11–20 of 94 posts
Isn't anybody else afraid of the implications of basically the equivalent of easily trackable cash? The government can easily mandate that each individual declare their wallets and track every single penny you spend and where you spent it. Sounds like a nightmare scenario to me.
Isn't anybody else afraid of the implications of basically the equivalent of easily trackable cash? The government can easily mandate that each individual declare their wallets and track every single penny you spend and where you spent it. Sounds like a nightmare scenario to me.
You can easily anonymize your coins, either by tumbling or by using any number of wallets that are not associated with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_of_exchange
I'll admit that the WSJ here is not as laughably bad as some quotations from their infamous op-eds had led me to believe. Maybe I was too harsh with them. They seem to do the balance thing, or more correctly here, the common sense and economics thing, at least passably well. Either way, there are some real pieces of work here, misconceptions about economics that were dispelled before, again and again. You're going to…
I wanted to actually learn something from your post but it reads like a madman wrote it.
I own exactly zero bitcoins, but following the market since 2011 has proven that it is getting easier to use and more prevalent. People will be putting down bitcoin as a serious entity even after PayPal is accepting them.
"And for those who wish to avoid both inflation and deflation, what about a digital currency programmed to maintain stable prices, avoiding mischief by central bankers as well as the possibility of deflation?"
My gut is that this is not possible. Enforcing stable prices requires constant data about price levels, and with decentralized markets there doesn't seem to be an accurate way to get that data.
Every article I read about Bitcoin has a picture of a metal bitcoin in it. I guess that is to make sure very few people get the point of what bitcoin is.
They need a picture of something . The articles are laid out such that there's a hole labelled "insert illustration-team piece, falling back to relevant stock-image" on them before they ever get written. Suggest what else it could be for a Bitcoin article. Perhaps a visualization of a block-chain? A hash with a lot of zeroes in it? Satoshi walking away from his computer with a wheelbarrow of money?
But then when addressing the negatives, follow that up with an illustration of the current process to obtain Bitcoins.
I'll admit that the WSJ here is not as laughably bad as some quotations from their infamous op-eds had led me to believe. Maybe I was too harsh with them. They seem to do the balance thing, or more correctly here, the common sense and economics thing, at least passably well. Either way, there are some real pieces of work here, misconceptions about economics that were dispelled before, again and again. You're going to…
You know, you failed to specifically pick out the most relevant thing that is also based on faith: bitcoin.
Like any currency, its value in exchange for anything else is dependent on faith that people will accept in the future.
Every article I read about Bitcoin has a picture of a metal bitcoin in it. I guess that is to make sure very few people get the point of what bitcoin is.
I'll admit that the WSJ here is not as laughably bad as some quotations from their infamous op-eds had led me to believe. Maybe I was too harsh with them. They seem to do the balance thing, or more correctly here, the common sense and economics thing, at least passably well. Either way, there are some real pieces of work here, misconceptions about economics that were dispelled before, again and again. You're going to…
The use of the word "encouraged" makes sense to me. If people are "encouraged" to lend vs borrow, that means they will have more desire to lend vs borrow. This has an important effect on the supply vs. demand equation. Supply of loans, ie. people willing to borrow, goes down and the demand, ie. people willing to pay money now for interest later, goes up, causing prices (interest rates) of loans to go up (down).
In other words even though every dollar lent must be a dollar loaned, people's willingness to lend affects supply and demand.