Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin exchange rate reached $100 USD per BTC

bitcoincharts.com

421–430 of 600 posts

Re: Bitcoin exchange rate reached $100 USD per BTC

#421

I think a lot of people here would benefit from reading some William Gibson novels. I don't think the BTC will ever be a 'currency' as the USD or the GBP. It is also not necessary for the BTC to be at a 'fixed value' at any time. As a virtual currency it's ok for the BTC to fluctuate heavily as the only thing needed for it to still succeed is that payment systems are 'always on' and can determine a spot price for goo…

Why would I want to maintain a bitcoin wallet if its value fluctuates heavily every day? Would you want your checking account to do the same?

Re: Bitcoin exchange rate reached $100 USD per BTC

#422
post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason it's bad is that deflation makes it more profitable to do nothing than to invest. This makes no sense to me. If keeping 100 units makes one richer because they are worth more in a year, then any investment which has a positive return (that is, you end up with more than 100 units in a year) must be that much better... What am I missing?

Deflation increases the value of holding cash. By definition deflation occurs when the price of a basket of goods decreases. Why invest your money in a basket of goods today when it is going to be cheaper to buy that same basket tomorrow?

Eventually, those suppliers of unwanted goods will stop supplying, and prices will start to rise as demand drops, reversing the deflation.

Re: Bitcoin exchange rate reached $100 USD per BTC

#423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin hasn't yet proved it can do either 1 or 2 yet. If it succeeds in either it will do better than gold is currently doing as currency. But I wasn't trying to measure currency dick size. I was just making the point that not being good at 2 doesn't necessarily hurt its ability at 1.

A person who bought ~1600 USD worth of bitcoin last year instead of an OZT of gold would be quite pleased with the performance of bitcoin in category #1.

The other way, 99.999999% or more of human population disagree with him.

Re: Bitcoin exchange rate reached $100 USD per BTC

#424
post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As ever: Bitcoin is a lovely medium of exchange, a horrible medium of account and hence a purely bubbled store of value.

How low do you think it will crash when the bubble bursts? Do you think it will recover again, like it did last time, or do you this time it will stay low?

I believe if/when it does crash there will be an immediate resurgence in the price per BTC, driven by the people who wanted to invest but thought the price was too high. This is why i'm not all that scared investing rather large sums of money into the Bitcoin economy.

Re: Bitcoin exchange rate reached $100 USD per BTC

#425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, by definition deflation occurs when the authority controlling the money supply (eg the Fed) contracts said money supply. Prices going down is merely a symptom of deflation, but it is not deflation.

Why is this definition good? I mean, why should I or anyone care about changes in the money supply, except in how they affect prices?

It separates (theoretically, as it can't be measured) the price change due to faith-in-currency from price change due to market forces on the products.

That is, the price of good may fluctuate as function of how much current labor you need to buy it, or as a function of how much of your past savings it will cost. The diference between those measurements is due to money supply (in part, for there are other complicating factors)

Re: Bitcoin exchange rate reached $100 USD per BTC

#426
post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason it's bad is that deflation makes it more profitable to do nothing than to invest. This makes no sense to me. If keeping 100 units makes one richer because they are worth more in a year, then any investment which has a positive return (that is, you end up with more than 100 units in a year) must be that much better... What am I missing?

I don't see why any investment would necessarily need to be much better. For one thing, investment is risky, while hoarding money is not.

On a macro scale, hoarding money stops the economy, as people no longer produce and consume.

If you thing sitting in an empty room counting bit coins is better than buying caviar or plane travel or curing malaria or whatever, then hoarding is good.

Re: Bitcoin exchange rate reached $100 USD per BTC

#427
post #254
post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are espousing one form of economics which many consider unsustainable. Regardless, many assets are deflationary. Rich people buy real estate and commodities because they are deflationary, or at least not inflationary. There is nothing wrong with assets that grow or maintain value. Bitcoin is a liquid and easily transferrable deflationary value store, just like gold. Telling people they should submit to inflation…

Sustainability is really the achilles heel of inflationary economics. The Earth is finite. Exponential growth cannot continue forever. When a steady state is reached, that's apocalyptic to inflationary money systems since debts all the sudden can never be repaid. Edit: I don't think space colonization matters here. Sure, it may be possible. But Mars is sufficiently far from Earth and the energy cost of transport suff…

Why would you want to repay the debts in the first place?

Re: Bitcoin exchange rate reached $100 USD per BTC

#428
post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a few replies here that seem to be reacting negatively to the OP due to the tone of the submission instead of the content. To be clear, deflation is categorically bad for a currency. It's terrible, like great depression terrible. The reason it's bad is that deflation makes it more profitable to do nothing than to invest. When this happens, people react by not spending money. The market dies. While inflation…

Isn't the value(not necessarily the price) of a currency the size of the market in which it trades divided by the number of units of currency in circulation. If the market reduces because of a lack of investment, wouldn't the currency reduce because you hold the same proportion of a smaller thing, creating an incentive to stop negative growth. There is also the factor of the OP's so-called CryptoBarons. Money is just…

Yeah, there is nothing stopping "bytecoins" if early bitcoin holders hoard too much. Same as with dollars and bankers. As long as the system produces more value than the barons seize, people will get value from the system.

Re: Bitcoin exchange rate reached $100 USD per BTC

#429
post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a common scenario where the customer pays 1% to Coinbase and the merchant pays 2.6% to BitPay, Bitcoin comes out worse than Paypal or credit cards.

In a common scenario where Paypal freezes your account for dubious reasons and then refuses to answer your telephone calls or emails, Bitcoin comes out ahead. In another common scenario where a Senator named Lieberman makes a press release accusing Wikileaks of criminal activity, and other payment processors simply refuse to conduct transactions for you, Bitcoin also comes out ahead.

Don't worry, from what I've heard Coinbase are quite capable of freezing accounts for dubious reasons, along with causing purchases to fail by delaying outgoing payments for days and other similar fun activities.

Re: Bitcoin exchange rate reached $100 USD per BTC

#430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a few replies here that seem to be reacting negatively to the OP due to the tone of the submission instead of the content. To be clear, deflation is categorically bad for a currency. It's terrible, like great depression terrible. The reason it's bad is that deflation makes it more profitable to do nothing than to invest. When this happens, people react by not spending money. The market dies. While inflation…

> The reason it's bad is that deflation makes it more profitable to do nothing than to invest. This makes no sense to me. If keeping 100 units makes one richer because they are worth more in a year, then any investment which has a positive return (that is, you end up with more than 100 units in a year) must be that much better... What am I missing?

Because the money supply of BTC is fixed, BTC are effectively proxies for the value of the entire economy that they're a part of. When the economy grows by 5%, so does the value of your BTC. It's at the absolute optimimum point of the risk/reward curve: you could hypothetically invest in a way that performs better than the average, but when factoring in the risk, your expected value is slightly worse than if you'd simply held on to your money.

With USD, you know the value of your currency will drop due to inflation. In order to keep up with inflation, you have to put your money in an investment vehicle that stands in as a proxy for the overall economy. Hypothetically, you could buy a perfectly proportional amount of every single listed stock, every bond, piece of real estate, and so on (this is what index funds attempt to approximate).

In the latter example, you also have managed to convert your currency into an ideal proxy for the entire economy. Any attempt to pick winners or losers will, statistically, give you slightly worse results on average than had you simply tracked the market as a whole.

Both examples are similar, except in the latter example, you've actually put your money back into the economy: a company issued the stock in order to raise the capital to expand and grow. In the former, your money is essentially removed from the overall money supply. It is available to no-one, and causes further deflation. The more money you hoard, the less money available for financial transactions. The less money available for transactions, the more valuable each unit of currency becomes.

Post reply on HN