71–80 of 158 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea that gold has no real value is bizarre.
They pointed out on the Planet Money podcast that gold may be in a 4,000 year-old bubble.
“Yes, but the last thousand years may have been atypical.”
Isn't the waste also present even without bitcoin, too? Governments make complex laws and regulations in different industries. They do 'magic tricks' to make fiat currency appear and disappear. Banks do complex things to make a profit that largely do not correspond to creating real value for society. Competing companies do the same things, duplicating effort, mostly to make a profit. (e.g. Do we really need so many s…
In theory, we don't "need" more than one of anything: one telecom provider, one computer maker, etc. And they could be more efficient if they didn't have to spend money on advertising, etc.
But the history of monopoly companies seems to show that without the need to compete, companies do not improve their product or its cost-efficiency. So it appears that the loss of efficiency created by having many companies reinvent the process to make a widget is outweighed by the efficiency gains each company makes in an effort to out-compete others. Hence, better, cheaper widgets for less money.
As to the value of social gaming companies, I think it's nearly nil, but apparently millions of other people disagree.
It's fairly easy to throttle a bitcoin client.
But if they mean run slower but do the same amount of work that's not possible unless someone makes a dedicated chip to do the needed calculation.
Isn't the waste also present even without bitcoin, too? Governments make complex laws and regulations in different industries. They do 'magic tricks' to make fiat currency appear and disappear. Banks do complex things to make a profit that largely do not correspond to creating real value for society. Competing companies do the same things, duplicating effort, mostly to make a profit. (e.g. Do we really need so many s…
> A large part of human endeavor is not about increasing value in the world, but rather increasing value for oneself, possibly with the side-effect of decreasing value for others. It's just the way we are. It's not just the way we are, it's the way we are under capitalism. But I agree that the wastefulness of Bitcoin is nothing compared to the waste caused by capitalism as a whole.
What line of reasoning makes you think that humans are naturally unselfish and are made so only by an external economic system (which is itself created by humans)?
Judeo-Christian thought says that humans are naturally sinful and selfish. Evolution says that the fittest survive at the expense of others (though this may involve cooperation with related creatures). Who says we're all basically nice?
"But I agree that the wastefulness of Bitcoin is nothing compared to the waste caused by capitalism as a whole."
What system would you have instead of capitalism? If socialism or the like, can you give an example of when that has ever worked well? There are many counter-examples in history, you know. Workers sitting down doing nothing because the government quota said to only make 250 pairs of shoes today, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless you live in Ted Kennedy's or Trent Lott's district, where the cotton farms and paper mills are. For decades these senators continuously sabotaged measures to eliminate the paper Dollar and get the US entirely on dollar coins. The US is probably the last major economy to still be using paper for such small denominations.
...and in most other places, even the notes aren't paper/cotton anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The situation is not much better with inflating fiat currencies. Those who are closer to the money spigot have an advantage over those who are further way.
It's no where near as pronounced with fiat currencies as it is with bitcoin. Only a few currencies have experienced this level of hyperinflation that bitcoin has (e.g. weimar republic, zimbabwe), and those currencies have failed.
If inflation is defined as the rise in prices of goods, then bitcoin is deflating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All those things are true. But I still am not seeing any points raised in the discussion here that haven't already been made in any of the countless other discussions that have already played out here on HN in the past few weeks. It's not that Bitcoin isn't new and interesting-- it is-- but that there is nothing new and interesting to say about it today that wasn't said (here) yesterday.
..and no one has just started reading HN in the last few weeks, huh?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The situation is not much better with inflating fiat currencies. Those who are closer to the money spigot have an advantage over those who are further way.
It's no where near as pronounced with fiat currencies as it is with bitcoin. Only a few currencies have experienced this level of hyperinflation that bitcoin has (e.g. weimar republic, zimbabwe), and those currencies have failed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The situation is not much better with inflating fiat currencies. Those who are closer to the money spigot have an advantage over those who are further way.
It's no where near as pronounced with fiat currencies as it is with bitcoin. Only a few currencies have experienced this level of hyperinflation that bitcoin has (e.g. weimar republic, zimbabwe), and those currencies have failed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Except for the guarantee of uniqueness. There are a few more actually: gold is one of the least putrescible materials out there (it's one of the least reactive elements available and as one of the royal metals very few acids can attack it), it has a distinctive look, and it has a very high density (most denser metals were only discovered in or after the 19th century, and are generally more valuable) which makes it…
The idea that gold has no real value is bizarre.