151–160 of 216 posts
The really amusing part is that their trolling represents better economic policy than Bitcoin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not so bad in theory, at least it counters the deflationary-currencies-are-evil-and-stupid argument. The real worry is that now some entity has been entrusted with the ability to manipulate the value of the currency, and that the entity may violate that trust by later deciding to further inflate the currency.
Everything about DOGE seems like some bizarre social experiment.
There is a reason William Gibson stopped doing straight sci-fi.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
now some entity has been entrusted with the ability to manipulate the value of the currency Not really; inflation is built into the code and getting everyone to "upgrade" would be difficult.
The inflation rate over time will actually tend to zero, since each additional 5bn coins represents a smaller proportion of the total amount. A constant quantity over time translates into a decreasing rate of inflation.
The idea in the github thread seems to be that the 5% inflation should approximately cancel out the unknown loss of coins that would be going on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but it's a much more reasonable policy than holding and never spending It seems to me that what you are doing is actually not "reasonable". If you are assuming that Bitcoin is going to increase in value over time (or at least not decrease), then you should be spending all your dollars first (which are known to decrease in value over time). The issue of whether merchants can offer discounts based on lower transactio…
Dollars and Bitcoin are easily interchangeable, so the concept of spending dollars first doesn't make sense to me. The amount of Bitcoin someone holds is based on their belief in Bitcoin's future success, their wealth, their spending needs that can only be transacted in dollars, and their backup plan in the likely event that Bitcoin becomes worthless. Once you've reached the proper balance for your risk tolerance, wh…
No, it doesn't make any sense, because you'd have to pay 3x as much to replace that Bitcoin. That's the whole point.
That's also why you should spend your dollars first. Even if Bitcoin value doesn't change a bit the dollar becomes worth less every day, which means you can buy less and less and less Bitcoin with that dollar as time goes buy. Better to use the dollar while its value is still at a maximum.
With Bitcoin the value will likely keep going up, especially once the supply crunch happens. A Bitcoin you give up today will be harder to recover tomorrow, the day after that, etc.
Accordingly you are wasting money if you're spending Bitcoin now which will be more valuable in a year while you have dollars you could be spending for the same thing that would otherwise be worth less in a year.
You might make the decision to use Bitcoin regardless, but that's a decision based on your own policies and wants, not a decision based on maximizing the value of the currency you spend.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You must be speaking strictly in terms of monetary deflation. I could see dogecoin being deflationary as well, but in a "price deflation" sense. Dogecoin could also become deflationary. If 6 billion dogecoins worth of value is created in a year and only 5 billion coins to match that increase in value, the economic value of goods created surpases that of the coins created. As a result, you have more goods chasing (rel…
I would also point out that Dogecoin's stated purpose in this move is to stabilize the currency at 100 billion coins . They believe that 5 billion coins fall out of circulation each year; therefore they intend to mint 5 billion new coins to keep the money supply constant at 100 billion coins. Therefore the Dogecoin money supply after 2015 will be constant: the number of coins in circulation will remain approximately…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does "to the moon" mean $1 per coin? If so, how is dogecoin going to create five billion USD per year via coin buyers to pay for its inflation? Unless it means something else and I am missing the point?
Who cares! That's the point ;) Also, "to the moon" is a dogecoin reddit joke, it doesn't mean anything in particular
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dollars and Bitcoin are easily interchangeable, so the concept of spending dollars first doesn't make sense to me. The amount of Bitcoin someone holds is based on their belief in Bitcoin's future success, their wealth, their spending needs that can only be transacted in dollars, and their backup plan in the likely event that Bitcoin becomes worthless. Once you've reached the proper balance for your risk tolerance, wh…
> Even if you think Bitcoin will triple in price tomorrow, it still makes sense to spend Bitcoin today because you can easily replace it with Bitcoin purchased at the current price. No, it doesn't make any sense, because you'd have to pay 3x as much to replace that Bitcoin. That's the whole point. That's also why you should spend your dollars first. Even if Bitcoin value doesn't change a bit the dollar becomes worth…
No I wouldn't.
I walk up to the merchant. "Oh, you'll accept my $20 payment in Bitcoin? Ok, I'll pay with that." As I walk away, I tap four times on my phone to convert $20 worth of USD to Bitcoin. My loss is the 1% charge to convert, plus the bid-ask spread, not the 200% gain from tomorrow. I still get that.
I consider 1% a reasonable price to pay to promote Bitcoin. I don't think it'll be necessary for much longer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It agree that might turn out very well, but people have a right to be upset when the rules are changed mid-game.
Those were the original rules. The title is misleading, people are disappointed because they expected the devs to eliminate the perpetual generation of coins in the original software. The decision was simply to do nothing.