My interpretation is that the supply of bitcoins is now distributed among much more people than a few months ago. We saw a lot of massive sales, where a single trader used to sell 10k or 20k bitcoins at once. When this happened, the coins that were sold were distributed among many buyers; the result is that the number of people holding bitcoins is now much higher. Of course there were a few massive buys too, but much less; buyers typically bought smaller amounts, especially during the downward trend.
So if that's true, how long until people stop complaining about the early adopters?
2 years later: People are still complaining about the early adopters.
The imposition of taxes, which must be paid in government currency, is precisely what gives government currency its worth.
Then why does it have worth OUTSIDE of the country as well?
Well, if Japanese valued their Yen, it makes sense that anyone else around the world would also value the Yen, because they can buy things from the Japanese with it.
The solution I'm considering is dynamic inflation: adjust mining rewards to pin the price to a currency basket, at least until it's an established and stable currency. That doesn't prevent devaluation so you'd have to be conservative with the adjustments, but it would prevent the "early adopters" problem.
But then nobody would have any incentive to get in early. Having an incentive to get in early is needed for establishing and growing the user base, no?
Post
Topic
BoardBitcoin Discussion
Re: MtGox to paxum withdraw delay
by
idontknow
on 27/09/2011, 11:05:37 UTC
Does anyone know if they have dedicated support staff? Like someone who's only job is to reply to emails?
It seems many people wait a very long time to hear back from them.
Post
Topic
BoardBitcoin Discussion
Re: Invisible QR codes.
by
idontknow
on 27/09/2011, 11:04:10 UTC
Can you show us the original SVG file for comparison or is it too big?
Post
Topic
BoardOff-topic
Re: Last post to this thread wins 1btc! (no deposit necessary) *UPDATE* 6 HOURS!
My interpretation is that the supply of bitcoins is now distributed among much more people than a few months ago. We saw a lot of massive sales, where a single trader used to sell 10k or 20k bitcoins at once. When this happened, the coins that were sold were distributed among many buyers; the result is that the number of people holding bitcoins is now much higher. Of course there were a few massive buys too, but much less; buyers typically bought smaller amounts, especially during the downward trend.
So if that's true, how long until people stop complaining about the early adopters?
Post
Topic
BoardBeginners & Help
Re: Question about the forums.
by
idontknow
on 27/09/2011, 10:42:59 UTC
Maybe try logging out and back in again.
Post
Topic
BoardMining
Re: Why can't we group buy fpga and get a discount?
I like the idea that each tax $ gives you a vote on what to spend it on.
The rich will naturally want to reduce their taxes, but then in doing so they will have less influence over government expenditure, so they won't want to reduce it too much.
On the surface this sounds nice, but you're probably not comparing how much you earn to the rich. Unless you're on $1m/pa salary, I don't think you realize just how little you have to vote with.
Oh it's true it would be bad for me while I'm poor, but I don't plan on staying poor forever, so I still like the idea.
I like the idea that each tax $ gives you a vote on what to spend it on.
That's a start. Where would you direct those dollars? Make this thread less tax centric and more issue driven.
Well, personally I would spend more of it on public parks. I'd rather an area was 50% public parkland and 50% apartment-style housing, rather than 99% separate houses all spread out with no where to go except a tiny park bench with 1 duck to feed. The former would be actually less claustrophobic despite the higher density living arrangement.
Not to mention apartments are far more efficient for things like water, sewer, electric, etc.
Post
Topic
BoardPolitics & Society
Re: The issues of the day
by
idontknow
on 27/09/2011, 03:07:48 UTC
I like the idea that each tax $ gives you a vote on what to spend it on.
The rich will naturally want to reduce their taxes, but then in doing so they will have less influence over government expenditure, so they won't want to reduce it too much.