Search content
Sort by

Showing 20 of 35 results by ihrhase
Post
Topic
Board Bitcoin Discussion
Re: Governments and Bitcoin
by
ihrhase
on 27/03/2011, 06:48:58 UTC
I might just as well say something here...

Not going to quote people...

OP:
Primarily your argument works out if you are not in tune with historical fact as opposed to the slop the public education system pours into people's heads.

Space: The US government threatened to level Brazil as it was actually approaching attaining orbit before the US and the Soviets were, they dismantled their project.

The ability of private enterprise to be involved in space without government in the US was thwarted when Kennedy made it a military task, furthermore the US government stopped (violently) three other attempts since the 70's for private interests to begin space tourism.

Not to mention the treaty the US was eagerly a part of, signed by Johnson to make it illegal by international law for anyone (individual, business or government) to own anything beyond the atmosphere.

Internet: Have you seen what the government did as far as internet was concerned?  If it was not for private commercial interests the internet would still be a barren network of text based messages.

It is never that it is some conspiracy, it is the natural effect of power when granted to humans, just because you know a guy and you think he is a good guy does not lend that government is a good idea or even the best of the worst ideas people can come up with.  When you give people power the incentive is to preserve and grow that power, history is a testimony to this fact.  Besides if your friend is in an elected office outside of some small district where everyone knows everyone else, I am going to say it is unlikely he is a good guy, as these types of people would not make the empty promises needed to attain elected office.

The guy who thinks libertarianism =/= anarchism
Mr. Libertarian, he is also known as Dr. Murray N. Rothbard.
Not all people who call themselves libertarians are anarchists, but then again not all people who are libertarians are actually libertarians as well (Wayne Allen Root and Bob Barr for pertinent examples), a logically consistent libertarian realizes he is an anarchist.

And the gentleman who brought up the Liberty Dollar case is absolutely correct, I think you guys do a great disservice to a bitcoin using community by not accepting the reality that government is VERY HOSTILE to competition with a function it decided it would have and no one else should (research Spooner and the Post Office).  Bernard von Nothaus was indited terrorism charges for minting silver and gold, no one here is special and potentially safe in any means, if you are adverse to breaking decrees by government it may be wise for you to forget this, it is already illegal for you to be Human (See Controlled Substances Act then research DMT).
Post
Topic
Board Marketplace
Re: New exchange (Bitcoin Market)
by
ihrhase
on 22/03/2010, 12:40:00 UTC

Excellent.  It seems like many of the Austrian School are stuck on gold as the only "true" currency.  While that may be true in the physical world, it will never be able to compete with fiat systems in the digital world.  There needs to be an alternative.  I hope many of them come to understand that currencies like Bitcoin don't want to replace gold, but to augment it in the digital world.



The people claiming to be Austrians that denounce any currency over another are not Austrians at all, they are people introduced into economics by Ron Paul, who has no interest in discussing Austrian theory of money, only the Austrian theory of government and money...

Gold is a terrific way to control the government spending, as they only have a limited resource...

As for economy as a whole, even paper currency is not "unworkable" so long as there is a competition, the problem with government money is fiat legislation and credit expansion...
Post
Topic
Board Marketplace
Re: We accept Bitcoins
by
ihrhase
on 17/03/2010, 14:51:15 UTC
So their unlimited service is $9.99 a mo (correct?)

That would equate to:

$9.99 * 146.22 BTC/$

1458.54 BTC/mo.

Unless there are people local to me that wish to purchase my consumer goods for BTC the marginal use of BTC does not exceed $ for me yet....
Post
Topic
Board Marketplace
Re: New exchange (Bitcoin Market)
by
ihrhase
on 17/03/2010, 12:10:09 UTC
Is there a human volume to your market, do you have population numbers as of right now DW?
Post
Topic
Board Marketplace
Re: We accept Bitcoins
by
ihrhase
on 17/03/2010, 12:07:00 UTC
Link2VoIP (www.link2voip.com) accepts Bitcoin as payment.

Now you can get phone service for Bitcoins.

How's that for useful? Tongue


It would be infinitely more so If I could find the BTC Rate....
Post
Topic
Board Economics
Re: Market Influence on Exchange Rate
by
ihrhase
on 15/03/2010, 19:53:15 UTC
I maintain my assertion....
Post
Topic
Board Economics
Re: Market Influence on Exchange Rate
by
ihrhase
on 15/03/2010, 13:48:15 UTC
Danny,

The only point where it won't matter would be after the state has ended....

We may never see this day...
Post
Topic
Board Bitcoin Discussion
Re: Suggestions to significantly increase bitcoin's users
by
ihrhase
on 09/03/2010, 01:03:49 UTC

The danger lies in the authorities perceiving it as a medium for criminal activity, especially significant amounts of criminal activity. It is one surefire way of getting bitcoins and its exchangers persecuted by the law and exchangers potentially prosecuted. Even suggesting it, can be enough for conspiracy charges especially if the government has it in for the system or its exchangers and users.

Good business decisions money wise, often involve illegal activities. This can be seen regularly in the news. However good business practices such as staying out of jail and staying in operation especially long term require following legalities.

The problem is inherently, as I have stated elsewhere the less morally reprehensible the act the harder the state cracks down...

The state went to war on American civilians on two occasions less than 20 years ago, over alleged (unproven to this day) tax discrepancies totaling less than $250 combined.  In both cases the state fired first, and then proceeded to execute with extreme prejudice.  We do not see this type of action taken against drug cartels, prostitution rings or any other illicit activities, just ones that the average person would not generally look on as such a bad thing.  The state then used media to propagandize the situations to some monstrous proportions, the first was based on a racial issue that did not exist, and the other was claims of religious sexual practices that did not exist...

In effect they legitimized state aggression based on people's emotive decisions on non-illegal actions, not that these non-illegal action existed at all...

The strength of this is the decentralized nature, there is no one place to attack that will destroy us all...
Post
Topic
Board Marketplace
Re: New exchange (Bitcoin Market)
by
ihrhase
on 08/03/2010, 17:22:14 UTC
The US Government has made a position, you should be aware of it...

and your exchange seems to be down...

on a side note...

Price has nothing to do with cost Suggester, maybe you should not wave the economic ignorance finger at anyone else before you keep it from being pointed at yourself...

If price does not equal cost do you not sell your product at a loss in order to recoup capital and try a new venture?  Maybe you will suggest hoarding your product from the market, because if no one wants it they might after you tell them they cannot have it...

The fact is price is subjective, if the market will not support the price at cost the market is not wrong, the entrepreneur is wrong, he had employed his capital incorrectly, and that is the end of that story...
Post
Topic
Board Bitcoin Discussion
Topic OP
Interesting article regarding the IRS and the internet...
by
ihrhase
on 08/03/2010, 17:05:06 UTC
http://www.auctionbytes.com/cab/abu/y210/m03/abu0258/s03

IRS to Track Online Sellers' Payment Transactions Beginning Next Year
By Barbara Weltman
(Darth Sidious Voice)
I... am... afraid... your friends at Paypal will bow to the state.

We may, in the next year or two, have to think about NOT exchanging to dollars anymore
Post
Topic
Board Economics
Topic OP
On Hoarding
by
ihrhase
on 08/03/2010, 14:02:24 UTC
There is one, at least, participant in this forum that is concerned with hoarding of BC, please allow me to explain why this is not an issue, not because it will not have negative effects if it does, but more likely it will not occur.

What we must keep in mind is there is yet a coherent value model for BC, when I first got here many were assuming cost equals value, which simply is not true, I have said it time and time again, value is not based on cost, but rather on the demand for a commodity, right now there is little to no demand for BC.  There may be in the future, but that is speculative and is related to a few factors which relate to the general utility of BC as a medium of exchange.

BC as a commodity has no value without a commodity that may be exchanged for BC, there is no other use for BC than a medium of exchange.  Commodities with an inherent value have an ordinal utility within themselves, that is, they have an industrial, commercial or consumer use, you cannot compare BC to land capital, other capital or commercial goods because of this fact.

The other way a commodity can retain value is through government fiat, that is legal tender laws, basically by the forced use of particular monies, these monies retain their utility because other options are illegal and the basic coercive threat maintains their usage.

BC does not fall within either group of commodity, its value is determined by its ability to out-compete its substitutes, it must therefore be used as a medium of exchange for goods in order to have a value.

Hoarding is deleterious to the ability of BC to out-compete its substitutes, as it will raise relative prices in BC and the exchange rate to other currencies, while other currencies will not be incurring the same price explosion.  As opposed to legal tenders, there being no government fiat coercing utility people will abandon BC if the substitutes are more beneficial.  In the end, the hoarder who keeps BC as an investment in the future value of BC gambles with his money.  If he does not use them, sell them or lend them to someone who will use them at interest and just pulls them from the market the lacking availability of BC will diminish the value as there is no other use than as a medium of exchange.  The increase in price, $ purchasing value, coupled with a stable commodity price structure, of BC will be an indicator to the wily entrepreneur that something is wrong, and these people will stop using BC first.  This will start a chain reaction that will give the illusion of the desired result in the "stock" market numbers, the same boom in $ value of BC without corresponding increase in production available to be traded in BC is a business cycle bubble.  If the hoarder at this point does not cash out immediately, which is relatively difficult, he will be holding BC in the bust, and therefore lose out.

This is also leaving out the whole world of whether it is more profitable to a "hoarder" to lend his BC at interest to producers, invest in productive business himself as a shareholder or to use them in the market for consumer goods than it is to just sit on anonymous internet blips that have no value inherent to themselves...

Lending at interest
I know there are people who like to boo and hiss usury, but it is a natural market phenomenon based on  production, charging above the natural interest rate is a side effect of time preference, get over the communist propaganda please.

If I were to be a hoarder, let us say I have control of 60% of all BC, and have no intention to use them, why would I not lend them at interest?  If there is a market demand for BC, and I have BC, it makes no sense that I would not take advantage of the market demand, it is like saying that a producer has no impetus to sell his products, when he can just sit on them indefinitely.  Why does the stereo manufacturer sell stereos?  If he produces $1000 stereos, by the hoarding logic, holding them instead of selling them will make him wealthier and increase the value of his stereos this is not the case for stereos, nor BC.

No, lending is more practical than holding BC in the hopes for increased value.  Predatory interest rates will be curtailed by the free nature of the market, as anyone can lend BC so long as they have a surplus of BC beyond their usage, there will be large amounts of competition in this field, which will lower lending interest rates.

Investment
If I am holding 60% of all BC, why does in not make sense to invest in businesses?  If I believe that there is a good business, even if they are not looking for shareholders, why would I not want to attempt to purchase a minority share of that business and receive a dividend based on their profits?  In the long run, I would benefit more buy purchasing 1% of a business than not at all, not only because of the real gains in BC over time, but because the value of BC will increase when there is more products available in BC, there will be more demand for the very bitcoins in my coffers, a net gain at the natural interest rate.

Spending
Is the argument that I will sit upon my digital throne, resting atop my digital blips?  Would I be enjoying some superiority because I am wealthier in BC than others?  If this image is just silly to you, well you are correct, if you still at this point believe hoarding is a good idea, this is exactly what you are claiming.  If I have 60% of all BC, what is the point, how do I benefit from my majority stock of BC if I do not acquire consumer goods with them, or sell them to people who will?

The hoarding mentality can only be directed at BC that is not being used, which at this stage of BC can be all of us who hold any, as there is not very much that can be bought through BC.  However as the BC marketplace fills with goods and services, we will see a decrease in nominal prices and an increase in the BC/$ ratio.  This will only occur if people are spending BC, if they are holding them businesses will not accept BC when they can accept any other media of exchange.

If BC's value is based on exchanging them for goods, how exactly is the hoarder protecting his BC's value if he does not allow them to be exchanged?  Any way you slice it, exchanging BC for goods and services is how BC has value, hoarding them negates this and therefore negates the purpose of hoarding...

I am sorry to say to the developers of BC that this may not be the finished product, they may go through many trials before a viable economy is derived from a counter-economic currency, we should persevere to make this one work, but keep in mind it is a learning experience and it may fail...
Post
Topic
Board Economics
Re: Market Influence on Exchange Rate
by
ihrhase
on 08/03/2010, 03:01:18 UTC
The ability to transfer stored value is extremely valuable in and of itself. Bitcoin can be used by anyone and everyone who has an operable x86 computer and Internet access. The same can not be said for any other currency of which I am aware. Creative children could go into business for themselves. They can raise capital just by running Bitcoin on their computer. They can exchange their bitcoins for a local currency by exchanging with someone who has a PayPal account. They can accept payments from anyone around the world and ship their crafts around the world using the postal system. I can just imagine a child trying to get a $5.00 business loan from their local bank. Hahaha!

So long as the illusory value is propagated, but what you state but ignore, is there is a commodity exchange that occurs...

We need the businesses which deal in Bitcoin before you can have a coherent value system for bitcoin...
Post
Topic
Board Bitcoin Discussion
Re: Suggestions to significantly increase bitcoin's users
by
ihrhase
on 07/03/2010, 09:59:57 UTC
Agreement with DannyM. Bitcoin should not be centered around criminal usage.  Not only will it hamper Bitcoin's usage for legitimate usage, it will also harm Bitcoin's image (thus killing its potential to spread). Focusing Bitcoin on illegal uses is short sighted.

While I certainly do not wish to make a ethical judgment on "less-than-legal" activities, I would like to register my opposition to a plan to explicitly "cater to that crowd", for at least strategic reasons.

1. how does bitcoins illegitimate application hamper its use in legitimate application, last I checked most criminal transactions are made in current fiat currencies, and yet they still seem usable in legitimate functions today...

2. Claiming that an exchanger should cater to where they are most likely needed is not focusing on criminal activity, it is making good business decisions...

3. You guys are judging
Post
Topic
Board Economics
Re: Market Influence on Exchange Rate
by
ihrhase
on 07/03/2010, 05:07:18 UTC
Nice math....

But why would someone buy your bitcoins?
Because they want them?

Edit: Some more specific answers.

Yes but why would they, unlike precious metal specie, bitcoin has no use other than a medium of exchange....

but there is nothing to exchange...
Post
Topic
Board Bitcoin Discussion
Re: Pros and Cons of Anonymous Digital Cash
by
ihrhase
on 06/03/2010, 03:58:50 UTC
I am not quoting...

1. You make many assumptions
Bitcoin as a fixed money will not have a fixed value, and this is not what a static economy is in the first place, a static economy is one where there is production, but it is the same in every given period.  So, either you assume that at some point there will be a time that there is no more products able to be added to bitcoins exchange-ability and the volume will be the same always there after.

If everyone consumes all they earn and they choose to take a loan in order to consume more or invest in a business, why is it any concern if they cannot pay, that is between the borrower and lender, if I were a lender, I would remain appraised of who does not pay, and not lend to them...

2. Your example
It ignores that bad business models ought to be met with failure, the emotive argument that someone will starve is utter crap as well.  The owner of Bitcoin will not have to issue more bitcoins, as people can opt to use other media of exchange, the worst that will happen is that the value of bitcoin will diminish, which skips ahead to another point....

You are also mixing what we are doing with a government, they are two separate and completely different scenarios...

3. Since there is no legislation forcing people to use Bitcoin and only bitcoin, if someone hoards bitcoin it makes the commodity of bitcoin less useful as a medium of exchange, and people will abandon it, this will decrease the value of bitcoin because it has NO OTHER USE other than a medium of exchange...

As for the Dollars in foreign hands...
It is inflation that caused that issue, and did nothing to preserve the value of the dollar, it was the coercive laws to use FRN's that retained the utility of the dollar, nothing retains it's value, it is why what cost a dollar 70 years ago costs much more now, even with our growth in the US economically, we could not hide the inflation of the dollar...

4. And lets take your lending your friend $100 and make it BC...
You lend your friend 100 BC and he buys 100 kg of potatoes, since there are no more BC being made, and in the course of the year more products are available in BC the value of BC increases.  When you receive your payment on your 0 interest loan and find that you can buy 110 kg of potatoes what is your position?
Did you break some moral code, because you did just reap a 10% interest?
How do you explain that this managed to happen without inflation?
Are you morally required to return to your friend 10 BC or 10kg of Potato?

Interest naturally occurs, it is caused by time preference, that is, people prefer goods now to the future, and there is a real gain, interest, when one goes in the business of trading goods now for goods in the future...

5. Without government to protect the monopoly, nothing stops others from getting into the business that the monopoly is in, and cutting the market share of the monopoly.  If you claim that people who have a monopoly would incur the costs of securing it through coercive means, well then you do not understand that this costs money and therefore is an unsustainable business model.  Much like Americans that think going to war across the globe is a good idea, they do not understand there is a price tag on this behavior, mainly because they are not paying it directly...

6. What you are forgetting about the money commodity is without legislation making it the only one, it is a substitutable commodity, there are many commodities that can be used for money, and as such it has a very elastic demand curve.  This means that supply has almost no bearing on the value of the bitcoin commodity, because people can freely move to another that can completely replace bitcoin for themselves, the value is based on demand, and that demand is based on commodity exchanges available to bitcoin...
Post
Topic
Board Economics
Re: Market Influence on Exchange Rate
by
ihrhase
on 05/03/2010, 12:36:03 UTC
Nice math....

But why would someone buy your bitcoins?
Post
Topic
Board Marketplace
Re: New exchange (Bitcoin Market)
by
ihrhase
on 05/03/2010, 09:20:11 UTC

I don't think their value is arbitrary.  Just really really small.  A medium of exchange or currency needs to have a "stable value" or at least a value that can exist within a certain range for an extended period of time.  This builds trust.  When there are multiple exchanges trading Bitcoins and each exchange is tracking a similiar exchange rate it will build trust.  Eventually it will reach a critical mass.


Really now?  Do you know why people used gold as money?  How about unbacked paper?

Trust is not built by corresponding blips on the internet, it is built by being able to use regularly and gain an expected result...

If no one can purchase anything but $ with bitcoins then bitcoin is nothing more than a gamble on anticipating other people's expectations on the utility of bitcoin.

IF one can only purchase consumer goods OR capital goods with bitcoin, an exchange is necessary to fuel the economy with transaction material, for example:
If I sell widgets and I accept bitcoin for them, if I cannot buy widget supplies to generate widgets in bitcoin, I will require an exchange for the purpose of attaining the capital goods necessary to resupply my production cycle.  Conversely, if I can buy my capital goods in bitcoin, but no one will buy my consumer good in bitcoin, I will require an exchange to resupply, using bitcoin.  However if both transactions are taking place using the bitcoin medium of exchange, I may only need an exchange if there are not enough goods to exchange my profits in a (subjectively) worthwhile manner...

Is it that you and another exchange collude that give bitcoin value, or is it that I can expect to use bitcoin in exchange for goods?  If an exchange rate is stable from one exchange to the next, it builds trust that the exchanges are legit, but does nothing to secure a value to bitcoin.
Post
Topic
Board Trading Discussion
Re: Money Transfer Regulations
by
ihrhase
on 05/03/2010, 02:39:19 UTC
I have to agree with Hatter...

necessary, no, but with the limited commodity base for bitcoin exchanges it may be helpful to get people involved...
Post
Topic
Board Bitcoin Discussion
Re: Pros and Cons of Anonymous Digital Cash
by
ihrhase
on 05/03/2010, 02:36:44 UTC

I disagree.  All it requires is that economic power be non-uniform.  If we all have equal amounts of bitcoins at our disposal, then no-one can lend.  But as soon as one person becomes monetarily richer and start to make loans, he will accumulate more and more money, and therefore wealth.  In your $10 loan scenario, how can I trade anything for dollars, if all my neighbours need all the dollars they have to pay the interest on their loans too?  I'd end up bartering with my neighbours and your $100 economy would start to become irrelevant.  Of course, your thugs might beat me up to get the repayments, but they'd only do that as long as *they* were happy to accept your dollars in payment too.

1. Hogwash, it does not matter how many bitcoins I have in relation to anyone else, I can lend them if I value the future bitcoins over the present ones...

2. Strawman

Exactly!   You would start to barter too.  But it's not necessary for you to have them all.  A thousand people with 21000 bitcoins each in an economy of a million people is just the same.

Like I said to suggester, hoarding devalues the medium, and inherently destroys the whole point of hoarding...

And what you are not understanding about my points is that interest happens regardless of inflation...


How can I explain myself. This thread started about the pros and cons of bitcoin, and I wanted to differentiate between dishonest use of a currency, and honest use of a currency to carry out 'dishonest' trades.  I don't mean to judge whether some things (e.g. selling home-grown tobacco) should be illegal or not - that's not what this thread is about.  I'm simply stating that some things have been declared as illegal.  Now, the sheep amongst us will consider a thing dishonest simply for the fact that it has been declared illegal; others will think about the issue and consider it dishonest in itself and so agree with the law; others again might disagree but choose to respect the law anyway; some will disagree and ignore the law; others will agree but ignore the law anyway; few might say it's ok on saturday.... and so on.  For example, I don't mind people using illegal substances as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else (victimless crimes, yeah?); however, I have (for example) a real problem with exploitation or abuse of children - be that pedophiles, drug pushers or whatever.  Your attitude above suggests that you think it should be ok to sell home-grown tobacco, so I was just trying to find an example of something you *would* find dishonest.  Everyone draws their own line, but if you don't want to go to prison, the only line that really counts is the one the state has drawn.
I am an anarchist.... I could tell you where the state can kiss....  But I am sure you know...


No it doesn't.  There are monopolies everywhere, and where one company hasn't enough muscle for a monopoly, it can engage in price collusion with others.
I would suggest the lecture series about American economic History "The End of Laissez Faire: 1870 to WWII".  Monopolies do not exist without state coercion to protect the monopoly status, if entry is free for all, if regulation by a state is non existent, how exactly do you propose a monopoly to exist in the essence that it does the "monopoly thing" (Cut production and raise price) and not lose market shares to new competition...

American History proves this example...
Post
Topic
Board Marketplace
Re: New exchange (Bitcoin Market)
by
ihrhase
on 05/03/2010, 02:20:18 UTC

Unless there is a way to determine demand, no one will be using them as a currency.  Even now, every Bitcoin has a value.  The key is finding it and tracking it.  I want this to be a real market where buyers and sellers determine the value based on their demand.  It will match buyers and sellers (it can already do that) accordingly.  I will only be a broker.  I don't think we should be worried about what the value is.  Our main concern should be accurately determining that value as it fluctuates.  If it's 100,000BC/$1, 1000BC/$1, or even 1,000,000BC/$1 then whatever...  The fact we are worrying about people dumping Bitcoins suggests we haven't determined an accurate value yet.

The value of a money is what one can expect to gain in exchange for said money....

I am not worried about people dumping BC's on your exchange, I am saying any value is arbitrary until people come to accept BC as a medium of exchange...