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.

32 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 dr.Flake · · Score: 2

      He bought 2 pizza's

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

      We're supposed to read the comments too now?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    4. 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.

  2. 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!

  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.
  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 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.

  7. 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...

  8. 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 omnichad · · Score: 2

      reduces the value of gold, meaning deflation

      That's inflation.

    5. 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.

    6. 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

  9. 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.
  10. 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.

  11. 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.
  12. 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.

  13. 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 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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
  19. 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.

  20. 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.