Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pine floors are terrible to maintain though. 'cut off your nose to spite the king'
>Pine floors are terrible to maintain though. Why? Is it the sap?
They are soft and get dents and such pretty easily.
The Guns of Bitcoin (2017)
41–50 of 117 posts
Re: The Guns of Bitcoin (2017)
#42I would like to see a total ban/block of any kind of cryptocurrency articles on HN. I'm happy to include my own, if that's what it takes. https://louwrentius.com/cryptocurrencies-are-detrimental-to-...
you want to censor discussion around a promising technology. why?
Bitcoin is not really liked on HN. I'm guessing most of the older HN guys don't seem really interested in the tech or is terrified by the price action, perhaps
Re: The Guns of Bitcoin (2017)
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
My model of fiat money is like a battery: the government is both the outgoing pole (money printing) and the incoming pole (taxation). Money flows through the economy from one pole to the other, but all demand terminally stems from the taxation pole just as all supply stems from the printing pole. Of course, things get more complicated because money exists across time, credit, and inflation. But as a simple model it e…
I disagree strongly here - there really is no incoming pole in the government and the outgoing pole is incredibly ineffective. The US (as an example) doesn't have the ability to effectively decrease monetary supply by simply failing to redistribute taxes - the total national wealth of the US is currently 105 trillion[1] while the total tax revenue is somewhere in the 3.5 trillion[2] range - it would take 30 years to…
> The US (as an example) doesn't have the ability to effectively decrease monetary supply by simply failing to redistribute taxes
Why would it matter how quickly the government could cycle through the national wealth, which includes all private assets? The M1 money supply, at 5.2T[1] and using your 3.5T tax revenue figure, would take less than two years to cycle through.
Re: The Guns of Bitcoin (2017)
#44The common mistake is to try to compare Bitcoin to a predefined experience of money. Bitcoin's value is multifaceted. From a very simplistic perspective, it can be compared to gold. Things get more interesting when you value aspects such as it being: - Fully digital - Verifiable by the common individual - Sent and received with no interference from third parties - Free from supply emission increases or control Each o…
Gold is a very good comparison (especially since it is inherently pretty worthless much like bitcoins) but I think the core currency quality it has is the limit of supply. One of the more amusing qualities of the fallout world to me was always the usage of bottle caps as a currency. Oh sure we have a pretty much infinite supply now but in a post-war setting it's a relatively common material (we don't use rhodium for…
The fixed supply is the most interesting aspect. There could be an extremely huge gold deposit, or someone could figure out how to extract it from the ocean efficiently, or an asteroid / planet made of gold discovered and mined. But there will never be more bitcoin. More bitcoin would just fork the chain, and it wouldn't be bitcoin anymore.
Re: The Guns of Bitcoin (2017)
#45I would like to see a total ban/block of any kind of cryptocurrency articles on HN. I'm happy to include my own, if that's what it takes. https://louwrentius.com/cryptocurrencies-are-detrimental-to-...
[deleted]
Re: The Guns of Bitcoin (2017)
#46The common mistake is to try to compare Bitcoin to a predefined experience of money. Bitcoin's value is multifaceted. From a very simplistic perspective, it can be compared to gold. Things get more interesting when you value aspects such as it being: - Fully digital - Verifiable by the common individual - Sent and received with no interference from third parties - Free from supply emission increases or control Each o…
> From a very simplistic perspective, it can be compared to gold.
It is indeed very simplistic to compare it to gold and this is sadly part of the Bitcoin narrative. Gold has a recognition as an store of value based on its network effects while Bitcoin network effect is pretty low in comparison. We can imagine than if a Bitcoin2 is created with similar economic properties and gain more traction it will automatically replace the Bitcoin1 as a store of value. Obviously, this can happen to gold either but with much less probability thinking on all the financial network gold is part of.
Re: The Guns of Bitcoin (2017)
#47I would like to see a total ban/block of any kind of cryptocurrency articles on HN. I'm happy to include my own, if that's what it takes. https://louwrentius.com/cryptocurrencies-are-detrimental-to-...
you ask for a benefit. a benefit of Bitcoin is zero unexpected inflation. Zero unexpected inflation means the cantillon effect is reduced with adoption of Bitcoin as money, driving out the systems behind central bank caused wealth inequality
Seems like bitcoin experienced a whole lot of unexpected inflation in early March this year. And fall of last year. And November 2018. And January 2018. And... well, you get the picture.
Bitcoin guarantees the supply remains fixed. But inflation is also a function of demand, and that is well outside its control.
Re: The Guns of Bitcoin (2017)
#48> What makes dollars valuable is that the government wants them back. Very common misconception. Dollars have value because there is demand for them (governments, other governments, other people and institutions). Bitcoin also has value because there is demand for it. As does your house, expensive art, etc. Why does anything have value? Because someone else will pay your for it. I can say my pencil is worth $1 billio…
You mentioned expensive art, which is a pretty fascinating field because the value of individual pieces can be fairly subjective and difficult to appraise.
This has massive tax implications in the United States. Imagine donating a piece of art, which you claim is worth $1 million. But the question of who is allowed to make that claim is quite complex, and often goes unnoticed unless the IRS chooses to investigate.
A couple of articles on this:
Inflated art appraisals cost U.S. government untold millions https://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-irs2mar02-story.html
The secretive panel of art experts that tells the IRS how much art is worth https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/the-secret...
Re: The Guns of Bitcoin (2017)
#49I would like to see a total ban/block of any kind of cryptocurrency articles on HN. I'm happy to include my own, if that's what it takes. https://louwrentius.com/cryptocurrencies-are-detrimental-to-...
I'd like to answer your challenge that you put forward in your article. I can think of two straightforward uses for cryptos.
1. It helps evade financial censorship imposed on legal businesses and individuals. Ex: 4chan is financially censored, and can only take bitcoin and other Cryptos as payment despite having broken no law.
2. Financial Privacy (in say, monero). Ex: Support controversial causes without having to worry about losing your job in case of a leak.
Re: The Guns of Bitcoin (2017)
#50The common mistake is to try to compare Bitcoin to a predefined experience of money. Bitcoin's value is multifaceted. From a very simplistic perspective, it can be compared to gold. Things get more interesting when you value aspects such as it being: - Fully digital - Verifiable by the common individual - Sent and received with no interference from third parties - Free from supply emission increases or control Each o…
> From a very simplistic perspective, it can be compared to gold. It is indeed very simplistic to compare it to gold and this is sadly part of the Bitcoin narrative. Gold has a recognition as an store of value based on its network effects while Bitcoin network effect is pretty low in comparison. We can imagine than if a Bitcoin2 is created with similar economic properties and gain more traction it will automatically…
Just gonna quickly fork this gold and call it silver