Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoins: The Second Biggest Ponzi Scheme in History

garynorth.com

261–270 of 306 posts

Re: Bitcoins: The Second Biggest Ponzi Scheme in History

#261
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The total number of Bitcoins is capped at 21 million. So how it can handle GDP growth? The amount of currency should reflect GDP size. Otherwise there will be deflation. Gold worked well as currency. Its yearly production increased total amount of mined gold by about 3%. Which was on GDP increase level.

if GDP grows such that the smallest subdivision of one bitcoin (called 1 satoshi) becomes too expensive, extra decimals are added. So instead of making new coins, the existing coins will be subdivided in smaller pieces.

I known that it is possible to lower prices denominated in Bitcoins. However this is the deflation problem I am taking about.

Re: Bitcoins: The Second Biggest Ponzi Scheme in History

#262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If mining additional Bitcoins at present is not economically viable than Bitcoins are not (currently) a fiat currency. The cost for the fed to increase the money supply is $0, the cost to produce a Bitcoin is equal to the cost of the hardware and electricity to produce it. I'm not sure if the definition would change once the maximum limit of Bitcoins is reached.

> If mining additional Bitcoins at present is not economically viable than Bitcoins are not (currently) a fiat currency. Whether Bitcoin can be mined or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's a fiat currency or not, so your logic does not follow. Fiat doesn't mean "can easily manipulate". Any currency that isn't backed by (value derived from) a hard asset is a fiat currency. Burning electricity to create…

> Any currency that isn't backed by (value derived from) a hard asset is a fiat currency.

(I'm not a gold bug, I could care less about gold, if gold offends, substitute some other tangible commodity)

That's my point that Bitcoin is more of a commodity currency and is not (at present) a fiat currency. The fact that the electricity is gone doesn't make any difference. Mining gold requires fuel and labor which is gone, used up, and what remains is gold. This expense is what limits the production of and correlates the commodity to the underlying economy.

What is really interesting is your assertion that the value derives from confidence and not assets. I would argue that value derives from the fact that its supply is limited by the use of resources and labor.

Re: Bitcoins: The Second Biggest Ponzi Scheme in History

#263
post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand this point of view. Is there some expectation that once bitcoin goes down it will never go up again? Why is there going to be a "last buyer"? We have already seen a couple of significant drops in the value of bitcoin and it has not deterred people from using it.

I think the point is that people aren't buying bitcoins like I might exchange my money for South African Rand. When I exchange Dollars for Rand, I can more easily use the Rand to purchase goods and services in South Africa. I'm not speculating the Rand will be worth more in 2 weeks time. I just want something more fungible. It seems people who are buying bitcoins now aren't doing so to purchase goods/services. They a…

But bitcoins are more fungible than either USD or CNY, because it is cross-border and "offshore". That's why the Chinese seem willing to pay a premium, because BTC cannot restricted by capital controls.

The cross-border, "offshore", unseizable aspect was the biggest reason for my initial interest. Not the potential price gains (I always assumed price would top below $100 and remain a relatively tiny niche currency forever thereafter).

Re: Bitcoins: The Second Biggest Ponzi Scheme in History

#264

Important to note: The author of the article, Gary North, is the same guy who predicted a "failure of the global Information Technology (IT) infrastructure and that it would precipitate severe disruption and the complete collapse of the international economy, leaving American Christians to restore society following the collapse." Also, he "favors capital punishment for a range of offenders; these include women who li…

Ad hominem.

The failed stab at futurology seems relevant to judge the weight of his current prediction.

Re: Bitcoins: The Second Biggest Ponzi Scheme in History

#265
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is mining necessary in a digital currency? There are plenty of other solutions to creation/distribution of tokens.

Mining is not just for distribution of tokens. I would argue the more important use is for maintaining the proof-of-work blockchain. There have been some experimental attempts at maintaining a distributed ledger using a proof-of-stake/proof-of-work hybrid, but I don't know of any successful attempts to do it without a proof-of-work component. If you have an idea of how it could be done, you may have a shot at dethron…

Ripple achieves ledger consensus without proof-of-work. Absence of proof-of-work is how it gets a new ledger (analogous to the block) every few seconds. The XRP fee destruction deflationary scheme is effectively similar to a proof-of-stake inflationary scheme, because as the total supply of XRP decreases, it benefits all XRP holders in proportion to their holdings.

Re: Bitcoins: The Second Biggest Ponzi Scheme in History

#266
post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's the Keynesian viewpoint. The prevailing wisdom right now is that policy-controlled inflation helps prevent a wide range of issues. Bitcoin is inherently deflationary, which scares the crap out of people with their stake in the Keynesian camp.

When you say prevailing wisdom, are you referring to the prevailing wisdom from the Keynesian viewpoint? What would be an example of the "wide range of issues" that policy-controlled inflation helps prevent?

Well, yes -- the Keynesian school of economic thought dominates our political economics right now. The folks in charge tend to subscribe to Keynesian economic theory.

The tl;dr on "inflation is good" is that it benefits people borrowing money. If your wages keep pace with inflation, then things like your car loan and mortgage ultimately cost less, leaving you with more inflation-adjusted money to lubricate the economy with. Inflation stalling (or even receding into deflation) means that it's much more expensive in terms of wage-hours to pay back an existing debt, which discourages people from taking on new debt. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/business/economy/in-fed-an... is a decent article on the concept.

A deflationary currency, by contrast, will heavily discourage borrowing. This analogy is a little stilted by the BTCUSD conversion, but if I agree to loan you 10 BTC to be paid back over 5 years so you can buy a $10,000 car, and over the term of the car loan, let's say that the value of BTC is going to increase from $1000 to $4000 (that is, the amount of value traded in BTC is increasing faster than the amount of BTC in the market), then you'd be a fool to take my loan, since you would effectively end up paying me $40,000 worth of BTC for a $10,000 car. This would discourage you from taking my loan and buying the car, just because of the behavior of the currency.

(That said currently, since lenders get a chunk taken out of their loan by inflation, they make it up in the interest rate. In a consistently deflationary market, it seems to my non-economist brain that the answer would be a smaller - potentially even negative - interest rate, which would be pegged at a point that the lender still makes money over the course of the loan without being overly discouraging to borrowers.)

Re: Bitcoins: The Second Biggest Ponzi Scheme in History

#268
post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thing is Bitcoin fails miserably as a currency TODAY(2013). It currently cannot be used as a currency because of its volatility, unlike other fiat currencies, it cannot be controlled, potentially destroying any economy based on it. ( Think of it, some random panic on the dollar supply would send the value of the dollar spiraling to 100 time its value over the course of 1 year, with absolutely no way the US could do a…

Agreed on your first point. (no sarcasm intended) Are you saying that a currency that cannot be controlled (e.g. the money supply controlled by something like a federal reserve) is more dangerous than one that is?

Just to reply in my own words without being labelled as "having my stake in the Keynesian camp". I don't know what that means (not exactly anyway) but that does not seem like a compliment here on HN. I'm a regular IT guy, unless I create a hot startup I will always be a guy whose influence can only be measured by statisticians.

With that out of the way. I don't want to live in a country or principally trade in a currency that can react as bitcoin. I don't have a lot of cash sitting in my bank account, instead I have a small amount of debt (only Banker salary allow you to buy a flat cash in London) so I fail to see any situation where a 10,000 % deflation rate can affect me positively. (Similarly 10,000% inflation - actually 0% inflation is the stuff I can deal and be happy with)

So I don't mind a uncontrollable currency as I don't mind the wind being uncontrollable. I mind hurricane and if I cannot afford to deal with it, I simply prefer to live in an area without hurricane or as a last resort, government provided countermeasures. So in my situation, one I share with the majority of the first world, I prefer a currency controlled by FED-like central banks, than a currency without control that can increase my debt by 2 order of magnitude and at the same time likely put me out of work. So it is a choice 100% pragmatic rather than based on any type of economic theory.

I would not mind to be convinced otherwise, preferably without assumption like "when everybody uses it", or "if a country like China uses it as its currency".

But right now, it seems opinion are split between people in denial with 10,000 bitcoin in their wallet assuring me that what is happening with bitcoin right now is Good (sometime with the argument "deflanationary currency is good" as if that did not require further explanation). Others are blog like this one made by doomsayer simply angry they didn't buy 10,000 bitcoin last year.

Re: Bitcoins: The Second Biggest Ponzi Scheme in History

#269
post #42

> In this sense, Bitcoins is not a Ponzi scheme. It is simply a supermoney scheme. Admits that bitcoin is not a ponzi scheme in his own article. > The money was siphoned off from the beginning. Somebody owned a good percentage of the original digits. Implies that most bitcoins are owned by satoshi nakamoto, without substantiating this claim by any number to quantify the impact. The estimated stash of satoshi is about…

"Admits that bitcoin is not a ponzi scheme in his own article." - you wish...
Post reply on HN