Quote from: JorgeStolfi on February 26, 2015, 10:09:46 AM

Quote from: billyjoeallen on February 26, 2015, 05:39:15 AM

You still haven't read any books on economics.

I rather stay a stupid electronics engineer turned computer scientist turned appled mathematician..

"appled" mathematician? Like Newton?

Quote

Quote

Satoshi's trillions will come from the same place as Gates, Jobs, Buffet's billions came from:valuation of assets.

Real wealth is houses, land, cars, food, services, etc. Wealth gets created and destroyed, sometimes both in quick succession, as when a cook prepares a meal that gets eaten right away.

Bitcoin does not create any wealth. Its contribution to productivity, by (allegedly) being a more efficient payment instrument is tiny. In fact, the contribution of bitcoin to world's production of wealth, so far, has been humongously negative: 100 times (at least) more wealth has been destroyed by the bitcoin network than has been created thanks to it.

It is not because of that tiny positive contribution that large early adopters have become wealthier, either on paper (if they are still holding) or in reality (if they cashed out). Bitcoin's effect has been mainly to move property from some people to other people, mostly independently of their actual contribution to society. The gains from the early adopters, in particular, came from the (substantially bigger) losses of those who have bough coins and are still holding them. If bitcoin's price ever reached a million, as the holders dream, then trlliions of wealth would be transferred -- little by little, imperceptibly -- from those who buy bitcoins to those early adopters who hold most of the coins. If a country like Greece adopted bitcoin, that wealth would be taken from its citizens.

That is the same trick that governments and banks use when they create more money, indeed. But when the government does it, it is just another kind of tax: the government is supposed to use the wealth that it buys with that new money for the benefit of its citizens. When banks do it, of course, there is no such return: there is net and permanent transfer of wealth from the general people to bank owners.

And that is the case too when private entities create new money, whether it is gift certificates or Linden Dollars -- or cryptocurrencies. *That* is why cryptocurrencies are a scam, even if they were to succeed.

Quote

There is more relation to work done with bitcoin than any other currency ever. It is documented proof of work that makes a bitcoin a bitcoin.

The work of the miners is not constructuve but destructive: the world gets poorer by their work -- with less coal, less water in the hydro dams, etc.. If someone gets rich by destroying wealth, he must be taking more wealth from someone else.

ok, miners produce heat that keeps them warm. They buy equipment which gives people jobs. They make money and stay off of welfare, which reduces the tax burden. If they mine full time then they reduce unemployment.

These are actually bogus answers, but no more bogus than yours. The real answer is that they are ENTREPRENEURS. Entrepreneurs make guesses about the FUTURE demand for their goods and services and bet their own money that there will be enough demand to make a profit. Traders do the same thing, betting that there will be future demand for liquidity that they can provide. If they fill a market need then they profit and deserve to do so because they took a risk that benefited their trading partners. They have to benefit their trading partners or no trade would take place. The market is people. A person who is successful in the market is successful at serving his fellow man.

You seem to ignore or are incapable of understanding the crucial difference between VOLUNTARY action and COERCION. If Bitcoin fails, it's no more of a waste than any other business venture that doesn't pan out. It's not like a government that takes money BY FORCE and may or may not do good things with it, or forces us to use some particular banknotes as currency, with no assurance as to their future supply. You want to make the world more safe. I can respect that. Can you not see the benefit of making the world more free? Unfortunately, we can't do both. I for one do not want to live in a zoo. I prefer the jungle.