Live data from Hacker News

The Guns of Bitcoin (2017)

medium.com

91–100 of 117 posts

Re: The Guns of Bitcoin (2017)

#91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have confused monetary inflation and price inflation. I'm talking about monetary inflation as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_inflation

No, people that fixate on low rates of money supply growth whilst their asset halves in value over a very short time period are the ones confusing monetary and price inflation. Price inflation matters; it's what your money pays for in future [and what economists refer to when they say 'inflation]. 'Monetary inflation' matters only inasmuch as it influences price inflation, which turns out to be surprisingly little. T…

"Inflation, as this term was always used everywhere and especially in this country, means increasing the quantity of money and bank notes in circulation and the quantity of bank deposits subject to check. But people today use the term `inflation' to refer to the phenomenon that is an inevitable consequence of inflation, that is the tendency of all prices and wage rates to rise. The result of this deplorable confusion is that there is no term left to signify the cause of this rise in prices and wages. There is no longer any word available to signify the phenomenon that has been, up to now, called inflation. . . . As you cannot talk about something that has no name, you cannot fight it. Those who pretend to fight inflation are in fact only fighting what is the inevitable consequence of inflation, rising prices. Their ventures are doomed to failure because they do not attack the root of the evil. They try to keep prices low while firmly committed to a policy of increasing the quantity of money that must necessarily make them soar. As long as this terminological confusion is not entirely wiped out, there cannot be any question of stopping inflation." - Ludwig von Mises

Your 60% drop claim is rather vapid considering I could pull any other arbitrary time horizon and give you a massive increase in purchasing power.

Re: The Guns of Bitcoin (2017)

#92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm on HN. I like Bitcoin. Surely, I am not alone

You are not. I will say, the general consensus seems to be negative, but I wouldn't say it's disliked by all.

Re: The Guns of Bitcoin (2017)

#93
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I am confused. I told you I have a different viewpoint on this. You are claiming different branches of the same tree are magically distinct from each other because they have different names and magic runes sketched into them with a pencil, and all I see is a single tree in a huge forest full of trees. I don't think I'm going to convince you of my viewpoint, but my viewpoint is not confused. You aren't l…

Your viewpoint on forks doesn't really check out. It's based on a misunderstanding of how related these forks are to Bitcoin. Anything that forks off of bitcoin is an entirely separate network, asset and market. You can in fact fork Bitcoin today and attempt to create a market, will your new coin be valued as a Bitcoin and derive its current ~9000 USD price? So the value of a fork coin is not in its approximation to…

In history, large numbers of people have committed grievous mistakes under the notion of "It's popular so it must be the right thing." Axis powers during WWII, e.g.

"You can in fact fork Bitcoin today and attempt to create a market, will your new coin be valued as a Bitcoin and derive its current ~9000 USD price?"

Yes. They're called shit coins. I'll make 21,000,000 shit coins in my currency and sell you one for $9,000. You can, make your own shit coins and just sell one of your shit coins back to me for $9,000. Money need not exchange hands.

How about this? I will sell you an arbitrary magic number for $9000. It's value is only good inside those that trade these magic numbers. The only difference between my offer and bitcoin is that many people are trading these magic numbers.

Re: The Guns of Bitcoin (2017)

#94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, people that fixate on low rates of money supply growth whilst their asset halves in value over a very short time period are the ones confusing monetary and price inflation. Price inflation matters; it's what your money pays for in future [and what economists refer to when they say 'inflation]. 'Monetary inflation' matters only inasmuch as it influences price inflation, which turns out to be surprisingly little. T…

"Inflation, as this term was always used everywhere and especially in this country, means increasing the quantity of money and bank notes in circulation and the quantity of bank deposits subject to check. But people today use the term `inflation' to refer to the phenomenon that is an inevitable consequence of inflation, that is the tendency of all prices and wage rates to rise. The result of this deplorable confusion…

It's a cute quote, but there's a reason modern economists don't conflate labour inputs and value or monetary expansion and price inflation. It's actually much more useful not to use the same words for phenomena when you're studying the degree to which they're related. And more useful to play semantic games when the data unambiguously refutes the argument that fixing one value necessarily holds the other constant, of course... (Getting the term 'inflation' associated primarily with price rises was the one battle Quantity Theorists won.)

You are welcome to prefer to use 'inflation' as it was used 100 years ago instead of as it is used now, but 'awful' and 'silly' were compliments once....

> Your 60% drop claim is rather vapid considering I could pull any other arbitrary time horizon and give you a massive increase in purchasing power.

No, what is vapid is the pretence that an asset has the advantage of 'zero unexpected inflation' when it's lost purchasing power at a rate which would be termed hyperinflation were it a national currency. It's a bit like defending the validity of immortality elixirs by arguing that over other time frames, the patient survived.

Re: The Guns of Bitcoin (2017)

#95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, people that fixate on low rates of money supply growth whilst their asset halves in value over a very short time period are the ones confusing monetary and price inflation. Price inflation matters; it's what your money pays for in future [and what economists refer to when they say 'inflation]. 'Monetary inflation' matters only inasmuch as it influences price inflation, which turns out to be surprisingly little. T…

"Inflation, as this term was always used everywhere and especially in this country, means increasing the quantity of money and bank notes in circulation and the quantity of bank deposits subject to check. But people today use the term `inflation' to refer to the phenomenon that is an inevitable consequence of inflation, that is the tendency of all prices and wage rates to rise. The result of this deplorable confusion…

"In theoretical investigation there is only one meaning that can rationally be attached to the expression Inflation: an increase in the quantity of money (in the broader sense of the term, so as to include fiduciary media as well), that is not offset by a corresponding increase in the need for money (again in the broader sense of the term), so that a fall in the objective exchange-value of money must occur." - Also your guy

Even Mises acknowledges there are two parts to the system and that it's, in the end, about relative pace. If that is so, the phenomenon must still be able to occur regardless of how frozen your supply, just off the second variable.

"Our fringe school likes to use two common terms opposite from how everyone else does, hence you are wrong" isn't an actual argument, by the way.

Re: The Guns of Bitcoin (2017)

#96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Inflation, as this term was always used everywhere and especially in this country, means increasing the quantity of money and bank notes in circulation and the quantity of bank deposits subject to check. But people today use the term `inflation' to refer to the phenomenon that is an inevitable consequence of inflation, that is the tendency of all prices and wage rates to rise. The result of this deplorable confusion…

It's a cute quote, but there's a reason modern economists don't conflate labour inputs and value or monetary expansion and price inflation. It's actually much more useful not to use the same words for phenomena when you're studying the degree to which they're related. And more useful to play semantic games when the data unambiguously refutes the argument that fixing one value necessarily holds the other constant, of…

Calling early price discovery leg down for Bitcoin hyperinflation is dishonest at best. Even ironic as hyperinflation occurs when there is a continuing rapid increase in money supply.

If that was hyperinflation, what would you call Bitcoin's 150% leg up between December 2018 and today?

Re: The Guns of Bitcoin (2017)

#97
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Inflation, as this term was always used everywhere and especially in this country, means increasing the quantity of money and bank notes in circulation and the quantity of bank deposits subject to check. But people today use the term `inflation' to refer to the phenomenon that is an inevitable consequence of inflation, that is the tendency of all prices and wage rates to rise. The result of this deplorable confusion…

"In theoretical investigation there is only one meaning that can rationally be attached to the expression Inflation: an increase in the quantity of money (in the broader sense of the term, so as to include fiduciary media as well), that is not offset by a corresponding increase in the need for money (again in the broader sense of the term), so that a fall in the objective exchange-value of money must occur." - Also y…

This isn't opposite, its closer to a root cause than an opposite term. Anyway, supply and demand govern all prices, I wasn't arguing against such basic economic tenants. I'm just pointing to what inflation is and that is an expansion of money supply.

Re: The Guns of Bitcoin (2017)

#98
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are confused. If you try spending bitcoin cash on bitcoin network you will fail, because bitcoin cash utxos are not bitcoin utxos and bitcoin cash is not bitcoin. There are no additional 42 mil bitcoin, there are additional 42 mil of some other tokens spendable on some other networks.

I don't think I am confused. I told you I have a different viewpoint on this. You are claiming different branches of the same tree are magically distinct from each other because they have different names and magic runes sketched into them with a pencil, and all I see is a single tree in a huge forest full of trees. I don't think I'm going to convince you of my viewpoint, but my viewpoint is not confused. You aren't l…

Yes, forks are magically distinct by the fact that YOU CANT SPEND FORKED COINS ON ORIGINAL NETWORK. How much more distinction do you need?

And no, PoW is not wasteful. It’s in fact the most efficient system for pricing money security.

Re: The Guns of Bitcoin (2017)

#99
post #93
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your viewpoint on forks doesn't really check out. It's based on a misunderstanding of how related these forks are to Bitcoin. Anything that forks off of bitcoin is an entirely separate network, asset and market. You can in fact fork Bitcoin today and attempt to create a market, will your new coin be valued as a Bitcoin and derive its current ~9000 USD price? So the value of a fork coin is not in its approximation to…

In history, large numbers of people have committed grievous mistakes under the notion of "It's popular so it must be the right thing." Axis powers during WWII, e.g. "You can in fact fork Bitcoin today and attempt to create a market, will your new coin be valued as a Bitcoin and derive its current ~9000 USD price?" Yes. They're called shit coins. I'll make 21,000,000 shit coins in my currency and sell you one for $9,0…

> I'll make 21,000,000 shit coins in my currency and sell you one for $9,000

What makes you think I will buy your shitcoin for $9000?

Re: The Guns of Bitcoin (2017)

#100
post #93
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your viewpoint on forks doesn't really check out. It's based on a misunderstanding of how related these forks are to Bitcoin. Anything that forks off of bitcoin is an entirely separate network, asset and market. You can in fact fork Bitcoin today and attempt to create a market, will your new coin be valued as a Bitcoin and derive its current ~9000 USD price? So the value of a fork coin is not in its approximation to…

In history, large numbers of people have committed grievous mistakes under the notion of "It's popular so it must be the right thing." Axis powers during WWII, e.g. "You can in fact fork Bitcoin today and attempt to create a market, will your new coin be valued as a Bitcoin and derive its current ~9000 USD price?" Yes. They're called shit coins. I'll make 21,000,000 shit coins in my currency and sell you one for $9,0…

> The only difference between my offer and bitcoin is that many people are trading these magic numbers.

And that is a world of difference. If I sold a Bitcoin for half the market price, anyone rational would take that offer without thinking. Your shitcoin on the other hand has no persistent or reliable market value and you would not be able to find a buyer.

Post reply on HN