Quote from: PeterGuinness on July 15, 2015, 02:45:12 AM

Quote from: DooMAD on July 14, 2015, 09:44:38 AM

Quote from: futureofbitcoin on July 14, 2015, 03:19:21 AM

Quote from: DooMAD on July 13, 2015, 06:41:23 PM

Quote from: ransomer on July 13, 2015, 04:57:10 PM

Quote from: DooMAD on July 13, 2015, 03:40:55 PM

Quote from: ransomer on July 13, 2015, 03:00:33 PM

Quote from: miragecash on July 12, 2015, 07:23:20 AM

No peer to peer banking app. If my programming time isn't already 100 percent occupied with other projects already, I'd code one. It seems to me that it is a waste of bitcoins to have it just sit in your wallet all the time. You should have a banking app that will allow you to loan your bitcoins out with interest based on a borrower's credit score. Your money should be working for you, making interest and dividends, not just sitting in your wallet.

Have a blockchain like app with multiple decentralized servers take deposits. Then, this app will make loans with interest based on credit scores. The app will then pay the depositors interest minus a reasonable fee for the people running the servers. This would act as a bank without the crazy banking fees and our taxes being given away to "bail out" shitty banksters that will only use the money to throw fancy parites with hookers and champagne! Computer servers don't need hookers and champagne.

There should be automated apps that take the place of all financial services which are currently run by corrupt banksters and lawyers.

That's a good idea.

I'm inclined to say it's not. Lending at interest with a finite monetary supply will only encourage fractional reserve practices. Bitcoin's economy at its core is not debt-based like the fiat world. Imagine if Satoshi, after mining the first BTC50, had immediately lent out those coins with a 5% interest rate. This means there would be BTC52.5 to pay back. Where does the person he lent them to get the extra BTC2.5 from? It didn't exist until the next block was mined. I've never been a great fan of religion, but the one thing they used to get right (but sadly don't care about it anymore) is that they made it clear that usury was morally questionable.

Ok. Not bad. So in a bitcoin world there will be no such thing as interest?

Oh I'm sure there will be, it's pretty much inevitable. There's nothing that prevents people from charging interest, so it's only natural that people will give in to greed and do exactly that. They're probably already doing it right now. It just kinda goes against the ethos of the whole thing (in my opinion at least). As soon as you introduce debt in a system with a finite monetary supply, you are essentially guaranteeing that someone, somewhere, will be unable to repay because there isn't enough money actually existing in the system to cover the interest. People will do just about anything to turn a profit, even if it means screwing someone else over.

What you're saying isn't true. It would be true if the guy who borrowed from Satoshi has to pay it back in a 1-time lump sum. However, he can provide a service that slowly earns bitcoins, and pay those back to Satoshi. In turn, Satoshi spends the bitcoins he got back somewhere, and that third party spends the bitcoin buying the service from the guy who borrowed from Satoshi. Now he has enough bitcoins to pay back Satoshi in full, without any magically appearing bitcoins.

If there was no interest involved, then yes, that would work just fine. However, with interest, the person who borrowed the money might find a way to pay it back over time, but somewhere along the line, someone (or a group of someones) will always be in debt by BTC2.5 and that number will grow every time someone lends at interest. If there is a fixed total number of coins and the interest requires more than that total to be paid, someone will end up owing money that doesn't exist. That's why debt collectors usually resort to taking your possessions, most people (literally) can't pay.

What you're saying still isn't true because you are forgetting that loans can be used to cancel each other. Here is a simple example: image that Satoshi who is cold and has a broken arm has 50BTC, a forest of trees and food while hungry Ben has nothing but an axe. Ben borrows 50Btc from Satoshi to be repaid at the end of the month with 10% interest. Ben then buys the trees and some food from Satoshi for 50BTC. Ben chops the trees into firewood which is now worth 55BTC. Satoshi buys the wood with 50BTC cash and agreement to pay the extra 5BTC at the end of the month (effectively he is borrowing 5 virtual BTC from Ben). At the end of the month Ben pays Satoshi 50BTC and they agree that the two debts of 5BTC cancel each other and that everything has been made good, ie: there is no debt remaining to anyone at all.

The important thing to note is that without the use of loans Satoshi's trees would have never been chopped, Satoshi would remain cold and Ben would have starved! There is nothing inherently wrong with interest bearing debt as long as it is used wisely. Everyday around the world interest bearing debt facilitates trade that would not occur otherwise.

Why wouldn't Satoshi just hire Ben to chop the wood directly?