Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 25 results by Dekshuduph
Haha, I used paragraphs and a TL:DR what more could you want???
In all seriousness though the issues discussed in the topic are complex and, despite all internet logic, cant be adequately discussed without a serious understanding of economics (ie several textbooks worth) I did my best to summarize.
I'll go back into my corner now.
Uh, have fun over there in your corner, hehe.
This is what I hoped to see from you, good points! Yes there may be some sort of equilibrium once deflation hits because it may be a 0 sum game (never though of this)... however resources we know are not 0 sum for out intents and purposes, they will always seem like they are in abundance until we learn that we only have so much left (oil, water). The system needs to be able to cope with this in some way, and I'm not sure which method will help with this regard and provide a more smooth transition between running out of the resource and being replaced through innovation or something.
Yes no backing at all is not the way to go because of the mess we are in now, but no a total hard cap is also just as bad, this is why i'm a proponent of a no cap but controlled supply increase which will fight deflation issues but not introduce the same inflation problems. In 100 years there will be something like 200 billion dvc? compared to 21 million btc? Does it matter, in 100 years alot of things will have changed, and we have far more usd in our system than dvc would at that point, so the fact that it is uncapped should not hinder the viability of adaption as a medium of exchange. Infact I would say it would provide smoother responses to external pressures that we do not control, and a more stable currency rate over the long term.
Yes no backing at all is not the way to go because of the mess we are in now, but no a total hard cap is also just as bad, this is why i'm a proponent of a no cap but controlled supply increase which will fight deflation issues but not introduce the same inflation problems. In 100 years there will be something like 200 billion dvc? compared to 21 million btc? Does it matter, in 100 years alot of things will have changed, and we have far more usd in our system than dvc would at that point, so the fact that it is uncapped should not hinder the viability of adaption as a medium of exchange. Infact I would say it would provide smoother responses to external pressures that we do not control, and a more stable currency rate over the long term.
I honestly do not like to think of other currencies that will run alongside Bitcoin or any other currency that may take control, because honestly they're more like an investment as Bitcoin is compared to USD right now. DVC I think would become too inflationary to incorporate into the situation.
I'll bring back my point that, yes, in a hundred years things will have changed. I hope that Gaven implements a system that tapers off the Bitcoin supply reward to miners the closer we reach the cap. This would remove the hyper-deflation problem altogether. Inflation is evil, taking peoples' money away to provide fluidity is immoral.
I've got nothing more to input, so I guess just keep the discussion going while I attempt to understand terms like "0 sum" and "deflation issues."
Your point is taken on the psychological affects of using mBTC or uBTC and that is not really the issue here. Wolverine actaully made a good point in that deflation is always a good thing as it rewards those to innovate to eliminate waste, but we've seen from the past that deflation can lead to a halt in spending and either we would need to go all out, go through a bad recession and force people to look in the mirror, or we adapt our current situation to use something like DVC and slowly move towards a purely deflationary-hybrid scheme.
I'll make it more clear for you using our example of the apple and btc.
At 21 million the apple costs a certain amount. Now there are more and more people fighting for the same apple as population grows. Since there are no more coins available we divide them up as things become "cheaper"... the incentive is the hold money as it grows in value and then spend when you "need" to. That will drive the cost of the apple down to uBTC numbers from mBTC numbers. The Apple farmer wants to get more BTC so he innovates new ideas to make his apple grow cheaper yet doesn't sacrifice quality otherwise people won't buy from him at all. However, it is to be seen to see if this is feasible as my argument was that this may be well on paper but practically breaks down when spending grinds to a halt and noone will buy the apple, they will sacrifice to hold off until the apple farmer goes out of business and shuts down. There is a competitive cycle of driving prices down to a poitn where it is always less and less profit to build the same thing, and you will have less and less people willing to take risks to provide service to the industry whereas you can just hold your money and gain more "wealth". See where I'm going with this?
I'll make it more clear for you using our example of the apple and btc.
At 21 million the apple costs a certain amount. Now there are more and more people fighting for the same apple as population grows. Since there are no more coins available we divide them up as things become "cheaper"... the incentive is the hold money as it grows in value and then spend when you "need" to. That will drive the cost of the apple down to uBTC numbers from mBTC numbers. The Apple farmer wants to get more BTC so he innovates new ideas to make his apple grow cheaper yet doesn't sacrifice quality otherwise people won't buy from him at all. However, it is to be seen to see if this is feasible as my argument was that this may be well on paper but practically breaks down when spending grinds to a halt and noone will buy the apple, they will sacrifice to hold off until the apple farmer goes out of business and shuts down. There is a competitive cycle of driving prices down to a poitn where it is always less and less profit to build the same thing, and you will have less and less people willing to take risks to provide service to the industry whereas you can just hold your money and gain more "wealth". See where I'm going with this?
Yeah, I see where you're coming from. I understand this, and I'll change my stance. Let's bring up my point again with time: this will happen in over a hundred years. The main goal of Bitcoin is to overthrow fiat money. Now, going on the assumption that we are successful in this endeavor, Bitcoin could be a main currency for at least one country. If it begins to deflate rapidly, then although the apple farmer will want to charge less for his product, the resources he requires will begin to cost less aswell. Also, if Bitcoin is the only way you can buy an apple in some situations, farmers are going to want to up the price so they can get a more reasonable profit, and people are going to have to pay the higher price because of this. Technically this would make deflation and inflation into equilibrium, since there's always going to be an equal amount of Bitcoin. Yes, depending on population it will continue deflating anyways, but I don't think it will be as drastic as you're making it out to be.
You may be thinking that the economy will deflate rapidly due to the deflation trend it's going through now. If we were to hit the limit now, you'd be right, and then Bitcoin would become primarily an investment. However as long as the price keeps going up, people are going to begin to sell their bitcoins to get their profit before the drop in price that would come as soon as really anyone with a huge investment does just this. Everyone's going to sell their bitcoins for fiat and it will become worth nothing, essentially killing the system.
21 million bitcoins is a very high cap. Whether fiat currency has been overthrown will determine if Bitcoin will remain successful when the cap is reached.
Re: To get mass adoption we need to sort out these decimals
1 BTC = Bitcoin
0.01 BTC = Bitcent
0.000001 = Millibit
0.00000001 = Satoshi
I think we should just stick with that...
What are those dividends, 100 then 10,000 then 100 again? That's confusing. Either way a Millibit is already established as a semi-formal way to refer to mBTC. We've already established:0.01 BTC = Bitcent
0.000001 = Millibit
0.00000001 = Satoshi
I think we should just stick with that...
1 BTC equals:
1,000 mBTC, one of which equals:
1,000 uBTC, one of which equals:
100 Satoshis
I recall the first three being official and visible through options in Bitcoin-QT, the Satoshi being unofficial but already widely-used.
Stop trying to make things which are already established. Also, listen to people. +1 to:
This is what I don't get from the general proponents of BTC why do you think adding more decimal places will solve the problem? That is not increasing supply. This will have no effect on fixing the issue. It's like saying I want to buy an apple with $1 usd, but it will be cheaper if i use miniUsd which is $0.5 usd instead. Seems as though everyone is on the same page by saying hey we will just add more decimal places, yet I have not had a simple explanation as to how this would solve the problem. Think of the demand supply curve.
If you wanted to buy that apple with a miniUSD, you couldn't, you'd have to pay two miniUSD.My point being we'd begin referring to the Bitcoin as mBTC and uBTC because it'll be too inconvenient to say BTC as there'd be too many decimal places. That doesn't change the fact that a mBTC is worth as much as one thousand BTC. Something you could buy for one BTC could be paid for with one BTC or a thousand mBTC, depending on the way you look at it. Unless someone's a gullible stooge, you wouldn't be buying that for the wrong price.
100 BTC could take care of the full money supply of an entire country if it got popular enough. Easily.
Please give a thoughtful answer, you did not answer what would happen after btc supply stopped expanding, yes price would rise, btc would become divisible and only a few would have whole btc. What stops the economy from becoming lopsidedly deflationary?
We don't need to stop that. Seeing as we'll hit the cap over a hundred years in the future, likely by then Gaven will have put in a change to sort this problem out(ex. adding 8 more decimal places) or Bitcoin will be overthrown and replaced with something better. Hey, will any of us live to see a single Satoshi having accountable value?
Yo OP, if you're still around, would you mind moving this thread to the Mining board? Thanks.
If the power efficiency of your rig is great enough to overcome the difficulty of the blocks and gain enough moneys' worth of bitcoins to cover the cost of the electricity to hurdle the variably-difficult block, and then some, the answer will in fact be yes. Obviously, the asic is power efficient enough to do this yet the GPU no longer is. The difficulty will keep rising the more asics people put to work, and therefore the money everyone gets out of the whole ordeal will keep going down until the difficulty is too high for the typical asic to get money out of it. The money that comes out of it has to do with the price of the bitcoin, which has to do with the popularity of bitcoin, which also affects the number of people trying to mine. Everything is interwoven to affect the difficulty of blocks and if you want to mine you will, in some way, have to predict how long your miner will be able to make money. The speed of your miner is completely irrelevant, mind you, that's only relevant to the amount of money you gain or lose, not if you gain or lose it.
TL;DR: It depends on your mining rig.
1) If you add up all the gains from mining, and subtract all the costs, you think this number will be greater than zero?
If the power efficiency of your rig is great enough to overcome the difficulty of the blocks and gain enough moneys' worth of bitcoins to cover the cost of the electricity to hurdle the variably-difficult block, and then some, the answer will in fact be yes. Obviously, the asic is power efficient enough to do this yet the GPU no longer is. The difficulty will keep rising the more asics people put to work, and therefore the money everyone gets out of the whole ordeal will keep going down until the difficulty is too high for the typical asic to get money out of it. The money that comes out of it has to do with the price of the bitcoin, which has to do with the popularity of bitcoin, which also affects the number of people trying to mine. Everything is interwoven to affect the difficulty of blocks and if you want to mine you will, in some way, have to predict how long your miner will be able to make money. The speed of your miner is completely irrelevant, mind you, that's only relevant to the amount of money you gain or lose, not if you gain or lose it.
TL;DR: It depends on your mining rig.
Re: To get mass adoption we need to sort out these decimals
My input (mentioned in several of the previous 1000 threads on this exact same topic, thanks for searching... ) is that people will figure out their own names for things.
No one calls the US Dollar a "buck" or a "greenback" because Congress sat down in committee and figured out some cool slang words for us to adopt.
Lay Chris some slack, not all new members understand the functions of a forum.No one calls the US Dollar a "buck" or a "greenback" because Congress sat down in committee and figured out some cool slang words for us to adopt.
Anyway, I half-agree with you: The Satoshi isn't anything official. However, your example with the US dollar is irrelevant because "bucks" and "greenbacks" really are no different from dollars.
Sage, maybe you should have the historical honor of posting the question, since it was your idea?
Haha, the Q&A is already over....No bitcoin questions were answered.
Re: To get mass adoption we need to sort out these decimals
i was reading allot of sugestions about this problem and best i saw was XBT. Its iso name like USD GBP EUR and is equal to 1 micro BTC. Its easy to adopt because 1 XBT = 100 satoshi and 1 BTC = 1 000 000 XBT.
You could buy 10 000 XBT for $1 now. It sounds better than 1 btc for $100 or even 0.01 BTC for $1.
I dont agree with that we have time to switch. No, the sooner we do this, the less problems other newcomers will have later. We have to do it now.
You could buy 10 000 XBT for $1 now. It sounds better than 1 btc for $100 or even 0.01 BTC for $1.
I dont agree with that we have time to switch. No, the sooner we do this, the less problems other newcomers will have later. We have to do it now.
That's the uBTC you're thinking of, a thing that already exists: it is, in fact, already commonly used.
Okay you caught me, I picked Antarctica for giggles.
Called it!Well, shoot. Thanks for clearing that up I guess, but it doesn't negate my point about there being 3 votes for it.
Anyway, it's quite interesting that the same number of people are in Europe as North America.
Anyway, it's quite interesting that the same number of people are in Europe as North America.
I don't think there's anyone in the world who lives in Antarctica, and those that do wouldn't have internet access I don't think. Could you maybe back this up or remove it from the poll?
Oh my God, look what three people've voted. 
Had it been working before or is this the first time?
This is the first time. I was able to run it yesterday... really, the only other time I ran it.Because they're scams.
People will trade their Bitcoins or whatever other currency for altcoins without realizing that they're actually worthless. Once the scammer decides they've collected enough money, they'll shut down their system and everyone who's paid money will lose that money to the scammer.
People will trade their Bitcoins or whatever other currency for altcoins without realizing that they're actually worthless. Once the scammer decides they've collected enough money, they'll shut down their system and everyone who's paid money will lose that money to the scammer.
When I attempt to open, the splash screen shows and an error pops up:
"Error opening block database.
Do you want to rebuild the block database now?"
OK and Abort buttons show.
Pressing OK brings up this error:
"Error opening block database"
With only an OK button.
These errors pop up as Windows dialogue boxes.
"Error opening block database.
Do you want to rebuild the block database now?"
OK and Abort buttons show.
Pressing OK brings up this error:
"Error opening block database"
With only an OK button.
These errors pop up as Windows dialogue boxes.