Fiat is Effective: fiat for the crypto crowd [pdf]

Post by pseud0r » Tue, Oct 17, 2017, 2:28 PM UTC

littlestymaar wrote: post #82

pseud0r wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be an argument against stock market and interest rate as well. If a significant number of companies waited those 3 months to invest, there would be no deflation. The deflation will be the same as the increase in a stock market index.

> If a significant number of companies waited those 3 months to invest, there would be no deflation. And little economic activities in the meantime (because all those investment deals wouldn't occur). At the equilibrium, you'll have zero deflation and a growth which is way below its potential (it could even be a recession, slowly converging toward zero growth). That sounds fantastic doesn't it ? I didn't understand y…

Post by nosuchthing » Tue, Oct 17, 2017, 8:08 PM UTC

jondubois wrote: post #218

strgrd wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin isn't the internet of money, it is an internet for money. With this distinction in mind, it would be foolish to think that the first cryptocurrency would be the last. It took many implementations and iterations of wide area networks to arrive at the Internet Protocol we have today. While Bitcoin doesn't share the same set of problems as fiat currency, it has its own burdens, and has proven completely ineffect…

Yes, it seems that human attention has become the ultimate luxury commodity. I think that a cryptocurrency derives a significant portion of its value from the mere fact that that a lot of people know about its existence. A lot of celebrities these days make huge sums of money in spite of being untalented. Being famous is valuable in itself. People (especially rich people) want to be loved and/or respected. The "why"…

  In economics, the Gini coefficient is the standard measure 
  of how inequitable a society is. This is tricky to 
  determine for Bitcoin, as it's not quiet a "society" in 
  the Gini sense, one person may have multiple addresses and 
  many addresses have been used only once or a few times. 
  (The commonly-cited figure of 0.88 is based on one small 
  exchange in 2011.) However, a Citigroup analysis from 
  early 2014 notes: "47 individuals hold about 30 percent, 
  another 900 a further 20 percent, the next 10,000 about 
  25% and another million about 20%"; and distribution 
  "looks much like the distribution of wealth in North Korea 
  and makes China's and even the US' wealth distribution 
  look like that of a workers' paradise

  Dorit Ron and Adi Shamir found in a 2012 study that only 
  22% of then-existing Bitcoins were in circulation at all, 
  there were a total of 75 active users or businesses with 
  any kind of volume, one (unidentified) user owned a 
  quarter of all Bitcoins in existence, and one large owner 
  was trying to hide their pile by moving it around in 
  thousands of smaller transactions. (Shamir is one of the 
  most renowned cryptographers in the world and the "S" in 
  "RSA encryption")"

Post by zodiac » Fri, Oct 20, 2017, 2:45 AM UTC

KGIII wrote: post #35

zodiac wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are project like MakerDAO that indeed use smart contracts (plus fiat price oracles and some other things) to implement monetary policy without any "pilot".

I think one of the problems is that there are now, what, a few thousand cryptocurrencies? The optics of the multitudes of ICOs? Those aren't good. No, no they are not. A part of me wonders if this popularity boom might actually be the reason it dies out. How many hacks, thefts, and scams have there been? Sure, those happen with real money but real money isn't the one needing to work on its optics. We already accept r…