Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin, a service and the micro-micro-economy

bitcoinbulletin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 82 posts

Re: Bitcoin, a service and the micro-micro-economy

#71

Post by lutorm »

mike_esspe wrote: post #64
lutorm wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to like the idea of keeping the wealth I created. You should add, "while letting everyone else pay for the benefits I receive," just so it's clear.

Don't you think, that it's obviously immoral to force others to pay for the benefits, if they don't want them, like governments does? And to forbid the competition in providing of such services? Plus if i charge different amount for the same service, i will be frowned upon. If government does this, nobody notice. Probably the only fare tax - is when anyone pays proportionally to services they got, not proportionally…

Don't you think, that it's obviously immoral to force others to pay for the benefits, if they don't want them, like governments does?

In principle, I slightly agree with you. But only very slightly. I tend to think it's obviously immoral to build a system where a minority live in excess while the majority live on scraps. It's clear we have a philosophical disagreement. Apart from that, I don't see how you'd run a functioning society without having it apply to everyone. If I don't want the benefit of societally-enforced laws, do I also have the right to not obey them to the detriment of others? If I do not want the benefit of regulations to prevent air and water pollution, does that give me the right to pollute it for others?

Besides, if you feel so oppressed, you are in fact free to leave. Most countries are not like the Soviet Union, and as far as I know there are alternatives without taxing governments. Those alternatives have other drawbacks, though, but that's exactly my point. It seems to me that those who complain about taxes want to have their cake and eat it, too.

Re: Bitcoin, a service and the micro-micro-economy

#72

Post by lutorm »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #68
lutorm wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to like the idea of keeping the wealth I created. You should add, "while letting everyone else pay for the benefits I receive," just so it's clear.

A big chunk of your taxes are not paying for the benefits you receive. At least 47% are direct wealth transfers to other people [1]. Unless you believe that there is The basic, vital services you need (police, fire, roads, water, government administrators, etc) amount to only 24% of the government budget and a much smaller fraction of the federal budget. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2009_US_total#u...…

Just to make it clear, while I agree with the idea of a tax-funded government, I do have issues with specific implementations of this idea, the US budget being one of them.

Your Mafia example is spurious, as it's not subject to elections. A democratic government only exists by the consent of the governed. I do not think that corporations or organized crime have taxing authority.

Re: Bitcoin, a service and the micro-micro-economy

#73

Post by epscylonb »

PostOnce wrote: post #67
dublinclontarf wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the govt can contact the bank and ask for acct details And the bank, being a website(quite possibly based outside the government in questions reach) can ignore them. And that's if the "banks" really have any information about you besides your username and password. >they are worse than regular banks, being uninsured, unregulated, and unsecured. Why would a website(aka, the bitcoin bank) that stores a few bits, infor…

Depending on the country, maybe. Every website is hosted somewhere, though. The reason a bitcoin bank needs to be insured and secured is so that someone doesn't gingerly walk in, pick the computer up, and take off with $40,000,000 of your customers' money. Part of the point of a bank is security. That's why people who earn no interest don't keep large sums of cash in their homes. And yes, using a gun to force someone…

Invisible hand of the free market my friend.

If a bank lets a thief get away with an unencrypted harddrive full of bitcoins who is going to ever use them again?.

Bitcoin is a strange concept, I am not convinced it will take off but the potential is amazing.

Re: Bitcoin, a service and the micro-micro-economy

#74

Post by lutorm »

kiba wrote: post #69
lutorm wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this is what makes no sense to me. In a f2f transaction, I exchange money for goods. In a virtual transaction, it creates a fundamental asymmetry if the money transfer can't be reversed, since you have no way of verifying the other part of the transaction, i.e., that the goods were actually shipped. The bitcoin proponents make a big deal that transactions can't be reversed. But if you continue reading the FAQ,…

chargeback is a cost. That cost is then passed on to consumers. It's a tradeoff.

That's my point. But the Bitcoin proponents don't address the tradeoff, just one side of it.

Re: Bitcoin, a service and the micro-micro-economy

#75

Post by mike_esspe »

lutorm wrote: post #71
mike_esspe wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you think, that it's obviously immoral to force others to pay for the benefits, if they don't want them, like governments does? And to forbid the competition in providing of such services? Plus if i charge different amount for the same service, i will be frowned upon. If government does this, nobody notice. Probably the only fare tax - is when anyone pays proportionally to services they got, not proportionally…

Don't you think, that it's obviously immoral to force others to pay for the benefits, if they don't want them, like governments does? In principle, I slightly agree with you. But only very slightly. I tend to think it's obviously immoral to build a system where a minority live in excess while the majority live on scraps. It's clear we have a philosophical disagreement. Apart from that, I don't see how you'd run a fun…

Polluting someones property is an aggression. It's the current government, who forbids you to sue the polluters in the name of the progress.

Unfortunately, i'm not free to opt out my property from the government dominion and subscribe to some other government. When governments won't have a territorial monopoly, than we will get a real competition for their services.

Re: Bitcoin, a service and the micro-micro-economy

#76

Post by jakehow »

burke wrote: post #63
mizerydearia wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or USD 0.0079 Also, each category has its own prices. Some categories post/comment/vote costs at current Bitcoin exchange rate are USD 0.0000000079.

This brings up a little facet of bitcoin that I'm /really/ not crazy about: The smallest possible unit is 0.00000001 BTC. With a fixed cap of 21M BTC, requiring that each transaction be for at least 4.8*10^-16 of the total possible amount in circulation seems like a questionable choice at best.

If it becomes a runaway train towards this endpoint, this would give bitcoin >10x current M1, while retaining the ability to pay in $.01 increments.

This should be sufficient for the near term ;)

Re: Bitcoin, a service and the micro-micro-economy

#77

Post by firethief »

trotsky wrote: post #28

People who grow interested in participating in the bitcoin market because of this or other articles about the currency should be aware that at its heart it is a very speculative market. The price of a bitcoin in USD has risen dramatically through most of its life while lacking economic fundamentals for why it should. Indeed, the money supply in the bitcoin market increases steadily over time, this should be inflation…

This sounds like a well-thought out reply; that's bad, because it is wrong.

> Indeed, the money supply in the bitcoin market increases steadily over time,

This is partially correct - the money supply increases asymptotically; the deflation eventually resulting from this may become a problem in the future.

> this should be inflationary, causing the value of BTC to fall.

I have a couple of issues with this statement:

1. the value of a currency is usually most meaningful relative to another currency; BTC is not unique in having a money supply that increases over time.

The current annual rate of increase of the BTC money supply is about 7.57%. The rate of increase of the USD M0 money supply is around 4.50% (I am having trouble finding the exact value).

2. money supply alone does not determine the true value of a currency - the size of the economy (amount of goods and services purchasable with that currency) is also a factor, among other things.

It seems to me a reasonable assumption that, given how green BTC is (created in 2009), the size of the BTC economy is increasing substantially faster than the size of the USD. If this is the case, BTC's increasing market size is probably greater than its increasing money supply, relative to the USD - quite possibly enough to justify its increase in value, by my estimates.

EDIT: the Bitcoin M0 increase rate is currently 50%, not 7.57% - this is an important difference, and it supports your statement that the value of Bitcoins is quite speculative. However, I stand by my reasoning that it is less speculative than you claim.

Re: Bitcoin, a service and the micro-micro-economy

#78

Post by rmc »

kiba wrote: post #69
lutorm wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this is what makes no sense to me. In a f2f transaction, I exchange money for goods. In a virtual transaction, it creates a fundamental asymmetry if the money transfer can't be reversed, since you have no way of verifying the other part of the transaction, i.e., that the goods were actually shipped. The bitcoin proponents make a big deal that transactions can't be reversed. But if you continue reading the FAQ,…

chargeback is a cost. That cost is then passed on to consumers. It's a tradeoff.

I agree. But the people promoting Bitcoin act as if there is no tradoff, as if there is never any benefit to anyone (except the greedy paypal companies) to chargebacks.

Re: Bitcoin, a service and the micro-micro-economy

#79

Post by rmc »

joelthelion wrote: post #33
rmc wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1)Hard money, once you receive payment in bitcoin it stays with you, meaning no chargebacks(Paypal, credit cards, looking at you). I read this as: "If you give bitcoins to someone in exchange for goods/services and they don't deliver, you're screwed, your money is gone, there is no-one you can talk to". That sounds like it's good for sellers and bad for buyers.

Check the seller's reputation before buying. I think it's a lot better this way.

How do I do that on the web if I want to buy a book for (the equivalent of) €5? If it's too much work I'll just buy it with euro or dollar from amazon.

Re: Bitcoin, a service and the micro-micro-economy

#80

Post by ashconnor »

joelthelion wrote: post #34
ashconnor wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have recourse by contacting authorities. E-gold's centralised system was not what I was debating. It was the exchange of e-gold to fiat currencies. Alpaca socks I will assume are created by the person who actual sells them. Dealing with other suppliers who won't accept BitCoin was the obstacle I was detailing. I don't debate that you can launder money in USD but it is easier in this system. There's no paper trail…

>no paper trail There's a lot of information in the blockchain. I'm not sure bitcoin is really that great for laundering.

You can generate multiple ids for the same wallet.
Post reply on HN