Unless you see a hard limit to which an economy will ever grow, placing a hard limit on a currency supply is absolutely going to be disastrous.
How about we let the economy run on fiat money, and we keep bitcoin as a parallel currency for those of us who don't want to see their savings evaporate ?
A soft limit, such as that advocated by Friedman
A soft limit is no limit, because it will be removed whenever it is deemed necessary.
Then you have economic power, and you're not just a miner.
I don't *have* to include blocks just because of their transaction fees
No, but if you don't, then some other miner will take them, and you've just given them a monetary advantage they can use to expand their mining capacity.
Every currency is simply backed by trust. When someone hands you the currency in return for work or goods, you expect to hand the currency back to someone else the next day. As long as that trust exist, there's no need for any other kind of value.
Suppose you do a month's work for me. I offer you a choice of payment in cash or 1 bitcoin. Assuming it will take a few days to sell that bitcoin, what amount of cash would you consider it equivalent to ?
That would require a fork, and the miners make that decision. It is not in their financial interest to make that choice.
Miners don't make the decision. People with economic power make the decision, and miners simply follow the money. This was demonstrated last month by the failure of SegWit2x, which was supported by 90% of the miners, and only 15% of the people. The miners lost.
What kind of idiot is totally ignorant of the ginormous boost to tech that resulted from the space race???
To be fair, you'd have to compare it with the things you could do by allocating the same budget on something else. We could fund quantum computers, fusion reactors, batteries, solar panels, or a bunch of other things.
The moon program brought us solid state, microprocessors and miniaturization the went orders of magnitude better than anything previously produced,
Those things would have been made without the moon program too. And if we'd do it for a second time, the benefits would be less, because we already have most of the tech we need.
It wouldn't take much advancement from our current technology to send ships there to identify good targets, mine the asteroids, and then bring the materials back to Earth.
Except that it would cost more than mining it right here on Earth.
I have noticed that UFO sightings were a lot more common when people weren't carrying smartphones with integrated cameras with them. Now that everybody's got one, the UFOs have disappeared.
Gold looks like gold from every angle and does not change color. Brass changes color with angle.
Ah, so that's why people prefer rings with pieces of cheap window glass, because it looks like glass from every angle, and does not change color. Diamond changes color with angle.
But what makes you think this isn't a stable system?
Better question: what makes you think it is a stable system. You have two parties, one of them gives valuable stuff to the other, and they get intrinsically worthless tokens in return.
Have you studied this issue and determined that the US economy will collapse in the near future?
Yes, I have studied it. And no, the US economy isn't going to collapse in the near future.
the US generates a GDP of $18.5 Trillion (with a big T) per year
You should look at the trade balance instead. Since the '70s the US has been a net importer of goods, and exporter of promises written on green pieces of paper.
And the normal value will be determined by people who are willing to accept it, who are not the "real believers" of bit coin
The real believers will use it amongst themselves. There are 7 billion people. If only 1% believes in bitcoin, that means 70 million people fighting over 21 million coins.
how the value has been manipulated downwards by other big players.
After the big players have dumped everything they can, they can't manipulate it again.
Eventually mining mostly dries up and the miners have to make money from transactions instead
There will always be transactions of course. At 100 sat/byte, a full 1MB block is worth 1 BTC in transaction fees. Make the blocks a little bigger, the coin price a bit higher, and that's plenty of money to secure the network.
If gold were 100x less valuable then it would be used far more often in commercial applications
Most commercial applications only require a tiny bit of gold. It's got a few nice properties, but it's also soft and heavy. Applying a thin gold plating to a lighter and stronger base metal is often preferred.
Gold and silver (to a lesser degree) are almost unique suited for jewelry since they are naturally anti-septic and non-reactive.
Titanium, brass, copper, (anodized) aluminum, stainless steel, tungsten. Or if you don't want to restrict yourself to metals: plenty of plastics, rubber, or minerals. All cheaper than gold. There are stainless brass alloys that look like gold. And of course, if you really want to look at gold, there's always gold plated.
but enough people do that it legitimizes the price.
A lot of people care about the price. They don't want to get married with a cheap plastic ring, even if it looks really nice and shiny. They want *real* gold. Not because it's nice to look at, but mainly because it's scarce and expensive. It's not just decoration. It's a wearable investment.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you see a hard limit to which an economy will ever grow, placing a hard limit on a currency supply is absolutely going to be disastrous.
How about we let the economy run on fiat money, and we keep bitcoin as a parallel currency for those of us who don't want to see their savings evaporate ?
A soft limit, such as that advocated by Friedman
A soft limit is no limit, because it will be removed whenever it is deemed necessary.
Maybe I also own an exchange
Then you have economic power, and you're not just a miner.
I don't *have* to include blocks just because of their transaction fees
No, but if you don't, then some other miner will take them, and you've just given them a monetary advantage they can use to expand their mining capacity.
According to your criteria, is gold: a scam, a niche commodity, used for money washing, or a speculative bubble ?
Every currency is simply backed by trust. When someone hands you the currency in return for work or goods, you expect to hand the currency back to someone else the next day. As long as that trust exist, there's no need for any other kind of value.
Suppose you do a month's work for me. I offer you a choice of payment in cash or 1 bitcoin. Assuming it will take a few days to sell that bitcoin, what amount of cash would you consider it equivalent to ?
That would require a fork, and the miners make that decision. It is not in their financial interest to make that choice.
Miners don't make the decision. People with economic power make the decision, and miners simply follow the money. This was demonstrated last month by the failure of SegWit2x, which was supported by 90% of the miners, and only 15% of the people. The miners lost.
What kind of idiot is totally ignorant of the ginormous boost to tech that resulted from the space race???
To be fair, you'd have to compare it with the things you could do by allocating the same budget on something else. We could fund quantum computers, fusion reactors, batteries, solar panels, or a bunch of other things.
The moon program brought us solid state, microprocessors and miniaturization the went orders of magnitude better than anything previously produced,
Those things would have been made without the moon program too. And if we'd do it for a second time, the benefits would be less, because we already have most of the tech we need.
It's neither cold nor dark. The sun is brighter above the atmosphere.
A light, warm vacuum isn't very exciting either.
It wouldn't take much advancement from our current technology to send ships there to identify good targets, mine the asteroids, and then bring the materials back to Earth.
Except that it would cost more than mining it right here on Earth.
The answer is because it's not well explored
To be fair, there's not much to explore in a cold, dark vacuum.
The reason health care is so costly in the US can be found at the top of the insurance companies
It's already costly at the source: the hospitals and doctors, even before the insurance companies get involved.
In other words, a program/system that can re-program its own code
Well, go ahead and reprogram your own code to beat AlphaZero at Chess or Go.
I have noticed that UFO sightings were a lot more common when people weren't carrying smartphones with integrated cameras with them. Now that everybody's got one, the UFOs have disappeared.
My guess, they make it a felony plus mandatory harsh sentencing similar to possession of certain substances on a certain list.
Yes, that's possible, but the argument was about destroying value with derivatives trading.
Gold looks like gold from every angle and does not change color. Brass changes color with angle.
Ah, so that's why people prefer rings with pieces of cheap window glass, because it looks like glass from every angle, and does not change color. Diamond changes color with angle.
But what makes you think this isn't a stable system?
Better question: what makes you think it is a stable system. You have two parties, one of them gives valuable stuff to the other, and they get intrinsically worthless tokens in return.
Have you studied this issue and determined that the US economy will collapse in the near future?
Yes, I have studied it. And no, the US economy isn't going to collapse in the near future.
Which is a good reason for people to want real gold jewelry. When things go bad, you always have the option of selling/pawning it.
The value of Bitcoin can be manipulated without a big sell-off simply by making them impossible to sell.
How are you going to prevent me from sending my bitcoin to someone else in return for money or goods ?
the US generates a GDP of $18.5 Trillion (with a big T) per year
You should look at the trade balance instead. Since the '70s the US has been a net importer of goods, and exporter of promises written on green pieces of paper.
Do you think that is sustainable forever ?
And the normal value will be determined by people who are willing to accept it, who are not the "real believers" of bit coin
The real believers will use it amongst themselves. There are 7 billion people. If only 1% believes in bitcoin, that means 70 million people fighting over 21 million coins.
how the value has been manipulated downwards by other big players.
After the big players have dumped everything they can, they can't manipulate it again.
I count jewelry as investment. If you just wanted a pretty necklace, there are plenty of cheaper materials that look just as nice.
When aluminum was just invented, people made jewelry out of it. Now that aluminum is plentiful and cheap, it has lost its attractiveness as jewelry.
Eventually mining mostly dries up and the miners have to make money from transactions instead
There will always be transactions of course. At 100 sat/byte, a full 1MB block is worth 1 BTC in transaction fees. Make the blocks a little bigger, the coin price a bit higher, and that's plenty of money to secure the network.
If gold were 100x less valuable then it would be used far more often in commercial applications
Most commercial applications only require a tiny bit of gold. It's got a few nice properties, but it's also soft and heavy. Applying a thin gold plating to a lighter and stronger base metal is often preferred.
Gold and silver (to a lesser degree) are almost unique suited for jewelry since they are naturally anti-septic and non-reactive.
Titanium, brass, copper, (anodized) aluminum, stainless steel, tungsten. Or if you don't want to restrict yourself to metals: plenty of plastics, rubber, or minerals. All cheaper than gold. There are stainless brass alloys that look like gold. And of course, if you really want to look at gold, there's always gold plated.
but enough people do that it legitimizes the price.
A lot of people care about the price. They don't want to get married with a cheap plastic ring, even if it looks really nice and shiny. They want *real* gold. Not because it's nice to look at, but mainly because it's scarce and expensive. It's not just decoration. It's a wearable investment.
Why don't you go and mine gold if you know how to get the ounce for $400?
I don't own any gold bearing property. And nobody's selling theirs for $400/ounce.