Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just watched a short, interesting video on money

Nixon was the one who took us off the gold/silver standard. now it's in "GOD WE TRUST a fake being? FIAT money is a government-issued currency that is NOT backed by a commodity such as gold

So, if you're an atheist does money have any value? or the fact that money can be printed, and use does that make you an atheist? Remember Jesus Christ didn't believe in money?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

I don't think anyone really knows what money is.

I do think it serves many purposes.

That's truth :)

 

If you rewind it all the way back, it sort of makes sense.

You and I are in a room and there is no money.   I agree to borrow $100 from you.  You say sure, and pull out a piece of paper and write $100 on it and hand it too me.  On another piece of paper, you make a note saying that I owe you $100 dollars.

Money is born.

That's it.  All of the money in existence today is tied to that fundamental transaction.  That's why the idea of 'paying off the debt' is ridiculous prima face.  That's why the 'trillion dollar coin' makes sense.  Its why the bond market only moderately cares what the fed does with the overnight rate.

Its why the root of all money are two banks.. the German Bundesbank and the Federal Reserve.  There are some pretenders - but the Financial crisis proved the truth - there's only two senior collateral assets - one big enough for Europe and one big enough for the World.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

Uh... nope. That doesn't capture Bitcoin all that well at all.

Yea, I tend to disagree on that.  Bitcoin derives it's value as a proxy for dollars - that's why usdc and usdt caused so much drama and actually threatened to collapse the crypto world. 

Not bitcoin.  Xrp was the existential threat.

And if it's a pseudogold store of wealth, why did it plunge on inflation fears?  Its acting like a growth stock, not an independent means of transactions. 

It might become money - but it's not money yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BeSafe said:

Yea, I tend to disagree on that.  Bitcoin derives it's value as a proxy for dollars - that's why usdc and usdt caused so much drama and actually threatened to collapse the crypto world. 

Not bitcoin.  Xrp was the existential threat.

And if it's a pseudogold store of wealth, why did it plunge on inflation fears?  Its acting like a growth stock, not an independent means of transactions. 

It might become money - but it's not money yet.

That might be true here, for now, but it's being used around the world by people who are interested in what money is: a proxy for value. We easily equate that to a proxy for dollars but that's not always even relevant.

In any case, should Bitcoin become money, the fundamental transaction you described won't be why.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

 

In any case, should Bitcoin become money, the fundamental transaction you described won't be why.

Sure.  But that begs the question can it become money without going through that transition.

People use all kinds of proxies for money.  Beads, coins, bottles of tide, whatever.

Bitcoin looks like gold.  Some finite amount that is just "there" that is extracted by energy.   The coins - or gold - represent a store of energy and are hard to replace as such.   But at various times and places, even mundane materials - like salt - are worth more.

Gold as money itself was always tenuous and is usually tied to force.   There was a time when silver was far more practical - and valuable per se - and exchanged far more often.  

Money - such as it is - represents the power of the Empire backing it.  That's why we cannot reduce military spending and retain reserve status.  At the end of the day, "money" is a promise.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BeSafe said:

People use all kinds of proxies for money.  Beads, coins, bottles of tide, whatever.

Bitcoin looks like gold.  Some finite amount that is just "there" that is extracted by energy.   The coins - or gold - represent a store of energy and are hard to replace as such.   But at various times and places, even mundane materials - like salt - are worth more.

If something functions as a proxy for money, isn't that the same thing as functioning as money? Money is itself a proxy for value.

Beads and salt are other examples of things that have been used as money without being tied to that fundamental transaction. I don't think it's so fundamental at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BeSafe said:

That's truth :)

 

If you rewind it all the way back, it sort of makes sense.

You and I are in a room and there is no money.   I agree to borrow $100 from you.  You say sure, and pull out a piece of paper and write $100 on it and hand it too me.  On another piece of paper, you make a note saying that I owe you $100 dollars.

Money is born.

That's it.  All of the money in existence today is tied to that fundamental transaction.  That's why the idea of 'paying off the debt' is ridiculous prima face.  That's why the 'trillion dollar coin' makes sense.  Its why the bond market only moderately cares what the fed does with the overnight rate.

Its why the root of all money are two banks.. the German Bundesbank and the Federal Reserve.  There are some pretenders - but the Financial crisis proved the truth - there's only two senior collateral assets - one big enough for Europe and one big enough for the World.

There is one key step missing. Money is born when there are other people who will exchange goods and/or services for that piece of paper with "$100" written on it.

1 hour ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

If something functions as a proxy for money, isn't that the same thing as functioning as money? Money is itself a proxy for value.

Beads and salt are other examples of things that have been used as money without being tied to that fundamental transaction. I don't think it's so fundamental at all.

FAIL

Beads and salt are commodities, not money. They can be, and have been, used as means of exchange. But they are not money because they only fulfill one of the many purposes of money. They're a poor way to store value, for example.

Tom, why do you think made-up bullshit is a substitute for actually passing Econ 101?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

There is one key step missing. Money is born when there are other people who will exchange goods and/or services for that piece of paper with "$100" written on it.

That's where it starts to get philosophical and ease the sheet was probably right when he said no one really knows what money is.

Is a dollar a dollar before it changes hands?   Does money that might be lent but isn't yet in circulation still still money?

I think most of the money semantic arguments and gold standard discussions are generally proxy fights for bigger issues.  Money is power and those that have it want to keep it and those that don't have it want to get more.

Bitcoin uniquely matters because it's organic and isn't historically tied to a particular power structure.   That doesn't happen often.  It does happen - the tide economy is an example - but it's rare and rarely this global.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bitcoin is basically worthless with in itself. why you buy them with Fiat money, then if you want to buy an item you have to sell it for a fiat money, then use that money to buy the item!

Can they keep making bitcoins and then what would its value be?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Not for nothing said:

Bitcoin is basically worthless with in itself. why you buy them with Fiat money, then if you want to buy an item you have to sell it for a fiat money, then use that money to buy the item!

Can they keep making bitcoins and then what would its value be?

They can't.

Bitcoin's algorithm only allows a total 21 million coins to be mined. Yes, they keep getting more difficult as the prime numbers grow increasingly larger. But unlike an open ended current or coin, Bitcoin's value is secured right up to the day that quantum computers crack the encryption scheme.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mikewof said:

 

They can't.

Bitcoin's algorithm only allows a total 21 million coins to be mined. Yes, they keep getting more difficult as the prime numbers grow increasingly larger. But unlike an open ended current or coin, Bitcoin's value is secured right up to the day that quantum computers crack the encryption scheme.

Thanks for the input, don't know much about it

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mikewof said:

 

They can't.

Bitcoin's algorithm only allows a total 21 million coins to be mined. Yes, they keep getting more difficult as the prime numbers grow increasingly larger. But unlike an open ended current or coin, Bitcoin's value is secured right up to the day that quantum computers crack the encryption scheme.

Technically, 51% of the miners could collude to change the rules and create as many bitcoins as they feel like.

Bitcoin is the proof that quantum computing isn't ready for prime time.  Decrypting the prime keys is literally the best case study for quantum computing.  And there's $56 billion reasons to use it for that expressed purpose on mr. satoshi's wallet.  And it hasn't happened.

The difficulty scales with the hash rate, not with the length of the chain.  If 90% of the miners stopped mining today, then the algorithms would simplify to compensate.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BeSafe said:
8 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

There is one key step missing. Money is born when there are other people who will exchange goods and/or services for that piece of paper with "$100" written on it.

That's where it starts to get philosophical and ease the sheet was probably right when he said no one really knows what money is.

Is a dollar a dollar before it changes hands?   Does money that might be lent but isn't yet in circulation still still money?

I think most of the money semantic arguments and gold standard discussions are generally proxy fights for bigger issues.  Money is power and those that have it want to keep it and those that don't have it want to get more.

Bitcoin uniquely matters because it's organic and isn't historically tied to a particular power structure.   That doesn't happen often.  It does happen - the tide economy is an example - but it's rare and rarely this global.

It's only philosophical if you're not involved in any aspect of a financial business. The question "exactly what is money" becomes very very important if you are running a bank. Price is not the same thing as cost is not the same thing as value is not the same thing as worth, and in every equation there is a time factor whether you want it or not.

Money is valuable because you can exchange it for goods and services. Why is gold valuable?

To equate money with gold is a delusion. The fix the value of a nation's monetary units to a single specific good or commodity may be a good idea under some circumstances but of course the obvious corollary is that it's a bad idea under other circumstances.

I don't understand the description of bitcoin as "organic." It's not "tied to a power structure" ie no country has mandated it's use to pay taxes or it's acceptance in exchange for goods and/or services. It's valuable as long as people want it.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I don't understand the description of bitcoin as "organic." It's not "tied to a power structure" ie no country has mandated it's use to pay taxes or it's acceptance in exchange for goods and/or services. It's valuable as long as people want it.

- DSK

Organic meaning it wasn't created for that purpose.  Dollars are created to be dollars.  Bitcoin 'became' money because users of it decided that was advantageous. 

In some African countries, for example, bank accounts have become surrogates for 'state issued IDs' because the IDs are actually biometrically tied.  They weren't created for that purpose, but people go open bank accounts for very young kids with $1 dollar so the kid can get an ID which they then use throughout life.  Same idea. 

I've said before, 'crypto as cash' is literally the least useful incarnation of the technology but its what's caught on, nonetheless.

Bitcoin is highly decentralized and not backed by the full faith of anything but its users.  That is a curious evolution. 

EDIT:  FWIW at this point, I view bitcoin closer to the 'art market' than anything - its a constructed market with less artistic flair.  We'll see if it becomes more than that.  There are some clever use cases - particularly in remittance which, anyone who's try to send money home, knows is bullshit.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

There is one key step missing. Money is born when there are other people who will exchange goods and/or services for that piece of paper with "$100" written on it.

FAIL

Beads and salt are commodities, not money. They can be, and have been, used as means of exchange. But they are not money because they only fulfill one of the many purposes of money. They're a poor way to store value, for example.

Tom, why do you think made-up bullshit is a substitute for actually passing Econ 101?

- DSK

He read about it on the internet....

And Bitcoin also feels like a commodity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bitcoin is a scam, pure and simple.

It's vapourware for suckers who want to think they are on the cutting edge.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SloopJonB said:

Bitcoin is a scam, pure and simple.

It's vapourware for suckers who want to think they are on the cutting edge.

Just another Ponzi 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Except with Beani Babies you actually got something.

Bitcoin is scamming taken to its logical conclusion - money for nothing.

For those who remember the ads in the back pages of Popular Mechanics and the other similar mags, my dad told me a story about the 1930's equivalent of Bitcoin.

It was famously an ad that simply said Last Chance - send $1.

That was it - no product, no promises, no nuthin - just send a buck - while you still can.

Apparently it made a bunch of money for the advertiser - and it was completely legal.

Never give a sucker an even break or smarten up a chump.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Except with Beani Babies you actually got something.

Bitcoin is scamming taken to its logical conclusion - money for nothing.

 

why are so many great songs fit what today's world all about?

Dire Straits - Money For Nothing - YouTube

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Bitcoin is a scam, pure and simple.

It's vapourware for suckers who want to think they are on the cutting edge.

I don't think it's a scam, it could well be money.

But it takes more than a lot of deluded people saying it is, on the internet.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Except with Beani Babies you actually got something.

Bitcoin is scamming taken to its logical conclusion - money for nothing.

For those who remember the ads in the back pages of Popular Mechanics and the other similar mags, my dad told me a story about the 1930's equivalent of Bitcoin.

It was famously an ad that simply said Last Chance - send $1.

That was it - no product, no promises, no nuthin - just send a buck - while you still can.

Apparently it made a bunch of money for the advertiser - and it was completely legal.

Never give a sucker an even break or smarten up a chump.

The several serious cryptocurrencies are not scams. They are a may mature to have some practical use. The price speculation is a sad demonstration of greed. The sooner it collapses the better. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

I don't think anyone really knows what money is.

It is "faith" - always was and always will be. 

What were you expecting , , , , ??? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, El Borracho said:

The several serious cryptocurrencies are not scams. They are a may mature to have some practical use.

Feel free to "invest" in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Money is valuable because you can exchange it for goods and services. Why is gold valuable?

To equate money with gold is a delusion.

I have some old silver dimes. Are those money? As a store of value, they've done a heck of a lot better than non-silver dimes. That's one of your tests above, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

I have some old silver dimes. Are those money? As a store of value, they've done a heck of a lot better than non-silver dimes. That's one of your tests above, right?

Those silver dimes were money at one time. Not so much anymore if one is cognizant of their market value.

Silver has not been a steady store of value in the last few decades. More like crypto. As a collectible coin their value becomes mostly emotional.

Gold is only money because it is very easy to convert to currency which can buy goods and services. Not as easy as securities though, in the modern age. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, El Borracho said:

Illusion? Unreal? That is crazy talk. Money is quite real. Money, finance, etc. always appears in communities  about 10 minutes after barter begins. The obvious shortcomings of barter require it. 

shouldn't this be in purple!

 

 

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Not for nothing said:

shouldn't this be in purple!

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

Money is real. That is certain. People who have great amounts of money seem to be quite adamant about its value, reality, and other fine qualities. Anyone who thinks otherwise can instantly convert their money (currency) to some commodity or other property and no longer concern themselves with money. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

I have some old silver dimes. Are those money? As a store of value, they've done a heck of a lot better than non-silver dimes. That's one of your tests above, right?

Dimes are definitely money.

So, are you in favor of the gov't wasting our tax money buying expensive silver to make dimes out of?

Seems to me that you have it backwards, as usual; and will refuse to acknowledge your error (as always). Made-up bullshit is not the same thing as economics.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, El Borracho said:

Money is real. That is certain. People who have great amounts of money seem to be quite adamant about its value, reality, and other fine qualities. Anyone who thinks otherwise can instantly convert their money (currency) to some commodity or other property and no longer concern themselves with money. 

That last post I didn't mean to send, oh well

Check the new topic Crypto Crash 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, BeSafe said:

Technically, 51% of the miners could collude to change the rules and create as many bitcoins as they feel like.

Bitcoin is the proof that quantum computing isn't ready for prime time.  Decrypting the prime keys is literally the best case study for quantum computing.  And there's $56 billion reasons to use it for that expressed purpose on mr. satoshi's wallet.  And it hasn't happened.

The difficulty scales with the hash rate, not with the length of the chain.  If 90% of the miners stopped mining today, then the algorithms would simplify to compensate.  

 

I didn't think that the rules for the coin are written into the blockchain for bitcoin, but it makes sense, same as Ether. I read about the possibility of a 51% takeover of coins on the Ethereum network, Matic network, etc., assuming that it would need some kind of coordinated state or organization takeover, and it seemed that at the given rate of computing advancement, 256-bit keys would be crackable long before the coins could be rationally leveraged with a 51% attack.

Quantum computing doesn't yet work too well because it seems to be kind of a meaningless catch-all of computing advancements. In some cases, they use regular analog architecture but with a "quantum" processing scheme, in others they use field emission with cooling, and in others the processing is normal, but the physical architecture of the machine actually uses quantum states with spin-up, spin-down states where nuclear magnetic resonance adjusts the bit state in locked molecules. I think the latter is the one that will eventually work, but they'll get it to work.

I'm fairly confident that 256-bit encryption will be essentially useless within our lifetimes, and if there isn't some kind of government oversight to protect existing coins and transition them to 16,384-bit encryption, then it isn't likely the existing crypto programmers will be young enough or give a crap enough to redo all this work, which would lead to shitty-ass government-run crypto in the flavor of Microsoft, without open-sourcing, with private blockchains, and full government control. Maybe that's what the governments of the world actually want, so they're happy to let advanced computing break contemporary crypto. But it will suck, and the underground will just make something new to jam/hack it and then get thrown into prison for fucking with it.

Thanks for explaining the hash rate thing, I thought that the difficulty of mining was because it kept looking for increasingly longer prime numbers, which would present a kind of asymptotic computing length time as the number of coins inched closer to 21 million. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, El Borracho said:

The several serious cryptocurrencies are not scams. They are a may mature to have some practical use. The price speculation is a sad demonstration of greed. The sooner it collapses the better. 

I agree. It's had to know about the real value of these. They are definitely used to move money around the world for nefarious purposes in a way that is far easier that smuggling cash through airports.

And the ability to build tools into the coins themselves is something that money couldn't do. I like one coin that is just used to buy rideshares, and written into the smart contract itself is essentially Uber and Lyft, but without the overhead and Uber and Lyft skimming their corporate profits off of each transaction. So the coin itself summons the driver, the smart contract establishes the price, and then automatically moves the coin from the wallet of the rider to the wallet of the driver once the contract is mutually agreed as completed. Pretty neat, it's possible that the utility of such a thing may be far more permanent than the conventional currency that it replaced. There are all kinds of coins like that that create their own economies ... coins tied to the value of water, of energy, transportation, grain crops, smart contracts with lotteries, retirement accounts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

I have some old silver dimes. Are those money? As a store of value, they've done a heck of a lot better than non-silver dimes. That's one of your tests above, right?

Gold and silver were the most compact way to move value, they took a lot less storage space and transfer weight than things like grain, fabric, bread and meat. We have some of that residue today, but we also can see the end of it.

Today, gold and silver's value as transportable and compact mediums of exchange are limited compared to other options, and industrially, they don't hold much of a monopoly. Conductors? Meh, copper and aluminum do the job, eventually those will be replaced with graphene wire which offers ballistic conductivity and can literally be made of dog shit. Literally, made of dog shit.

The real future of valuable materials that can swap as money are the elements that can't so simply be replaced as gold and silver. For instance Holmium, a really good rare earth element, if you need it in a device, nothing else will really work to do what the device was designed to do with Holmium, because the magnetic permeability of that element is so high. Same thing with helium; no other gas will do what helium does. I might have a nanostructured device that absolutely needs iridium as a diffusion barrier between active layers and nothing else may do the job in the same way.

Your silver dimes are worth more than your non-silver dimes due to the residue of an archaic system. That's in front of us and we don't even recognize it. The fact that gold and iridium have nearly the same price is a demonstration of that. Iridium is far more valuable and far, far more rare by most industrial measures, but people don't speculate much on iridium like they do gold. Much of the excess value of your silver dimes isn't due to the silver, but due to the societal agreement that silver-alloy is more valuable than nickel-alloy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Dimes are definitely money.

So, are you in favor of the gov't wasting our tax money buying expensive silver to make dimes out of?

That's nice.

So, are you in favor of money that is a better store of value or a worse one? Because fiat dimes are clearly worse. Getting something better sometimes costs money. Possibly because it's worth it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Bitcoin is a scam, pure and simple.

It's vapourware for suckers who want to think they are on the cutting edge.

If Bitcoin is a scam then so is global debt, U.S. currency, Euros, giant stone coins in the Yap Islands, etc.. 

Ultimately, if these exchange methods can prove utility then they are not a scam. You perceive Bitcoin, (and presumably all those coins on the Ethereum and Matic networks) as scams because you have no use for them. It's little different from giving a stack of $100 bills to a hermit who has little need for them other than to feed his goat. But your limited need or experience with crypto-currency doesn't devalue it, or turn the people who do use it into "suckers." It just means that you don't need it. Before I came across a nearly impossible-to-remove bolt in the guts of a pneumatic pump, I thought that the Snap-on obstruction wrenches that I inherited from my uncle were mostly just for show, expensive tools for people who wanted to blow more coin at the tool truck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

That's nice.

So, are you in favor of money that is a better store of value or a worse one? Because fiat dimes are clearly worse. Getting something better sometimes costs money. Possibly because it's worth it.

Silver dimes have a slight advantage in store-of-value because they have a par value guaranteed by the US Treasury: Ten cents. So next time some rich person manipulates the market price in an attempt to screw the some schmucks out of their life savings (Hunt Brothers), 50 silver dimes will buy the schmuck a loaf of bread. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What Nostradamus predicted for 2022

We hate to break it to you, but his predictions aren't very positive. Indeed, he foresaw a series of natural disasters, diseases, attacks and floods for 2022. 

1) The US dollar will collapse

According to Nostradamus' predictions, by 2022 inflation will be out of control and the US dollar will collapse. Plus, gold, silver, and bitcoin will be seen as assets worth investing more money in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

That's nice.

So, are you in favor of money that is a better store of value or a worse one? Because fiat dimes are clearly worse. Getting something better sometimes costs money. Possibly because it's worth it.

If what you can buy with it is far less that the value of the material the money is made out of, then as "money" it's the reverse of a "store of value."

 

4 hours ago, El Borracho said:

Silver dimes have a slight advantage in store-of-value because they have a par value guaranteed by the US Treasury: Ten cents. So next time some rich person manipulates the market price in an attempt to screw the some schmucks out of their life savings (Hunt Brothers), 50 silver dimes will buy the schmuck a loaf of bread. 

There's also the value of silver dimes in that you can use them to load a shotgun, like in Billy The Kid

 

But I've never done this myself and some say it's not true.

https://www.guns.com/news/2018/07/27/hello-bob-testing-the-old-trope-of-shooting-dimes-from-a-shotgun-videos

YMMV

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

That would be a dismal thing to do

- DSK

But on the other hand. . . .

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2022 at 2:51 AM, BeSafe said:

That's truth :)

 

If you rewind it all the way back, it sort of makes sense.

You and I are in a room and there is no money.   I agree to borrow $100 from you.  You say sure, and pull out a piece of paper and write $100 on it and hand it too me.  On another piece of paper, you make a note saying that I owe you $100 dollars.

Money is born.

That's it.  All of the money in existence today is tied to that fundamental transaction.  That's why the idea of 'paying off the debt' is ridiculous prima face.  That's why the 'trillion dollar coin' makes sense.  Its why the bond market only moderately cares what the fed does with the overnight rate.

Its why the root of all money are two banks.. the German Bundesbank and the Federal Reserve.  There are some pretenders - but the Financial crisis proved the truth - there's only two senior collateral assets - one big enough for Europe and one big enough for the World.

Not quite.  The borrower and the lender both have to have a use for that "money", which means that at least one other third party has also agreed that there is value in that slip of paper.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Both explain after the fact....

but at least we don't just constantly restate the obvious . .  

like those dang nabit sociologists . . . 

(friendly humor alert - there are some great souls doing that work) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2022 at 2:12 AM, mikewof said:

Bitcoin's algorithm only allows a total 21 million coins to be mined.

Is that a mathematical limit or an arbitrary limit?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ncik said:

Is that a mathematical limit or an arbitrary limit?

It was arbitrary at the time the code was created but is mathematically baked in, at this point.  The limit is difficult but not impossible to change.

The 'miners' update the ledger through a consensus model tied to proof of work.  What that means in practice is that 50% of the miners have to agree on what the next block of information is going to look like.  The 'voting shares' for consensus are determined by how many calculations are done.  That structure is built into the code itself - it's self propagating through each new block, with a new block being added approximately every 10 minutes.  That last feature is designed to be self-leveling.  The algorithm that has to be 'solved' gets harder if the solution time drops below 10 minutes and gets easier if its taking longer than 10 minutes to update.  The reward for updating the ledger is a bitcoin.  That's the incentive to keep updating.  The ledger is 100% publicly viewable.  So any shenanigans are immediately visible.

How does the code get changed?   A clear majority decide it's going to get changed.  They agree on what the new change is going to be, which block the change is going to become effective, and then essentially start 'mining' that changed block at an agreed upon time.

The old ledger is 'forked' - nothing is ever destroyed in bitcoin, but there is now no incentive to update the old string of transactions and so the old code withers away.

BTW:  Bitcoin has actually been forked and there are many derivative projects.  So can you make a bazzilion bitcoin?  Sure - the majority of miners just have to agree that's what they want to do.

Oddly enough, Dogecoin was sort of invented as a response to Bitcoin's rise in value - having vastly more 'coins' - and was a joke that caught on.  Because it's a derivative project from litecoin, it sort of just hung around, being co-mined for shits and giggles  But it was also decentralized and 'meme'ed enough that its actuality valuable.

--------

Bitcoin itself is pretty limited - it was made as a proof of concept project.  But its the oldest, first, and least complicated so it also has that advantage.  The 2nd generation projects - like 'Etherium' - started working in more complexity.  They started baking in automated functions like the aforementioned 'smart contracts' where if 'situation a' is satisfied, then 'transaction a' is automatically executed.  That's a big deal in things like derivative contracts and bypasses the threat of the "Lehman Collapse" type apocalyptic scenarios since all transactions are automatically executed and publicly scrutable.  Smart contracts created the rise of the oracles (i.e, chainlink, etc) that pass data into the smart contracts and that lead to Defi and blah blah.

But you can see what's ultimately happening - a system of automated transaction processing is being created that does not require - nor allow - for centralized governance.  Humans are creating, through consensus, an automated money system that would be globally accessible with nothing more than a cell phone.

FWIW, in most of the 'crypto' projects, the 'coins' are essentially unregulated stock offerings. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, El Borracho said:

Silver dimes have a slight advantage in store-of-value because they have a par value guaranteed by the US Treasury: Ten cents. So next time some rich person manipulates the market price in an attempt to screw the some schmucks out of their life savings (Hunt Brothers), 50 silver dimes will buy the schmuck a loaf of bread. 

Hah! What's valuable is the word of politicians and not the metal?

So when did the melt value drop below a dime, necessitating this rescue? Let me guess: never?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

f what you can buy with it is far less that the value of the material the money is made out of, then as "money" it's the reverse of a "store of value."

And yet, look which one stored value better. I ask again, do you prefer a better store of value or a worse one? Is that a hard question?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

And yet, look which one stored value better. I ask again, do you prefer a better store of value or a worse one? Is that a hard question?

Apparently it is is, for you.

 

7 hours ago, Venom said:

- At over $24.13 per ounce, silver dimes are worth at least $1.61 each - 1/24/2022

In other words, for every silver dime you spend, you're throwing away a $1.51

Seems like extremely simple math to me, is there somebody in the house that can explain it to the trumpalos?

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, BeSafe said:

It was arbitrary at the time the code was created but is mathematically baked in, at this point.  The limit is difficult but not impossible to change.

The 'miners' update the ledger through a consensus model tied to proof of work.  What that means in practice is that 50% of the miners have to agree on what the next block of information is going to look like.  The 'voting shares' for consensus are determined by how many calculations are done.  That structure is built into the code itself - it's self propagating through each new block, with a new block being added approximately every 10 minutes.  That last feature is designed to be self-leveling.  The algorithm that has to be 'solved' gets harder if the solution time drops below 10 minutes and gets easier if its taking longer than 10 minutes to update.  The reward for updating the ledger is a bitcoin.  That's the incentive to keep updating.  The ledger is 100% publicly viewable.  So any shenanigans are immediately visible.

How does the code get changed?   A clear majority decide it's going to get changed.  They agree on what the new change is going to be, which block the change is going to become effective, and then essentially start 'mining' that changed block at an agreed upon time.

The old ledger is 'forked' - nothing is ever destroyed in bitcoin, but there is now no incentive to update the old string of transactions and so the old code withers away.

BTW:  Bitcoin has actually been forked and there are many derivative projects.  So can you make a bazzilion bitcoin?  Sure - the majority of miners just have to agree that's what they want to do.

Oddly enough, Dogecoin was sort of invented as a response to Bitcoin's rise in value - having vastly more 'coins' - and was a joke that caught on.  Because it's a derivative project from litecoin, it sort of just hung around, being co-mined for shits and giggles  But it was also decentralized and 'meme'ed enough that its actuality valuable.

--------

Bitcoin itself is pretty limited - it was made as a proof of concept project.  But its the oldest, first, and least complicated so it also has that advantage.  The 2nd generation projects - like 'Etherium' - started working in more complexity.  They started baking in automated functions like the aforementioned 'smart contracts' where if 'situation a' is satisfied, then 'transaction a' is automatically executed.  That's a big deal in things like derivative contracts and bypasses the threat of the "Lehman Collapse" type apocalyptic scenarios since all transactions are automatically executed and publicly scrutable.  Smart contracts created the rise of the oracles (i.e, chainlink, etc) that pass data into the smart contracts and that lead to Defi and blah blah.

But you can see what's ultimately happening - a system of automated transaction processing is being created that does not require - nor allow - for centralized governance.  Humans are creating, through consensus, an automated money system that would be globally accessible with nothing more than a cell phone.

FWIW, in most of the 'crypto' projects, the 'coins' are essentially unregulated stock offerings.

 

 

I'm bullish on the Matic network. It is pure design from India. In other words, like Tata automobiles, it works about 90% of the time, it does what it does cheaply and pretty fast for most transactions. Deficiencies in the network are well-balance by how affordable it is, and that really helps not erode your value if you're running a token farm or NFT robot. It's a very well-written network in my experience with tokens and NFTs, very low friction. The main coin is Polygon, but all these other coins and systems on that network are a pleasure to use ...

1380728420_ScreenShot2022-01-27at5_53_50PM.png.5b92bde66da6ff6a349dced5f7774be6.png

^^^ Matic Network ^^^

1662254061_ScreenShot2022-01-27at5_56_02PM.png.f7f457fb53cf1f8510c541dcdf86d07a.png

^^^ Ethereum Network ^^^

1714351009_ScreenShot2022-01-27at5_57_35PM.png.eb37530e5fda0b8c7d62692fe01f85f9.png

^^^ Bitcoin Network ^^^

Hyperbole aside, costs of a similar transaction on all three networks ...

Bitcoin - $10
Ethereum - $5
Matic/Polygon - $0.03

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2022 at 4:11 AM, El Borracho said:

Those silver dimes were money at one time. Not so much anymore if one is cognizant of their market value.

Silver has not been a steady store of value in the last few decades. More like crypto. As a collectible coin their value becomes mostly emotional.

Gold is only money because it is very easy to convert to currency which can buy goods and services. Not as easy as securities though, in the modern age. 

Ask the Hunt bros about investing in silver.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:
21 hours ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

And yet, look which one stored value better. I ask again, do you prefer a better store of value or a worse one? Is that a hard question?

Apparently it is is, for you.

 

On 1/27/2022 at 1:24 AM, Venom said:

- At over $24.13 per ounce, silver dimes are worth at least $1.61 each - 1/24/2022

In other words, for every silver dime you spend, you're throwing away a $1.51

Seems like extremely simple math to me, is there somebody in the house that can explain it to the trumpalos?

I already conceded the point that superior value often costs more money.

Now, do you prefer a better store of value or a worse one? Yes, I know that better often costs more than worse, and does in this case. I'm not asking about that. I'm asking about whether a better store of value is, well, better. Is it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

I already conceded the point that superior value often costs more money.

Now, do you prefer a better store of value or a worse one? Yes, I know that better often costs more than worse, and does in this case. I'm not asking about that. I'm asking about whether a better store of value is, well, better. Is it?

Is something really a store of "value" if it's value unexpectedly changes?

How/why would that be better?

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Is something really a store of "value" if it's value unexpectedly changes?

How/why would that be better?

Unexpected? Not to me. I expect metal to be worth more than the words of politicians. It's true that the silver market is manipulated by governments and private investors because it's small enough that they can.

But it's pretty obvious which kind of dime stored value better over time. A dime from the year after they weren't silver any more is worth a dime. A sliver dime is worth a buck and a half or something these days. So if you kept one from each year all this time, the silver one stored value better. And better is, well, better.

The reality of that gets more dramatic when the politicians really get off the chain and unleash hyperinflation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

Unexpected? Not to me. I expect metal to be worth more than the words of politicians. It's true that the silver market is manipulated by governments and private investors because it's small enough that they can.

But it's pretty obvious which kind of dime stored value better over time. A dime from the year after they weren't silver any more is worth a dime. A sliver dime is worth a buck and a half or something these days. So if you kept one from each year all this time, the silver one stored value better. And better is, well, better.

The reality of that gets more dramatic when the politicians really get off the chain and unleash hyperinflation.

Except they are obviously not the same thing.

It's an apple to orange comparison.

 

One is a hunk of silver, the other is not.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Except they are obviously not the same thing.

It's an apple to orange comparison.

 

One is a hunk of silver, the other is not.

 

 

I agree with Doug on that one.

  

On 1/26/2022 at 8:11 AM, Steam Flyer said:

Dimes are definitely money.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

So if I offer you a new dime, would you swap your silver dimes?

No, like I said, I prefer a better store of value to a worse one.

How about you? Do you prefer a better store of value or a worse one?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

No, like I said, I prefer a better store of value to a worse one.

How about you? Do you prefer a better store of value or a worse one?

So they are not like for like.

Are 20 year old apple shares a better store of value?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

So they are not like for like.

No, not at all. You can trust the value of metal a lot more than the word of a politician. That's why it's possible to like one better than the other.

Which do you like better?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

No, not at all. You can trust the value of metal a lot more than the word of a politician. That's why it's possible to like one better than the other.

Which do you like better?

Nothing wrong with value.

But luckily I haven't confused it for money.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

No, like I said, I prefer a better store of value to a worse one.

How about you? Do you prefer a better store of value or a worse one?

Ahh, so you won’t use a silver dime as money then. It’s value to you is as a commodity. That’s fine. But then it’s no longer money…

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Not for nothing said:

Been there and lost every dime not even a t-shirt

Not the best time to invest in gold or silver.

Their usefulness in industry has been marginalized. Better to invest in rare earth elements, like Scandium, Neodymium, Erbium, Thulium, etc..

T/he big difference is that if someone specs gold or silver in a manufactured process, and if the price is too high, other materials with similar properties can usually be swapped in or out as needed. But with REEs, if a circuit has been designed to use a dopant layer with Thulium, or a certain fiber optic system need Erbium for a filter, or certain high performance motor needs Neodymium windings, then in almost all cases NOTHING ELSE WILL WORK PROPERLY! That industrial need then establishes the benchmark for the value far more than market sentiment.

You can buy REE ingot online and store it the same way you would store gold or silver.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Raz'r said:
13 hours ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

No, like I said, I prefer a better store of value to a worse one.

How about you? Do you prefer a better store of value or a worse one?

Ahh, so you won’t use a silver dime as money then. It’s value to you is as a commodity. That’s fine. But then it’s no longer money…

Apparently Tom considers it "better" to throw away ~$1.50 every time he spends one of those dimes; or perhaps that he saved ten cents 50 years ago and can go to a metal dealer today and receive ~$1.60 now; approximately a 5.7% rate of return BTW.

But then, we already knew trumpalos can't do math, as well as struggling with definitions of fairly common words.

- DSK

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Apparently Tom considers it "better" to throw away ~$1.50 every time he spends one of those dimes; or perhaps that he saved ten cents 50 years ago and can go to a metal dealer today and receive ~$1.60 now; approximately a 5.7% rate of return BTW.

But then, we already knew trumpalos can't do math, as well as struggling with definitions of fairly common words.

- DSK

5.7%?

And then there's taxes....

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Apparently Tom considers it "better" to throw away ~$1.50 every time he spends one of those dimes; or perhaps that he saved ten cents 50 years ago and can go to a metal dealer today and receive ~$1.60 now; approximately a 5.7% rate of return BTW.

But then, we already knew trumpalos can't do math, as well as struggling with definitions of fairly common words.

- DSK

Or maybe I just recognize that we switched from a better store of value to a worse one. Remember upthread when the quality of a store of value mattered to you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

Or maybe I just recognize that we switched from a better store of value to a worse one. Remember upthread when the quality of a store of value mattered to you?

Yeah, maybe.

Being a "store of value" is one of the basic functions of money.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Yeah, maybe.

Being a "store of value" is one of the basic functions of money.

- DSK

Is money really a store of value?

I see it more as a way to transfer value.

In a lot of ways, money is no different than a cheque or a credit card. Hard to argue either of those hold value.

 

 

Or are we just defining "value" differently?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Is money really a store of value?

I see it more as a way to transfer value.

In a lot of ways, money is no different than a cheque or a credit card. Hard to argue either of those hold value.

Look up the definitions of M1, M2, and M3 as part of the money supply.

A cheque (or check, as we call it here) is a form of money and the check itself does not store money but the deposit it draws on definitely does. Credit available is definitely money and a store of value.

There actually is a regularized study of this, it's not Tom-esque made-up bullshit. https://open.lib.umn.edu/macroeconomics/chapter/9-1-what-is-money/

https://opentextbc.ca/principlesofeconomics/chapter/27-1-defining-money-by-its-functions/

the wikipedia entry is a great source, it's interesting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_money and could dispel a lot of illusions and delusions... if only those who cling to them would allow it!

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Is money really a store of value?

I see it more as a way to transfer value.

In a lot of ways, money is no different than a cheque or a credit card. Hard to argue either of those hold value.

Or are we just defining "value" differently?

If Value is a property of something - ie a brick, or a bag of flour, has a certain value, then no, money isn't really a store of value.

Gets a ambigous that we use money as a measure of that value. Rather than saying a sack of flour is worth 10 bricks, we use the concept of a unit of money to measure both - a brick is worth $2 and a bag of flour is worth $20.

I like to consider money as a transferrable store of debt. I have worked for someone, so they give me money to recognise the debt, where the debt is a measure of the value I created for them via the work. At that point I can store that accrued debt, or even pass it to someone else. (The utility of a particular currency is measured by how widely it can be transferred). So money comes into existance when a bank or a government prints it and gives it to someone to recognise a debt. In the case of early banks, that 'debt' was a lump of gold placed with the bank by a person. The money/debt then passes around, until at some point it could be removed by being returned to the bank that issued it, and the gold being handed back over. FIAT money is obviously a little more complex, but it is still effectively a government handing over a dollar to recognise a debt, and that government can still retire than monen anytime they have it back in their possesion.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Is money really a store of value?

I see it more as a way to transfer value.

In a lot of ways, money is no different than a cheque or a credit card. Hard to argue either of those hold value.

 

 

Or are we just defining "value" differently?

I'm pretty sure I don't see cash as a store of value. There is no rate-of-return on cash in your pocket, under the mattress, in the backyard, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Se7en said:

If Value is a property of something - ie a brick, or a bag of flour, has a certain value, then no, money isn't really a store of value.

Gets a ambigous that we use money as a measure of that value. Rather than saying a sack of flour is worth 10 bricks, we use the concept of a unit of money to measure both - a brick is worth $2 and a bag of flour is worth $20.

I like to consider money as a transferrable store of debt. I have worked for someone, so they give me money to recognise the debt, where the debt is a measure of the value I created for them via the work. At that point I can store that accrued debt, or even pass it to someone else. (The utility of a particular currency is measured by how widely it can be transferred). So money comes into existance when a bank or a government prints it and gives it to someone to recognise a debt. In the case of early banks, that 'debt' was a lump of gold placed with the bank by a person. The money/debt then passes around, until at some point it could be removed by being returned to the bank that issued it, and the gold being handed back over. FIAT money is obviously a little more complex, but it is still effectively a government handing over a dollar to recognise a debt, and that government can still retire than monen anytime they have it back in their possesion.

Yep, the basic premise is that you can pay your taxes with it. Therefore, there's an implied value.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Yep, the basic premise is that you can pay your taxes with it. Therefore, there's an implied value.

Slightly disagree... probably only semanticly.

The money you have is a measure of the debt that 'society' owes you for goods or labour. Paying tax is kinda an enforced contribution to the good of 'society', you make that contribution out of the debt you are owed by 'society'.

So money doesn't have any value itself, it is just a standardised way of measuring the value of an accrued debt from society.

*I'm using 'society' very broadly here to represent everyone as some sort of mass entity / concept. There is probably a better term.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Look up the definitions of M1, M2, and M3 as part of the money supply.

A cheque (or check, as we call it here) is a form of money and the check itself does not store money but the deposit it draws on definitely does. Credit available is definitely money and a store of value.

There actually is a regularized study of this, it's not Tom-esque made-up bullshit. https://open.lib.umn.edu/macroeconomics/chapter/9-1-what-is-money/

https://opentextbc.ca/principlesofeconomics/chapter/27-1-defining-money-by-its-functions/

the wikipedia entry is a great source, it's interesting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_money and could dispel a lot of illusions and delusions... if only those who cling to them would allow it!

- DSK

 

2 hours ago, Se7en said:

If Value is a property of something - ie a brick, or a bag of flour, has a certain value, then no, money isn't really a store of value.

Gets a ambigous that we use money as a measure of that value. Rather than saying a sack of flour is worth 10 bricks, we use the concept of a unit of money to measure both - a brick is worth $2 and a bag of flour is worth $20.

I like to consider money as a transferrable store of debt. I have worked for someone, so they give me money to recognise the debt, where the debt is a measure of the value I created for them via the work. At that point I can store that accrued debt, or even pass it to someone else. (The utility of a particular currency is measured by how widely it can be transferred). So money comes into existance when a bank or a government prints it and gives it to someone to recognise a debt. In the case of early banks, that 'debt' was a lump of gold placed with the bank by a person. The money/debt then passes around, until at some point it could be removed by being returned to the bank that issued it, and the gold being handed back over. FIAT money is obviously a little more complex, but it is still effectively a government handing over a dollar to recognise a debt, and that government can still retire than monen anytime they have it back in their possesion.

It seems that the use of money describes what's it's for.

 

Sounds pretty stupid! But I think that money does have different uses, different purposes and different definitions. Depending on the situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Raz'r said:

I'm pretty sure I don't see cash as a store of value. There is no rate-of-return on cash in your pocket, under the mattress, in the backyard, etc.

Well, there is - sorta.

The problem is that it's negative. Currently it's around -5% IIRC.

Cash is a medium of transfer - period.

That's part of why you never hear anybody talking about "investing" in cash.

Link to post
Share on other sites