)

  1. $11 million dollar pizzas by sanosuke001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Man, $11 million dollars for a pizza; I hope it was damn good!

    --
    -SaNo
    1. Re:$11 million dollar pizzas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Man, $11 million dollars for a pizza; I hope it was damn good!

      Must have been with anchovies!

    2. Re:$11 million dollar pizzas by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1, Informative

      10,000 Bitcoins * USD$2,185.89 = USD$21,858,900.

      I don't know how you ended up with 11 million dollars.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:$11 million dollar pizzas by dr.Flake · · Score: 2

      He bought 2 pizza's

      --
      Why are other peoples sig's always more witty ???
    4. Re:$11 million dollar pizzas by war4peace · · Score: 2

      A combination of math and reading comprehension, perhaps?

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    5. Re:$11 million dollar pizzas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Mom?

    6. Re:$11 million dollar pizzas by uberdilligaff · · Score: 1

      Um... maybe because he bought TWO pizzas?

      --
      Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain. --Friederich Schiller
    7. Re:$11 million dollar pizzas by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Funny

      We're supposed to read the comments too now?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    8. Re:$11 million dollar pizzas by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Must have been with anchovies!

      I haven't seen anchovies on a pizza in 30+ years.

    9. Re:$11 million dollar pizzas by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Man, $11 million dollars for a pizza; I hope it was damn good!

      Silicon Valley prices aren't that relevant to the ret of the country.

    10. Re:$11 million dollar pizzas by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Too far over your head, I assume. You have to be close to the thing going over your head to feel it.

    11. Re:$11 million dollar pizzas by MangoCats · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That was last weeks price, and possibly next week's price.

      I had a bitcoin once, got it in exchange for $5 in service work. Sold it for somewhere around $160 - not a bad trade. Now, if I had put $5,000 into BTC back then, and sold half every time it doubled, I'd still only have about $50K from the investment, and a hell of a big risk on the first $5000. Each subsequent doubling has been a big risk, and huge risks still remain.

      Who knows, it could inflate another 500x in the next 7 years - or, it could perform more like the other branded crypto-currencies... Unlike Coca-Cola, there's nothing tangible behind any of it, and when people shut down the "factories" performing the block-chain computations, it all turns to nothing.

    12. Re: $11 million dollar pizzas by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your valuable comment.

      America can't be great again without anchovies!

    13. Re:$11 million dollar pizzas by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

      > Unlike Coca-Cola, there's nothing tangible behind any of it

      That's not right. Bitcoins are just numerical entries in a secure transaction ledger (the blockchain). They have no more value in themselves than entries in a spreadsheet. What gives them value is the usefulness of the network, which enables sending financial value to anyone in the world. The network includes custom hardware, nodes that relay transactions, user software, exchanges that let you convert bitcoin balances to local currencies, etc. All of them are quite real, and without them, bitcoins would be useless, and therefore only have curiosity value (which is all they had at first, before the network grew enough).

    14. Re:$11 million dollar pizzas by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

      it could perform more like the other branded crypto-currencies...

      Bitcoin was the first of its kind and has a longer blockchain. The blockchain has value because you cannot duplicate it without years of effort on thousands of computers. The length of the chain and the power it took to create it gives it value that can not be duplicated with a coin by another name.

      there's nothing tangible behind any of it, and when people shut down the "factories" performing the block-chain computations, it all turns to nothing.

      This true of all business. Are you claiming that Coca-Cola has value if they shut down all their factories and stopped running their trucks?

  2. Lets see if we get this right..... by Elfich47 · · Score: 1

    Bit coin is slowly limiting the supply of new bit coin (by design), which drives up the price of bitcoin. So every time you go to buy a good or service you spend less bitcoin because its value has increased. I see a problem emerging when someone says they want to get paid in a fixed amount of bitcoin per hour.

    --
    Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
    1. Re:Lets see if we get this right..... by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I just thought of a name for it: "deflation". It will NEVER work!

    2. Re:Lets see if we get this right..... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I see a problem emerging when someone says they want to get paid in a fixed amount of bitcoin per hour.

      That's not how it will work.... they'll say they want to be paid 4 Extra-Large Pizzas per Hour with Pepperoni, Italian Sausage, Green Peppers Settled in Bitcoins.
      OR "$40US/Hour, Settled in Bitcoins"

    3. Re:Lets see if we get this right..... by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      This may lead to its actual demise. With the value increasing so much so fast, with the designed supply limit. Means actually buying anything with bitcoins will be a loss. With the average 3% inflation of the US dollar, that is values is derived from a complex economy. It means I am willing to spend my Dollar, on things that may grant a temporary reward ($20 for a Pizza) or a long term reward such as investment in some company that actually makes something. Because after 7 years that $20 Pizza would only be about $25.00 so that benefit of having a Pizza for your short term pleasure isn't a major loss. Bitcoins may be too valuable to buy anything, because their value will just go up, with a mostly fixed supply, any increase of demand will cause hording.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:Lets see if we get this right..... by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Deflation and Inflation are not a bad thing on their own.
      If their rate is in balanced with the rest of the economy it isn't that big of a deal. If the economy slows a relative deflation is a good thing, because it will make our prices cheaper so it would be purchased more from other economies.
      Inflation when the economy is good is also a good sign. As we can purchase more from cheaper economies.
      The problem is when these go at a rate faster then the growth of the actual economy.
      Deflation during a strong economy, causes over consumption where people buy things that they cannot really afford for the long term.
      Inflation during a week economy, causes under consumption where people can't buy things that they need to simulate the economy.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:Lets see if we get this right..... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      How's that problem any different from the other one, where you are told to get paid a fixed amount of $currency, only to see it become less and less valuable?

      Oh, right, because it works in favor of the recipient of a salary. How silly of me.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Lets see if we get this right..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You messed the terms, inflation actually causes more spending while deflation causes people to stack money for later spending "when money is worth more". It is deflation that reduces spending and consumption.

      Both terms matter when the currency is used as a primary currency in a country. For a virtual currency, meant only as means of exchange, inflation or deflation - it doesn't really matter.

    7. Re:Lets see if we get this right..... by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      Whoever told you that is how bitcoin works, left out the actual useful parts of the information.

    8. Re:Lets see if we get this right..... by Cipheron · · Score: 1

      Agree to get paid in an amount of gold, translated to the current BitCoin price.

    9. Re:Lets see if we get this right..... by MangoCats · · Score: 2, Informative

      Inflation punishes people who keep money under their mattress.

      Deflation rewards people who keep money under their mattress.

      Keeping money under the mattress, instead of investing it, is generally bad for the economy, which is (in part) why we generally have inflation.

      Bitcoin is smaller than a bit player in the general economy. If a major currency like the US dollar were to deflate 1000x in 7 years, it would upset the economic apple cart too much, and the people with the most apples in that cart would do whatever they could politically to pressure the system into keeping their apples safe, secure, and most importantly: more numerous than everyone else's.

    10. Re:Lets see if we get this right..... by Kjella · · Score: 2

      I just thought of a name for it: "deflation". It will NEVER work!

      You know, there's this whole sham called "antiques", "art" and "collector's items" that often get more valuable over time and seem to be doing quite well as a deflationary market. You might say, well if they're getting more valuable why would anyone sell them? There's lots of reasons people choose to cash in and do something else. The only thing that's needed is the faith that people would always want to buy a genuine Ming vase or Picasso or Superman #1, if you end up sitting on yesterday's fad it might be landfill material. It's not great as your everyday trading currency because you want people to spend it rather than hoard it and a market where the product's value depends on the whims of public opinion is always volatile, but the market does exist and is neither collapsing nor booming to infinity. Not that it's a great analogy to Bitcoin, but it's not like deflation = FAIL.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    11. Re:Lets see if we get this right..... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That's some smart economics thinking there.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:Lets see if we get this right..... by IcyWolfy · · Score: 2

      Deflation means that currency gets more valuable over time.
      That people will save, rather than consume.
      It's not that "people will hoard currency" it's that : people will be saving for retirement; services and costs previously provided by the government, and through taxes, are now self-generated by the individual. It's a full replacement of tax-policy, taxation, 401k and other forms of subsidized retirement.

      People will still spend money, but on what is important to them, rather than mindless consumerism. Peopel will still buy food. Buy housing, etc. But those who want, can live normally, with a modest income. Those who put off purchases for a year, will see just how much more money will buy, and will be able to save for retirement, through purchases though time, rather than work.
      Thus, the economy will switch over to producing things of value, that people will buy, rather than things with no inherent value (hello kitty tweezers?) that few people will. And society will become more loose with their money, as over time, the money they have will allow any regular citizen to fund and pay others to devise solutions to their problems; and that money flow plus an added few years of money, will allow the next generation to be financially independent and capitalize the next generation.

      People spend more on what's worth to them in the now instead of just mindlessly consuming, because people are now intuitively aware that the value of anything they buy is zero. (everything falls apart, wears out, or has a fixed lifespan)
      People will be able to travel and have more life experiences.

    13. Re:Lets see if we get this right..... by stephenmac7 · · Score: 1

      I think the lesson is that deflation is actually be a good thing, especially for long-term savings. Plus, who doesn't want to wake up to lower prices every day?

      --
      "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." -- Judge Gideon J. Tucker
  3. Re:20 mil on a pizza... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

    Spread your transactions over a few days on all the exchanges.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  4. Deflation by Elfich47 · · Score: 4, Funny

    It can work if there is some sort of central authority managing the money supply. I'm sure Bitcoin thought of that and has built that into their system.

    --
    Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
    1. Re:Deflation by cloud.pt · · Score: 1

      I don't know if you suddenly turned into irony, if it was irony from your first comment, or if it still is honest obliviousness to whatever you're saying being the actual problems of current currencies (and the "solutions" eventually found to "counter" the problems).

    2. Re:Deflation by Elfich47 · · Score: 1

      My second comment was spiced with irony.

      --
      Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
  5. Re:Bitcoin is doomed to fail by Notabadguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anyone still on the bitcoin bandwagon are the ones who either have free electricity or criminals. As a currency it's just doomed to fail due to the ever changing "value" people attribute to it. It's simply too volatile. One day it can be worth $2k and the next it could be worth $500. The fact it becomes rarer after a while, only the ones who invested heavily in bitcoin in the early days actually made a decent profit, today if you join, you basically get peanuts.

    That's the nature of every system, including Wall Street, education, investments, government, and sex.

    The ones who get in early reap the benefits.

  6. Re:Bitcoin is doomed to fail by war4peace · · Score: 1

    today if you join, you basically pay peanuts

    There, fixed it.

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  7. Re:Bitcoin is doomed to fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, you were whining 5 years ago; had you invested 5k, you could retire today.

    Instead, you're still whining today.

  8. Re:Bitcoin is doomed to fail by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    Those are expensive peanuts.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  9. Re:Bitcoin is doomed to fail by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

    The ones who get in early reap the benefits.

    Unless you're Apple, then you can join the party late, come out with a new design, and claim to have invented it first. MP3 players before the iPod? Meh... Cellphones before the iPhone? Meh... PCs before the Macs? Meh...

  10. Exchange rate risk and fixed money supplies by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bit coin is slowly limiting the supply of new bit coin (by design), which drives up the price of bitcoin.

    Correct. This is because the makers of bitcoin were under the (incorrect) belief that having no ability to adjust the money supply quickly (ala the gold standard) is beneficial and failed to understand why such a system failed. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    So every time you go to buy a good or service you spend less bitcoin because its value has increased.

    Not necessarily true. Just because the supply of bitcoins is (roughly) fixed it doesn't mean the demand for them is fixed. The price can and does go both up and down with great regularity.

    I see a problem emerging when someone says they want to get paid in a fixed amount of bitcoin per hour.

    That would be no different than saying you want to be paid a fixed number of dollars per hour. Inflation/deflation are real things with real consequences. Doesn't matter if you are talking about bitcoins or dollars. The difference of course is that you can buy most things with dollars but very few things with bitcoins so you are experiencing exchange rate risk in addition to simple inflation/deflation.

    1. Re:Exchange rate risk and fixed money supplies by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

      I didn't learn this shit from history. I didn't even learn this shit from an economics class. I just modeled a bunch of different monetary policies in my head and identified that fiat with fractional reserve provides massive advantages and gives the greatest long-term stability, while commodity currency (e.g. gold) suffers from deflationary problems and commodity instability (new, productive gold mine means sudden inflation).

      That would be no different than saying you want to be paid a fixed number of dollars per hour

      Bitcoins are deflationary and somewhat unstable in the short-term.

    2. Re:Exchange rate risk and fixed money supplies by Elfich47 · · Score: 2

      The difference between bitcoin and a money supply backed by a country: The country can increase or decrease the money supply to influence how the economy works. So the country can affect inflation or deflation and how much of it we have. BitCoin cannot. So if there is a run on bitcoin, there is no way to put the brakes on.

      Right now no one values things by bitcoin without checking its value against the dollar. If people want to go onto an actual bitcoin economy that is indenpendant of the dollar they are going to encounter the issues the banking industry encountered in the 1920's and 1930's before banking regulation was instituted.

      --
      Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
    3. Re:Exchange rate risk and fixed money supplies by Elfich47 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here is the problem: Bitcoin, by design is slowly limiting the amount of bitcoin available (this is similar to the availability of gold). So each bitcoin is worth more. I as a worked want to get paid in a fixed amount of bitcoin every week. I don't want to get paid on a floating amount based on daily trade values of the currency. Trying to budget for anything when you don't know if you are getting paid 1 bitcoin, 2 bitcoin or 1.76543 bitcoin this week would drive people mad. As more people use the currency, more currency is needed for people to use. Otherwise no one has currency to use and the currency is worthless to use.

      The average person wants a currency that has a stable value and is easy to spend and be paid with. Playing the "well, we need to check its trading value before we can pay you" game will drive people to riot. Check out the bank runs and currency fluctuations of the 1920's and 1930's as a good example. Governments clamped down on a lot of the excesses at that point.

      --
      Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
    4. Re:Exchange rate risk and fixed money supplies by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      No, discovery of a big new gold mine reduces the value of gold, meaning deflation. When central banks manage a fiat currency, their supposed goal is to avoid flation of either kind by continually adjusting the money supply to match the aggregate value of everything that is exchangeable for it.

      In practice, most central banks overestimate the value of their nation's economy over time, causing the currency to inflate.

    5. Re:Exchange rate risk and fixed money supplies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't see why parent post is modded Insightful. To me, it looks like another bitcoin-hate rant, typical of "I-wish-I-were-an-early-adopter" people.

      Posting as AC because, yes, I want to be a bit mean once in a while. But what I'm gonna say does not apply exclusively to the original poster, it's more of a general complaint, because I'm sick of listening to the same controversies over and over. I am myself not an early adopter, but I think people should just grow up and stop throwing sh*t at everything they are jealous of.

      First of all, it's funny to see opinions such as "why Bitcoin is doomed to fail/succeed". I guess strong opinions have their charm, but the truth is *nobody really knows yet*. Don't make a fool of yourself, the Trump-style dialectic does not appeal to everyone.

      If you look at the reason of "why the gold standard failed", literally NONE of these reasons apply to cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. The thing people seem to fail understanding is that Bitcoins are VERY FINE-GRAINELY splittable. If the price of a BTC increases too much, people will start trading in milli-BTC, then micro-BTC, then nano-BTC, etc. There's no such thing as "There won't be enough Bitcoins to run all the world's economy". So please stop with this cr*p.

      As for "It also prevents central banks from being the arbiters of the money supply"... sorry, am I the only one seeing this as a GOOD thing?

      And, in case anybody is even considering that, I refuse to enter into the debate "BTC is fake and without any value, unlike real currencies and gold", because that's just moron. I suspect even the silliest supporters of this claim start to realize how dumb this sound, because luckily I am seeing this argument less and less lately.

    6. Re: Exchange rate risk and fixed money supplies by Zenin · · Score: 1

      Modest inflation isn't an accident of over estimation, it's a feature created intentionally to limit hording and currency speculation.

      --
      My /. uid is better then your /. uid
    7. Re:Exchange rate risk and fixed money supplies by omnichad · · Score: 2

      reduces the value of gold, meaning deflation

      That's inflation.

    8. Re: Exchange rate risk and fixed money supplies by fubarrr · · Score: 1, Insightful

      i give you B- for economics

      Republic of China had two decades of economic growth while having a deliberately set deflationary monetary policy. This is a country that now supplies 90% of world's microchips

    9. Re: Exchange rate risk and fixed money supplies by XXongo · · Score: 1

      i give you B- for economics. Republic of China had two decades of economic growth while having a deliberately set deflationary monetary policy.

      Republic of China-- you mean Taiwan?

      Taiwan's economics are not measured in Taiwanese dollars. The inflation deflation rate of Taiwainese dollars is irrelevant, since that's not the currency in which they do their foreign trade.

    10. Re:Exchange rate risk and fixed money supplies by udachny · · Score: 2

      Well your head is broken. Inflation by government and central banks is what destroys the economy by stealing value of savings and spending that value on consumables and on growing the government at the expense of savings and of the productive economy. Savings is what actually allocates money in the free market, fiat and inflation are policies of theft and misallocation of scarce resources.

    11. Re:Exchange rate risk and fixed money supplies by XXongo · · Score: 1
      I don't think you understand money supply.

      Flipping your bitcoins from wallet to wallet doesn't increase their value. Your bitcoins value does not change when they change wallets.

      Actually buying goods and services with bitcoins will (very slightly) cause inflation (since inflation rate is proportional to the velocity of money, and not just the money supply. When you buy things, instead of hoarding your bitcoins, you increase the average velocity of money.). But not significantly, unless your bitcoin purchases are a non-negligible portion of the currency supply.

    12. Re:Exchange rate risk and fixed money supplies by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

      I think they just wanted to create the digital equivalent of gold. I sincerely doubt that bitcoin was anything else than a simulation. Only people were so stupid as to believe it was real money. And the fun thing with money is that it automatically becomes money if you only believe in it.

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    13. Re:Exchange rate risk and fixed money supplies by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Yes, pardon me, inflation in gold. More commonly over time the supply of goods increases because if technology faster than the supply of gold, causing gold to deflate.

    14. Re:Exchange rate risk and fixed money supplies by Cipheron · · Score: 1

      Satoshi never intended BitCoin to be a viable currency, it was implemented merely as a proof of concept of his research paper which outlined using the blockchain technology to solve the "double spend problem" inherent in digital currencies unless there's a third party to validate the transaction. The limits built into it were designed to create a limited amount, because it wasn't intended as anything other than a proof of the technology outlined in the paper.

    15. Re:Exchange rate risk and fixed money supplies by Cipheron · · Score: 1

      Additionally, the protocol has built into it a mechanism in which the person processing the block can charge an optional fee for processing each transaction. As the value of new bitcoins created per transaction drops, there will be competition, and some creators will start adding in transaction fees. The node willing to charge the least wins out in those cases, so there is stiff competition in the bitcoin transaction-processing business. Basically those who use too much energy to do so are driven out of the market, and will be even more so once the automatic rewards per block start to disappear. it's an interesting mechanism.

    16. Re:Exchange rate risk and fixed money supplies by Cipheron · · Score: 1

      The problem with that logic ... is that if prices were all set in BitCoin, then the BitCoin price *wouldn't vary*. It varies against the US Dollar, not against itself. So prices stated in BitCoin would be much more stable if all costs and prices *were in bitcoin*.

    17. Re:Exchange rate risk and fixed money supplies by Cipheron · · Score: 1

      Also, the total amount of bitcoin will stabilize in like ... 150 years. After that it won't go up or down. It's not the amount of bitcoin that's decreasing, it's the rate at which the supply expands. Right now it's much more expansionary than fiat currencies but the price is still rising. It's not supply that's driving that. Meanwhile, advanced economies are going to be lucky to average 1-2% growth per year. If the amount of currency was fixed, then deflation in an economy growing at 1-2% would only be deflation of 1-2% per year in prices. With that sort of relative stability, deflation might not be much of an issue, you just need to adjust prices now and then. A 1-2% increase in your money value per year isn't going to stop people spending.

    18. Re:Exchange rate risk and fixed money supplies by Cipheron · · Score: 1

      Yeah, no, that's not how bitcoins work sorry. Each block makes a set amount of bitcoins. If you make more transactions, then you might just mean the next block is generated a little quicker to account for the extra transactions that need to be processed in the same time period. That means more bitcoins made, not less. i.e. spamming fake transactions could cause a tiny bit of inflation.

      The other thing that could happen is that block generators start applying transactions fees to your fake transactions, i.e. they take 1/10000 of the value, to cover the costs of processing. That's going to cause value to circulate because of your transaction spamming, and then those guys can spend the fractions of your transaction, which is also inflationary.

    19. Re:Exchange rate risk and fixed money supplies by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 5, Informative

      When central banks manage a fiat currency, their supposed goal is to avoid flation of either kind by continually adjusting the money supply to match the aggregate value of everything that is exchangeable for it.

      The explicit goal of the Federal Treasury is a 2% inflation rate in the U.S.. They estimate inflation based on a core set of goods, and ignore everything else, which is why inflation seems so off. Inflation the way most people think about it isn't really a thing: money doesn't have blanket buying power in terms of goods.

      Think of it like this: we have a range of wages, with a median income. Those wages are dollars per labor hour. If we double them all, immediately, and just print up twice the money, we get 100% inflation and no change in the relative cost of goods; all the prices must go up to match (get to that next). That's what people think of when you talk about inflation: everything is priced higher, we adjust the number of dollars upward.

      The thing is that's not how it works. Money isn't that kind of magic. You've seen hard drives get cheaper (from thousands of dollars for any unit--at a few megabytes--to today's pennies-per-gigabyte and $80 full units), displays get cheaper (again: thousands of dollars to $100 or so, and the screens are bigger), phones get cheaper ($4,000 for a cell phone in 1983; $350 for a OnePlus 3t in 2016), and so forth. Food, clothing, housing, medical care, these things rise in price or even in proportion of spending; yet people eat out more (food + servants), spend a smaller percentage of their income on these things (food and clothing), or spend a bigger percentage of their income while buying more than the difference (e.g. 4% of median income spending today would buy more and better healthcare than 4% of the median income bought in 1950, and instead people spend 6% of their income and buy even more).

      It's not just that some things price up and others price down anyway; it's that they price up and down at different rates. Food and clothing prices both grow more-slowly than wages, and so the inflation rate of food is different than the inflation rate of clothing. Even then, different foods and different clothes change differently.

      So what actually happens?

      Well, the minimum viable cost of a product has a hard-bound at the wages to supply it. Imagine all wages involved in making a shirt are $10/hr, including the cotton farming, the dying, the shipping, the retail, business management to get all this organized, and everything else. If it takes a total of 14 labor hours to get that shirt into your hands, then either that shirt costs no less than $140 or somebody doesn't get paid. Get that cut down to 3 labor-hours per shirt and the shirt has to cost more than $30--at a 40% profit, it would cost $42!

      That's why prices come down: the costs come down. Each business in the supply chain has some profit, which bumps those prices above the wage-labor cost; lower the wage-labor costs and the price coming out of that business is still lower with the same profit margins. The profit margins are as high as the market will bear, and reducing the minimum price possible allows another manufacturer to target consumers who can't afford your product at its current price; because existing buyers would rather spend $50 than $100, you lose business to the new guy unless you cut your prices, so the broader market forces a narrowing of profit margins by increasing the pressure from competition (either actual competitors or potential competitors by way of making it less-risky for someone to try to break into your market). Without that particular beating stick, prices would just stay high.

      Importantly, people still have the same labor to trade.

      Recall above I said that prices must go up if you double the amount of wages and money? Here's why.

      Population can expand until it reaches carry capacity. Carry capacity happens when you hit scarcity. Th

    20. Re:Exchange rate risk and fixed money supplies by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      "Savings" in the long-term is the removal of money from the economy. Money that goes unspent is the same as money that's been burned. If you put your money in the bank and then come back 10 years later and take it out to spend it, it's functionally the same as printing new money.

      Consumables are the productive economy. What do you think production is? Computers are consumable. Cars are consumable. Houses are consumable. None of those things continues to exist in working order without a steady flow of maintenance, which means productive labor.

    21. Re: Exchange rate risk and fixed money supplies by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1

      For future reference, the word should be hoarding. I suppose that ancient Mongols could have practiced hording.

    22. Re:Exchange rate risk and fixed money supplies by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That's a false premise. The gold standard didn't fail, it worked for millennia. We moved off the gold standard as an international currency because it was too hard for the US government to balance its budget.

      On the other hand, we have seen fiat currencies fail many, many times. The US has only been on fiat currency since 1971. It remains to be seen if we can manage it or not.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    23. Re:Exchange rate risk and fixed money supplies by IcyWolfy · · Score: 1

      That people will save, rather than consume.
      It moves the financial responsibilty directly onto the individual, and acts as the inverse of the stock-market, 401k, retirement vessels, and taxation to fund ventures.

      The only difference between inflationary and deflationary is the point of reference.
      Inflationary polity holds the value of transient commodities constant, while the value of currency fluxuates. The problem, is the natural value of all consumer commodies approces zero; leading to a never ending task of stopping inflation from dividing by zero and heading to hyperinflation.

      Deflationary policy holds the value of the currency constant over time, and the value of commodities decreases over time. This creates a much more stable system over time as the value of produced things degrade to zero over it's consumable life-span, the economic value of the item also approaches zero; and thus the currency, and economic output remain stable without intervention and monitoring.

      People will still spend money, but on what is important to them, rather than mindless consumerism.
      People will still buy food.
      Buy housing, etc.
      But those who want, can live normally, with a modest income.

      Those who put off purchases for a year, will see just how much more money will buy, and will be able to save for retirement, through purchases though time, rather than work.

      Thus, the economy will switch over to producing things of value, that people will buy, rather than things with no inherent value (hello kitty tweezers?) that few people will.

      And society will become more loose with their money, as over time, the money they have will allow any regular citizen to fund and pay others to devise solutions to their problems; and that money flow plus an added few years of money, will allow the next generation to be financially independent and capitalize the next generation.

      People spend more on what's worth to them in the now instead of just mindlessly consuming, because people are now intuitively aware that the value of anything they buy is zero. (everything falls apart, wears out, or has a fixed lifespan)
      People will be able to travel and have more life experiences.

    24. Re:Exchange rate risk and fixed money supplies by IcyWolfy · · Score: 1

      Depends on which language you speak. Grammar will go by the natural plural; and US-English may use "bitcoin" non-plural; most of the world will use natural plural of English and add an "-s": bitcoins. Or, they will pluralize by composition: cat cats, tomcat tomcats; coin coins, bitcoin bitcoins. Or, they will pluralize by analogy: loin(s) bitcoin(s), or by grammatical rule: 1 book, 1.0 books, 1 potato, 0.4 potatoes; 1 bitcoin, 0.559 bitcoins.

      English, also defines the plural explictly as for all numbers other than one, and for all fractional values. 1 book, 1.0 books.
         

    25. Re: Exchange rate risk and fixed money supplies by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

      That's not the real reason. Central banks inflate because it devalues their government's debt. It allows governments to spend more than they collect in taxes. This is politically favored, because people hate taxes, but mostly don't understand national debts and inflation.

  11. Re:Bitcoin is doomed to fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's the online extortion racket that is creating a big part of this rise in the price of bitcoin. Would it really have gone up so much if so many people weren't being asked to buy and send it to criminals as a result of viruses and malware? The problem with that is that it is increasingly becoming seen by the general population as the way for criminals to make and move money, therefore it is becoming ever more tainted.

  12. Re:Bitcoin is doomed to fail by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    You're comparing an old cellphone to a smartphone? You're a fucking moron.

    You asshats have no sense of humor whatsoever.

    If I had to guess, you've gone a long stretch being unemployed because of how dumb you are.

    If I had to guess, you're still living in your mother's basement.

  13. Re:Bitcoin is doomed to fail by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Oh please, like stocks ain't basically gambling these days. Buy shares from a startup, I dare you.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  14. Re:Bitcoin is doomed to fail by PPH · · Score: 1

    What exactly are you investing in?

    The elimination of cash in India, the EU and soon the USA.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  15. Re:Bitcoin is doomed to fail by stinerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're investing in the hope that someone else in the future will want to pay more for it.

    It's nothing more than speculation. And people have been made rich (and poor) by speculating for a very long time.

  16. Don't forget the BTC transaction fees by timholman · · Score: 5, Informative

    The flip side (which BTC proponents don't want to talk about) is that fees are currently running around $2 USD per transaction if you don't want your transaction to sit around unconfirmed for hours if not days. The Chinese mining pools are loving it.

    You want to buy a $20 item with BTC? Someone has to pay that ~10% transaction fee on top of sales tax. Credit card fees are a bargain by comparison. So what has happened is that Bitcoin has become useless for what its supporters intended it to be - as money (unless the transaction is large enough to make the transaction fee negligible). Bitcoin has devolved almost exclusively into an instrument for speculation, blackmail, and transactions in illegal goods.

    Even the big names in BTC processing (e.g. BitPay) are calling for an increase in the block size, which of course is being ignored by the mining pools. Why would they change a system that is funneling money into their pockets with each transaction? The alternative is a hard fork in the blockchain, but that may result in a crash in BTC prices.

    The next few months will be interesting for Bitcoin.

    1. Re:Don't forget the BTC transaction fees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The flip side (which BTC proponents don't want to talk about) is that fees are currently running around $2 USD per transaction if you don't want your transaction to sit around unconfirmed for hours if not days

      The flip side to that (which BTC opponents don't want to talk about) is that credit card processing fees are currently running around 3% plus $0.15 per transaction if you want to accept and receive payments at all.

      $2 to convert 1 bitcoin into another currency is a great deal, as a credit merchant would charge over $60 for the same amount.

      $2 to convert one ten hundredth of a bitcoin or less isn't much of a deal, as a credit merchant would only charge $0.65 or so for the same amount.

      So what has happened is that Bitcoin has become useless for what its supporters intended it to be - as money (unless the transaction is large enough to make the transaction fee negligible). Bitcoin has devolved almost exclusively into an instrument for speculation, blackmail, and transactions in illegal goods.

      That sure is the truth.

      On the former point, about the only way to use bitcoin as originally intended is by keeping the entire end-to-end transaction within the bitcoin ecosystem, which alone makes it fairly pointless (or at least expensive) to use as a form of money. About the only cost effective use would be for some type of investment/speculation use.
      Which moves right into the latter point, in that all of the massive criminal usages of bitcoin keeps the ecosystem insanely volatile as to be incredibly unwise to use for investment purposes.

      Instead we just have no other choice but to give up all forms of currency except the one supported by your current government, granting them final say on if and when you are given permission to partake in society.
      As we know all too well, it's completely impossible to use two separate and unrelated currency systems at the same time, such as cash and credit, or cash and bitcoin.

    2. Re:Don't forget the BTC transaction fees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't get it why this myth keeps perpetuating. Care to explain how the huge public ledger that is the blockchain anonymous?

    3. Re:Don't forget the BTC transaction fees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except that, No.

      https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/80785477342478336?lang=en

      Did you forget or did you ever even know?

      ```
      Bitcoin is often described as an anonymous currency because it is possible to send and receive bitcoins without giving any personally identifying information. However, achieving reasonable anonymity with Bitcoin can be quite complicated and perfect anonymity may be impossible. Bitcoin is pseudonymous.
      ```

      It wasn't another few years before the IRS recognized bitcoin https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-14-21.pdf

      And this is the US government we're talking about here, too.

      They like cash, because its traceable. They're OK with electronic transactions, because its all traceable.

      Then comes along Bitcoin and people are calling it anonymous, for several years the media casts bitcoin as only being used by criminals.

      Then Andreson talks to the CIA and shortly after big brother and the media change their tune to 'oh well I guess its ok, since we can trace it'.

      Its not Anonymous.

    4. Re:Don't forget the BTC transaction fees by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't get it why this myth keeps perpetuating. Care to explain how the huge public ledger that is the blockchain anonymous?

      anonymous
      nnms
      adjective
      (of a person) not identified by name; of unknown name.
      undesignated, unacknowledged, mystery; More
      having no outstanding, individual, or unusual features; unremarkable or impersonal.

      Just because something is on record doesn't make it any less anonymous. Just like your post. Just like my post. Do you know who I am? How do you identify me personally? That is what anonymity is.

      The word you're confusing it with is traceable. Bitcoin is traceable, and by nature it would need to be otherwise it would be a failure as a currency. All currencies need to be traceable to two origins: The origin of the people undertaking the transaction and the origin of its value. USD does this through physical means (you gave it to me physical so I can trace it back to you) or through 3rd parties (my bank confirmed they now owe me more dollars than previous and identified you as the reason for this change, and the other is achieved through serial numbers and anti-counterfeiting measures.

      Bitcoin does this through the ledger.

    5. Re:Don't forget the BTC transaction fees by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      one ten hundredth of a bitcoin

      And this is exactly where bitcoin loses entirely. Nobody wants to deal with a currency that requires fractional exponential notation. Not even scientists and engineers.

      Nobody wants to buy a loaf of bread in micro-units of anything, and very few of the world's keyboard have the mu symbol on it.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    6. Re:Don't forget the BTC transaction fees by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The most obvious way to solve that problem is to create a sub-currency backed by bit-coin. Sort of like how a share of Berkshire Hathaway stock is worth over $100k, but you can get a B division of Berkshire Hathaway for closer to $100.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  17. Re:Bitcoin is doomed to fail by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    What exactly are you investing in? The continued growth of the black market in drugs, weapons, murder for hire, ... ?

    I see an emerging growth market in kidnappings for ransom, a crime which has fallen out of favor in the US because it's too easy to surveil the money drop. Now that Bitcoin has been established as untraceable, kidnapping will be back in style.

  18. Re:Bitcoin is doomed to fail by Kjella · · Score: 1

    That's the nature of every system, including Wall Street, education, investments, government, and sex. The ones who get in early reap the benefits.

    Note to self: Don't hire "Notabadguy" as babysitter.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  19. currency vs commodity by Danathar · · Score: 1

    There are too many shortcomings for it to supplant more valuable currencies, but as a commodity and for specific use cases it's going to stay around. I laugh when I hear some anti-bitcoin person write or say that it's dead or going to die, yet it keeps right on doing it's thing (whatever that ends up being for whatever purpose). Bitcoin is here to stay.

  20. Re:Confused by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    152% you say. Hmm. If you bought bitcoins a few years ago...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  21. Deflation is bad by XXongo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Deflation and Inflation are not a bad thing on their own.

    Sorry, but wrong. Deflation is indeed a bad thing. Deflation means that currency gets more valuable with time. This means that is to everybody's advantage to hoard currency, since it gets more valuable the longer you hold onto it. That means less currency in circulation, which means it gets even more valuable with time, which means people hoard it more. This is a bad vicious cycle.

    Deflation is a bad feedback cycle.

    If their rate is in balanced with the rest of the economy it isn't that big of a deal.

    Deflation can be "balanced" with the rest of the economy if the rest of the economy is crashing. I suppose in that case you could say that the "not good" part should be attributed to some other part of the economy, not to the deflation itself, but, no, it's not good. In more general terms, tas currency increasing in value with respect to the things that can be purchased, there really isn't any time at which it is good.

    1. Re:Deflation is bad by medv4380 · · Score: 1

      You're right, but there is a good form of deflation. Monetary deflation as you've described is always bad. Constricting the money supply will always cause a cascading debt default. Good deflation is caused by increases in efficiency. For example, I could make the same RAM today for less than I could 6 months ago. That kind of deflation improves the likelihood of paying back debt and increases the customer base by allowing prices drops.

    2. Re:Deflation is bad by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but wrong. Deflation is indeed a bad thing. Deflation means that currency gets more valuable with time. This means that is to everybody's advantage to hoard currency, since it gets more valuable the longer you hold onto it. That means less currency in circulation, which means it gets even more valuable with time, which means people hoard it more. This is a bad vicious cycle.

      I want to point out that this is a hypothesis frequently used to justify inflation, but in fact there is little evidence to support it. There just haven't been many periods of deflation to really develop an empirical understanding of how people will react, so all we have is guess work. And somehow the guesswork always leans to the side that people wanted it to.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Deflation is bad by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

      > This means that is to everybody's advantage to hoard currency, since it gets more valuable the longer you hold onto it

      Except in the real world, most people have to spend most of their income for necessities (food, shelter, utilities, etc.) regardless if the currency is inflating or deflating. There is also no point in hoarding cash if you can earn a better return from investing. Savvy investors calculate the "real return" on their investments, which is nominal return minus inflation. If inflation is negative (deflation), it doesn't change the formula, only the value you are subtracting from positive to negative. You can still find a real rate of return.

    4. Re:Deflation is bad by stephenmac7 · · Score: 1

      This means that is to everybody's advantage to hoard currency, since it gets more valuable the longer you hold onto it.

      I believe the word is save, not hoard. Deflation does not work like you think it does. Money is just like any other good in the economy, and so its price is set just like every other good -- by supply and demand schedules. There's nothing special about money that exempts it from the normal way we analyze goods. Under your logic, the same would happen to stocks. If a stock goes up, then people would buy more of it and it would become a "vicious cycle" of price increases in the stock. Yes, there are bubbles due to bad judgement, but the idea is the same: the price of currency can go up and down. When it goes up too fast, that just means that it hasn't found its correct price point yet. The price of money doesn't change how many goods are produced. No one is going to say "Darn, I can't sell for 0.0005 BTC, I'll have to set the price to 0.0004 BTC and pay my employees 20% less. I don't want to do that. I'll just stop producing anything and let my capital rot!"

      --
      "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." -- Judge Gideon J. Tucker
  22. Re:Bitcoin is doomed to fail by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

    That's the nature of every system, including Wall Street, education, investments, government, and sex.
    The ones who get in early reap the benefits.

    Please do elaborate on how that universal dogma applies to sex.

  23. Fresh phish by thunderclees · · Score: 1

    Wannacry must be driving the value up...

  24. YO DAWG, I heard you like mining bitcoin... by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    I believe bitcoin has value when someone actually expends the effort to find that legendary harddrive with a cache of 7500 bitcoins that got thrown out by accident.

    Literally mining a pile of garbage to recover old-growth, early sequence bitcoins.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  25. Deflation does not aid growth by sjbe · · Score: 2

    i give you B- for economics

    Gee thanks professor.

    Republic of China had two decades of economic growth while having a deliberately set deflationary monetary policy.

    I presume you are talking about Taiwan. Please cite your source for "deliberately set deflationary monetary policy". The Taiwan Dollar exchange rate has varied quite a bit on Forex markets in relation to the dollar but never consistently deflationary.

    This is a country that now supplies 90% of world's microchips

    Taiwan does supply the most but the number is no where near 90% and to my knowledge never has been.

  26. Re:Bitcoin is doomed to fail by Cipheron · · Score: 1

    Each bitcoin divides into 100,000,000 pieces. It's designed to be granular. in other words each "coin" would have to be worth millions before "rarer" was a meaningful term here.

  27. Re:Bitcoin is doomed to fail by Cipheron · · Score: 1

    Also, nope. Free electricity isn't going to make you a bitcoin miner these days, and you don't have to be a criminal to set up a data center. modern bitcoin operations are data-center sized:
    https://blog.bitmain.com/en/bi...

  28. Bitcoin vs economics by sjbe · · Score: 1

    I don't see why parent post is modded Insightful. To me, it looks like another bitcoin-hate rant, typical of "I-wish-I-were-an-early-adopter" people.

    Nope. Don't have the slightest regret for not getting involved in bitcoin. I think bitcoin is a dumb idea and I think it is important to say why so that people can make an informed decision about whether they want to bother with it or not. I'm sure some people have made a lot of money off bitcoin but I largely regard them as charlatans who found a greater fool.

    First of all, it's funny to see opinions such as "why Bitcoin is doomed to fail/succeed". I guess strong opinions have their charm, but the truth is *nobody really knows yet*.

    I might not know with 100% certainty but that doesn't mean I can't judge based on the evidence. And bitcoin is far from the first attempt at a new currency and it very clearly has certain known characteristics. I'm not about to pretend that the laws of economics have been repealed for the benefit of bitcoin. It has some advantages and a lot of disadvantages. There are many people telling falsehoods about which are which.

    If you look at the reason of "why the gold standard failed", literally NONE of these reasons apply to cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin.

    Sadly you couldn't be more wrong. Almost all of the criticisms relating to the gold standard apply. Basically the only thing bitcoin solves that was a problem in the gold standard is the problem of physically warehousing and transporting the gold if someone demanded it. Obviously with data this isn't an issue. Otherwise it is little different than any other fixed supply asset being used as a form of currency. Same economic rules apply - only the minor details of use differ. And that's a play we've seen before many many times.

    As for "It also prevents central banks from being the arbiters of the money supply"... sorry, am I the only one seeing this as a GOOD thing?

    Fixing the money supply to an unalterable amount does not solve the problem of the failures of central banks. In fact by all objective measures it actually increases the problems that central banks we created to deal with. Yes central banks do an imperfect job of managing the money supply. But there is no evidence to reasonably believe that bitcoin or any similar crypto-currency will do the job any better. That is just an unsupported pipe dream by bitcoin supporters.

    The thing people seem to fail understanding is that Bitcoins are VERY FINE-GRAINELY splittable.

    So is gold. Down to the atom if desired. You're failing to illustrate a difference. You can split a dollar in sub penny amounts too and it's done all the time down to 5-6 decimal points in many contexts.

    And, in case anybody is even considering that, I refuse to enter into the debate "BTC is fake and without any value, unlike real currencies and gold", because that's just moron.

    Bitcoin isn't fake. I just don't think it is a smart idea. It's proponents generally support it for either ideological reasons (typically unsupported by evidence) or sometimes for nefarious purposes. Proponents typically claim it is a cheaper way to exchange funds but that's only true if you don't adjust for risk. It's not widely accepted, has substantial deficiencies as a medium of exchange, is an unstable store of value, is based on still-unproven technology, and has a host of other serious issues. I haven't heard a single argument that I find credible that bitcoin will be the magical solution to the problems of central banks or fiat currencies. To date it largely seems to be attractive to those engaged in activities that they would prefer to remain untraceable to law enforcement and/or taxing authorities.

  29. Re:Bitcoin is doomed to fail by Cipheron · · Score: 1

    note: if you were using enough free electricity to generate any bitcoin these day on home rigs, you'd probably get raided because they thought you were running a hydroponic drug setup, and you'd get sweet FA bitcoin out of it. BitCoin is thoroughly in the corporate sphere now. The above datacenter uses 135 MW of solar and wind power for processing cryptocurrencies. No criminal organization can set up a clandestine operation churning 135MW of power, and that's what you need to compete in the mining market.

  30. Re:Bitcoin is doomed to fail by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    and sex.

    The ones who get in early reap the benefits.

    I see you've never been with a virgin before.

  31. Re:Crush ransomware underfoot and BTC is gone. by clovis · · Score: 1

    (Despite cipher-punk fantasies, there are few problems in real life which cannot be solved by hanging a few people from lamp posts and trees.)

    Racking my brain to think of an example problem that cannot be solved by hanging a few people from lamp posts. Can you give me an example?
    We need your answer by 10:00PM tonight.
    Thanks,
    The Management

  32. Re:Bitcoin is doomed to fail by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Add to that: there's always another chance to get rich. Right now, today, there is a stock you can buy that will get you millions in the next six months. The question is, and always has been, identifying it.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  33. You all know why, right? by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

    Hi Slashdot,

    Go look up the Nov 2016 Chinese changes to getting money out of the country, it's significantly more difficult now.
    Then go look up the value of bitcoin from that period until now.

    I'm from Melbourne, although I imagine anyone observant from London, Sydney, Vancouver, New York could confirm though, that there's an almost endless supply or Chinese housing investors hitting the big cities of the world and they're having more and more difficulty getting money out.

    Honestly, I can't see the value of bitcoin dropping in the short term, but I imagine if you own any, it may be wise to offload at some point, since it's being just artificially pumped to traffic Chinese cash into Western housing. From a goods and services perspective, I think it's EXTREMELY unlikely that a lot more retail stores or wholesalers have started offering it as a payment method, over the small handful who already had.

  34. IM RICH!!! by Drunkulus · · Score: 2

    Wow I left about 30 bitcoins in some bitcoin bank about 5 years ago! I'm gonna log in and CASH OUT! What was it called, Mount Cox or something? I wrote it down somewhere.

  35. Money creation and savings by sjbe · · Score: 1

    "Savings" in the long-term is the removal of money from the economy. Money that goes unspent is the same as money that's been burned.

    Not true at all as long as you hold your savings in a financial institution. Put your money in a savings account or similar and that money will get lent out to do other useful things in the economy. You can take it out of circulation by stuffing it in the figurative (or literal) mattress but that's not what happens to most money. Even if you purchase a financial instrument such as a stock or bond that money is merely transferred to someone else who can then put it to productive use. Now savings aren't perfectly efficient so there can be too much saving and not enough investing but that isn't the same thing as removing the money from the economy. It just means that the money isn't being utilized optimally.

    If you put your money in the bank and then come back 10 years later and take it out to spend it, it's functionally the same as printing new money.

    This is a direct contradiction to your assertion that savings = removal of money from the economy. If you put money into a bank and it gets lent out then it is not money that has "been burned" because it's in circulation. You are correct that fractional reserve banking has a money creation effect but that's the exact opposite of taking it out of circulation.

    1. Re:Money creation and savings by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Not true at all as long as you hold your savings in a financial institution. Put your money in a savings account or similar and that money will get lent out to do other useful things in the economy.

      Uh, hold on. My money in my bank accounts is spent by sending it to other bank accounts. Billionaires don't carry billions of dollars in cash; it sits in bank accounts, then gets transferred to other bank accounts. If that money is spent, it stays in the banking system, doing exactly the things you said; if it's unspent, it may well still stay in the bank account and provide a basis for fractional reserve lending, and it itself goes unspent.

      It seems that the difference between spending $40 million and saving $40 million is that $40 million is whether that $40 million becomes part of some business's revenue stream. In either case, that $40 million remains in financial institutions. So, again, savings that goes unspent is essentially removed from circulation.

      This is a direct contradiction to your assertion that savings = removal of money from the economy

      It's not. When you leave money unspent, it stops acting as revenue stream, thus stops supporting wages, thus stops affecting prices. The Fed adjusts the money supply to maintain 2% inflation. How does that affect the money supply?

      If you're spending your money, then it's being moved between accounts at financial institutions. It contributes to the loan basis for fractional banking. It also itself is a revenue stream for businesses, and acts as... well, money. It feeds into revenue and supports wages.

      If you're not spending your money, it's sitting in an account at a financial institution. It contributes to the loan basis for fractional banking. It is not itself a revenue stream and doesn't support wages. Over time, the Fed issues more currency in order to keep inflation at 2% per year, and in the process compensates for the reduction in spending caused by your money idling in a bank account.

      In that second situation, the Fed has issued more money; then, ten years later, you take your money out and spend it. It's as if your money (and not all of the loans based on it) was removed from the economy, new money was printed up to replace it, and then you magically poofed your money back into existence.

      Your argument has one huge, glaring flaw: spending your money doesn't take it out of the banking system. Money spent is still in the banks to act as a basis from which to issue loans.

  36. Gold standard problems by sjbe · · Score: 1

    That's a false premise. The gold standard didn't fail, it worked for millennia.

    Yes the gold standard failed. It caused more problems than it solved and it was impossible to maintain for a host of reasons. All the gold standard is fundamentally is a peg of a currency to a commodity - in this case gold but other commodities could be used to more or less the same effect. This does have certain advantages but it also carries some very important disadvantages as well.

    We moved off the gold standard as an international currency because it was too hard for the US government to balance its budget.

    The actual reasons are multiple but there are a few key ones. For various practical reasons mostly related to international trade it was impossible to move the gold around to perfectly match the money supply in any given country at any given time. "Paper" Currency can change countries faster than it is practical to move the gold around to match where the currency is. And since most money is not actually in the form of coins nor is it practical to exchange it that way we tried a variety of (ultimately futile) means to compensate. There also were issues relating to imbalances in money supply versus labor and capital mobility.

    If you want a modern example of the problems caused by a currency peg without the ability to adjust the money supply look at the problems Greece has had in recent years. When they joined the Euro they effectively pegged the drachma to the euro at a fixed rate (similar to a gold standard) and abrogated their right to tinker with the money supply. This has caused a host of difficult problems because the best tools to deal with the issues have been taken away from Greece.

    On the other hand, we have seen fiat currencies fail many, many times

    We've seen countries on the gold standard experience hyperinflation many times. The Weimar Republic is probably the most notable example and it led more or less directly to a world war. The gold standard is not a viable means to prevent this from happening. Countries on various incarnations of a gold standard defaulted routinely.

    The US has only been on fiat currency since 1971

    The US left the gold standard effectively in 1933 under FDR. What happened in 1971 is that the US stopped converting dollars to gold at a fixed rate but the US had already de-facto left the gold standard decades earlier.

    It remains to be seen if we can manage it or not.

    True enough I suppose but we've already proven that the gold standard cannot work in a modern economy so I'm not sure why you seem to favor returning to something that we've already established did not work well enough. Bitcoin does not show any characteristics that eliminate most of the problems with the gold standard aside from the physical transport issues.

    1. Re:Gold standard problems by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      No, you're wrong. The gold standard worked for millenia. All the examples you linked to of problems are merely problems of governments unable to balance a budget.

      Furthermore, you're a moron because you think that the Weimer republic money wasn't fiat currency. What, do you think they were backing it with gold? Read your own link, it literally says, "To pay for the large costs of the ongoing First World War, Germany suspended the gold standard"

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  37. Money is not like anything else by XXongo · · Score: 1

    This means that is to everybody's advantage to hoard currency, since it gets more valuable the longer you hold onto it.

    I believe the word is save, not hoard. Deflation does not work like you think it does. Money is just like any other good in the economy,

    Nope. Money is the medium of exchange.

    and so its price is set just like every other good -- by supply and demand schedules.

    Of course. The fact that money is not "like any other good in the economy" does not exempt it from supply and demand.

    The rest of your argument fails because you apparently think "money is just like any other good in the economy" and thus a liquidity crisis is no big deal. A liquidity crisis actually is a big deal.

    There's a quote I like: "Money, to a society, plays the same role that blood does to an organism. When it fails to circulate, the organism dies."

  38. Deflation is bad doesn't mean inflation is good by XXongo · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but wrong. Deflation is indeed a bad thing. Deflation means that currency gets more valuable with time. This means that is to everybody's advantage to hoard currency, since it gets more valuable the longer you hold onto it. That means less currency in circulation, which means it gets even more valuable with time, which means people hoard it more. This is a bad vicious cycle.

    I want to point out that this is a hypothesis frequently used to justify inflation, but

    Like almost everything, saying "X is bad" does not mean "the opposite extreme must therefore be good."

    Most things, in economics and in life in general, involve a trade-off. Saying "deflation is bad" should not be used to imply "inflation is good":
    Medio tutissimus ibis.

    in fact there is little evidence to support it. There just haven't been many periods of deflation to really develop an empirical understanding of how people will react, so all we have is guess work. And somehow the guesswork always leans to the side that people wanted it to.

  39. It's absolute value doesn't matter by FeelGood314 · · Score: 1

    I want to use it like money. Money has 3 requirements for me.
    1. Store of value
    2. Medium of exchange
    3. Unit of account

    As long as it doesn't drastically lose value bit coin is a good store of value.
    Where it is accepted it's transaction costs are very low compared to using banks or credit cards. It does differ from cash in that transactions do not occur instantly
    Unit of account is where bitcoin currently fails to be a currency. Very few items are actually valued in Bitcoin. Most items are valued in US dollars and then the current bitcoin conversion is quoted. Even if I had an online business that sold everything in bitcoin I would still likely count the value of my inventory in US dollars, or Euros.

    The block size and the number of coins mined per day both need to increase though so that transaction times and transaction costs decrease.

  40. Reminds me of Ponzi by jf_moreira · · Score: 1

    For some reason, today's bitcoin operation reminds me of Pyramid Schemes, where only the first people actually make money. This system is going to fail somewhere in the future. And it's being taken by terrorists and crackers as a way of receiving untracked money. It doesn't matter. Unregulated "freedom" stuff here on earth will never work because of human (bad) nature.