171–180 of 216 posts
The really amusing part is that their trolling represents better economic policy than Bitcoin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mutual funds are an investment. Hoarding is savings. One is productive, one isn't. That's the key difference. The difference is even more glaringly obvious if you think about the difference between equity in a productive company, loans to productive organizations, and simply doing nothing.
Savings accounts have interest rates. The money in savings accounts is used by banks to leverage and invest. It's not really hoarding like holding on to bitcoins is.
What year are you living in?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A dogecoin joke? Are you serious? Bitcoiners have been screaming to the moon for years. But now it's doge's joke? Is there anything else you want to copy without improvement?
Such wow. So animosity. Doge let Bitcoin have moon too. Many room.
I didn't realize how much people were consciously trying to get in on a bubble. It's like people are offended that the developers are trying to create a viable currency rather than a ponzi scheme.
Sure, people are stupid. I thought programmers were not, but reading large part of HN's crowd statement's about BTC have changed my views on programmers - they are pretty stupid when they don't understand the dynamic of a subject (i.e. basic economics). However, the problem with inflation is that might turn the currency not interesting: Why would anyone want to buy an inflationary currency? Sure gold is inflationary…
Why the hell should anyone want to invest in a currency anyway? It's a medium of exchange!
I didn't realize how much people were consciously trying to get in on a bubble. It's like people are offended that the developers are trying to create a viable currency rather than a ponzi scheme.
Sure, people are stupid. I thought programmers were not, but reading large part of HN's crowd statement's about BTC have changed my views on programmers - they are pretty stupid when they don't understand the dynamic of a subject (i.e. basic economics). However, the problem with inflation is that might turn the currency not interesting: Why would anyone want to buy an inflationary currency? Sure gold is inflationary…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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, it doesn't make any sense, because you'd have to pay 3x as much to replace that Bitcoin." 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%…
Yes, that's why I say you are following policies of your own choosing. ;)
In a way though you're both "right"... you're still spending your dollars after all, only via an intermediate form in pursuit of your desired currency goals.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ideally, the money supply grows at the same rate as the economy. In this case "the economy" is the segment using Dogecoin. If you can't get it right, most people consider it better to have a bit of inflation rather than deflation. This may just be a consequence of people being more used to inflation and able to deal with it. For example, people don't mind prices going up as much as they mind their income going down.
Low, steady inflation is better for an economy than the alternatives humanity has experienced thus far. However, if people had the choice between holding a currency they expected to slowly decrease in value like today's central bank currencies and a currency they expected to slowly increase in value like Bitcoin in a post-adoption world, why would anyone pick the former? Central banks have only had the ability to ste…
Also, what asset people choose as a store of value is also mostly unrelated to the medium of exchange or the medium of account (any relation is due entirely to transaction costs).
http://www.bayesianwitch.com/blog/2014/bitcoin_critics_not_e...
The really amusing part is that their trolling represents better economic policy than Bitcoin.
I'm sure you'll get voted up because the HN crowd loves to hate things, but I'm honestly curious why anyone would think this is objectively a better economic policy. Regardless of the inflation vs. deflation debate, the same exact thing could happen in bitcoin if it is what the community wants.
But they might (probably, actually) inflate the money base a lot further down the line, and never let it actually cap at the 21 million btc Satoshi advertised.