Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

krugman.blogs.nytimes.com

211–220 of 520 posts

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#211
post #159

I'm most bullish on bitcoin when I read articles such as this one, and most skeptical when I read the thoughts of the bitcoin believers. It's truly the most interesting technological development in years, if only because it reveals how little anyone really understands money or economics. Here's another interesting (though imperfect) way of thinking about bitcoin: it's a decentralized corporation, where bitcoins are o…

In fact, "decentralized/distributed autonomous corporations", or "DACs", are a popular notion among Bitcoiners: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Distributed_Autonomous_Community_...

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#212
post #35

1) Bitcoin mining has a pretty horrible carbon footprint. ("but so does ..." doesn't eradicate this argument) 2) similar to the author's point that advocates can't tell the difference between "store" and "medium" of value, I can't tell you the number of arguments I've gotten in with people who equate a "store of value" to be the same thing as the "increase in value" 3) It's a 1% wet dream. Make money, potentially hid…

Actually, for your first point, you have to compare the carbon footprint of bitcoin to the carbon footprint of the alternative. What is the carbon footprint of all the different transaction processing systems run by Mastercard, Visa, Amex, etc? What about if you add in the cost of the massive mainframes that handle ACH transfers? The cost of printing millions of archaic paper checks? I'm not saying bitcoin replaces a…

I wouldn't be surprised if the Bitcoin network already costs more than those mainframes in terms of carbon footprint - after all, the Bitcoin network is basically the world's largest supercomputer [0].

On top of that, you have to consider that those systems offer much more value than just a barebones ledger as the core of Bitcoin does. If you add in all those companies building stuff on top of Bitcoin, the comparison starts to become less favorable.

[0] Purely monetary terms are obviously different. The vendors of those systems inflate prices ridiculously because they can - banks have traditionally not been under much pressure to operate efficiently in this arena.

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#213
post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

grew because that system was unacceptable Historically (you should read http://www.amazon.com/Great-Wave-Revolutions-Rhythm-History-... ) inflationary money systems have been the tools of those in power to quietly take from the poor and less powerful. Whether or not the current era of central banking was intended to be that way is a question for conspiracy theorists - but it's very clear that that is exactly what it…

That quote from Keynes seems to say the opposite of what you said. Inflation hurts the wealthy much more than the penniless or indebted.

No, keynes says that the middle class will be outraged at arbitrary redistribution of wealth (especially to the wealthy) and the poor will be hurt harder (no comments on whether or not they are outraged).

Consider a poor family spending about 90% of their income on day to day expenses; versus a rich family spending 20% of their income - if there's 10% inflation, the poor family will go from a 10% margin of survival to a 1% margin of survival, which is a 90% reduction of ability to survive or save. Vice the rich family which has only suffered a 2.5% decrease in this margin.

Let's say (and this is atypical, as I said, poor people are usually less in debt than rich people) the poor family is additionally 5% in debt, versus 0% as in the rich case. Do you think it's any consolation that the 5% debt is nominally valued (and therefore decreasing in real terms) in the face of the fact that the family now is spending 104% of their income on day to day expenses? Moreover, the way in which poor people use debt (very short-term loans) typically involves interest rates that are far too high to take advantage of real reduction in value, and are over far to short of a term even if they had reasonable interest rates.

Now obviously these numbers were chosen because they make the calculations easier; but you should consider plugging in values of your own and proving that it is general.

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#214
post #159

I'm most bullish on bitcoin when I read articles such as this one, and most skeptical when I read the thoughts of the bitcoin believers. It's truly the most interesting technological development in years, if only because it reveals how little anyone really understands money or economics. Here's another interesting (though imperfect) way of thinking about bitcoin: it's a decentralized corporation, where bitcoins are o…

I am not a libertarian and do not have a political agenda, but it is imaginable that certain parts of the government could be replaced with the structure like this one. I don't know how the transition could happen, but at the end, the mining in the network will be done by citizens, bitcoins will be named "bitvotes", and every citizen will mine those bitvotes, or they could be distributed fairy (one bitvote to each ci…

Such a scheme has a huge flaw: it allows extortion/coercion. Suppose I am a mob boss and I wish to become (insert position here). I send my goons to inform you that voting for me is a wise decision because I can offer you protection from the vicious thugs in the area. It would be a shame if the vicious thugs burned your house down, wouldn't it?

So, you'd be forced to reveal your bitvote address to me under threat of violence. Once you vote, I just check that you voted for me. And if you didn't...

A real cryptographic voting system goes to great lengths to prevent this scenario. In such a system, a voter can prove to himself that his vote counted toward the proper party, but crucially the voter cannot prove such to anyone else. This prevents coercion.

Of course, real cryptographic voting systems have a bunch of other nice properties, but this is a really major one that most people overlook.

Example of a cryptographic voting system: Helios (https://vote.heliosvoting.org/). Also see the tech docs (http://documentation.heliosvoting.org/verification-specs/hel...). Helios is an online system, so it's not ready for prime-time voting --- it would need to be adapted into an in-person scheme, which cryptographers have already created --- but it does demonstrate the concepts involved.

This is an area of active research, BTW.

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#215
post #165
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on how fast the deflation happens. BitCoin is not all that useful as a currency right now because it's value is so volatile. This is because it is subject to huge increases in demand as it spreads to more places across the globe. It is not hindered by any export controls or borders, which means it can "infect" whole nations/societies/cultures in lumps, as we saw recently with China, sparking a huge jump in…

How does the volatility of BTC make it desirable for merchants to accept it? Either they hold BTC and are exposed to the volatility, or they convert to a fiat currency and are exposed to some transaction fees. Perhaps the transaction fees turn out to be lower than those for credit cards, in which case BitCoin maybe becomes an alternative payment network.

Its not the volatility they're after--they want to hold a deflationary currency (which, at the moment, happens to be volatile).

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#216
post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The crypto problems solved in Bitcoin don't have the intrinsic utility of a precious metal." So gold was used extensively 2000-3000 years ago. Exactly what was its intrinsic utility then? Plating astronaut helmets and high-conductivity, corrosion-resistant electronics? The intrinsic utility of gold was that it was eminently verifable. It's got a characteristic ductility and it was a yellow metal. You could easily ve…

Jewelry.

that's not in any way "intrinsic" value.

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#217
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin went up more than tenfold in less than six months. Then if fell by more than half in less than one month. So I strongly disagree that most people would want to use that for their checking account, paycheck, etc. I am also baffled by "they're easier to transfer" than dollars. Yes you can email BTC. But I can literally hand you dollars. No smartphone needed! And large amounts are trivially easier - I squiggle s…

Unfortunately the squiggle trick doesn't work to send $0.20 to that friend in Angola who runs the water and sanitation project? It also doesn't convert to Mpesa in Kenya [1] (Bitcoin now does). And wiring $500k to China for that shipment on a Sunday doesn't work either with squiggles or e-payments. [1]: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/05/ec...

Do you know anyone in China that will accept $500k in BTC for real goods and services, or is your Bitcoin example just as hypothetical as the squiggle?

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#218
" I try to get them to explain to me why BitCoin is a reliable store of value"

I don't believe that BitCoin is a reliable store of value like the dollar is not a reliable store of value. I went to the US after a year to visit family(I live in Europe) and was surprised how much prices had gone up. Probably you don't see that when it is incremental, but you get to see after some time out.

The same happens with civil liberties. US was one of the countries with higher freedom in the world, but the tendency is so bad, compared to countries that were really bad in the past, but the tendency is so good.

Paper money, or digital money by the way is a medium of exchange. And there lies their utility as Mr Krugman knows..

I am biased about Mr Krugman, for me he is a puppet of central banks that create money and compete against bitcoin. He was awarded the Nobel Memorial price paid by a central bank and he owes his position from defending Wall Street against Main Street.

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#220
> Underpinning the value of gold is that if all else fails you can use it to make pretty things.

But this 'floor' only accounts for, say, 3% of the price of gold. Whatever makes the remaining 97% a reliable store of value could also provide Bitcoin with 100% of its store of value.

A similar point comes from Tim Harford's fascinating description of the currency used on the Pacific island of Yap:

------------------------

Oddly enough, there is a near real-world equivalent to the Ningi, the triangular rubber coin larger than Mars dreamed up by the humorist Douglas Adams. It can be found on the island of Yap, in Micronesia in the West Pacific. Their coins, the rai, are stone wheels with a hole in the middle. Some are fairly portable a handspan or less across, and the weight of a couple of bags of sugar. But the most valued stones are far bigger - one British sailor wrote in the late nineteenth century of a stone wheel that was four and a half tons in weight and over nine feet in diameter. In other words, it was almost completely immovable.

Yap’s stone money used to be a serious business. The stones were quarried and carved on the island of Palau, 250 miles away One Victorian naturalist witnessed four hundred men from Yap, a tenth of the adult male population, at work in the quarries of Palau. Getting the stones from Palau to Yap on a little bamboo boat was a difficult and sometimes lethal affair - some of them weighed as much as two cars. (And rai were especially valuable if someone had died on the expedition to fetch them.) The biggest stones might have been used for major transactions such as buying land or wives; more modestly sized stones - a couple of feet across - were exchangeable for a pig. Even then, it would have been a lot easier to move the pig than to move the stone.

All this meant that for purely practical reasons, the Yap islanders had to develop an important monetary innovation: they divorced ownership of the stone from physical control of the object. If you wanted to buy my pig, that transaction would be publicly witnessed: I’d give you the pig and in exchange, you’d transfer ownership of one of your stones - the one leaning against the tree, second on the left behind your hut. Now everybody would know that that particular stone was Tim’s stone. You and I wouldn’t have to go to the trouble of actually moving the thing. One day, a crew from the quarries were bringing a new large stone from Palau when they ran into a storm not far from the coast of Yap. The stone sank while the men swam to shore to tell the tale of their lucky escape and their loss. But of course, if the stone propped up outside your hut doesn’t need to move around to change ownership, why should the stone at the bottom of the sea be any different? This giant stone on the seabed had an owner - the chief who had sponsored the expedition to get it. And now his ownership could be transferred to another rich islander, and then to another, just as with any other stone. It was perfectly good money, even though it was out of sight and out of reach.

------------------------

From "The Undercover Economist Strikes Back" by Tim Harford: http://www.amazon.com/Undercover-Economist-Strikes-Back-Ruin...

Post reply on HN