BitCoin
-
jschell wrote:
You said "Yes, something that all fiat currencies do in the end." Since not all have reached the end that cannot be true.
Voltaire made the observation; and in the long run it has been true for all fiat - either it became worthless or it was replaced by another fiat :)
jschell wrote:
Prices for all crypto currencies have moved drastically over very short periods of time. That means they are all "volatile."
No, volatility is when the price can move drastically in both directions. Silver is volatile and stocks aren't anymore. BC is not going up in volatility, it is going up because demand is climbing.
jschell wrote:
Which has nothing at all to do with the needs that exist for a currency of a nation.
And you're too mad to accept that it may have to do something with volatility.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Voltaire made the observation; and in the long run it has been true for all fiat - either it became worthless or it was replaced by another fiat
Which doesn't alter what I said - it is true for crypto currencies as well.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
No, volatility is when the price can move drastically in both directions.
As I said. Multiple times.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
BC is not going up in volatility, it is going up because demand is climbing.
Why it is volatile is irrelevant. The Venezuelan currency is volatile. Why it is is irrelevant in terms of discussing the impact on the day to day economy of Venezuela.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
And you're too mad to accept that it may have to do something with volatility.
I have repeatedly pointed out that a national currency can NOT be volatile. It is not whether a currency is volatile but whether it could be. Stocks, any stocks, based on other stocks, can have drastic up or down days. Even once a year to have even a 10% uptick or downtick makes confidence in a currency decrease significantly. And that is not something that a national currency needs.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Voltaire made the observation; and in the long run it has been true for all fiat - either it became worthless or it was replaced by another fiat
Which doesn't alter what I said - it is true for crypto currencies as well.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
No, volatility is when the price can move drastically in both directions.
As I said. Multiple times.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
BC is not going up in volatility, it is going up because demand is climbing.
Why it is volatile is irrelevant. The Venezuelan currency is volatile. Why it is is irrelevant in terms of discussing the impact on the day to day economy of Venezuela.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
And you're too mad to accept that it may have to do something with volatility.
I have repeatedly pointed out that a national currency can NOT be volatile. It is not whether a currency is volatile but whether it could be. Stocks, any stocks, based on other stocks, can have drastic up or down days. Even once a year to have even a 10% uptick or downtick makes confidence in a currency decrease significantly. And that is not something that a national currency needs.
jschell wrote:
Which doesn't alter what I said - it is true for crypto currencies as well.
Ehr, no, no single crypto-currency yet. You failed to give an example; if you want a list of failed fiat-currencies, just look at the one that wikipedia provides.
jschell wrote:
Why it is volatile is irrelevant.
It is not volatile, it is climbing; and you brought it up as an argument. "Volatile"; it is over 8000 dollars now :)
jschell wrote:
I have repeatedly pointed out that a national currency can NOT be volatile.
I did not say that it should be a national currency (or even legal tender), but that is the way the market is moving. Are you saying the market is wrong? :laugh:
jschell wrote:
Even once a year to have even a 10% uptick or downtick makes confidence in a currency decrease significantly. And that is not something that a national currency needs.
People hardly notice the 5% decrease in purchasing power (M3), as long as told that CPI is 2%. As hard as you wish, the rally cannot be put away as "volatility".
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
jschell wrote:
Which doesn't alter what I said - it is true for crypto currencies as well.
Ehr, no, no single crypto-currency yet. You failed to give an example; if you want a list of failed fiat-currencies, just look at the one that wikipedia provides.
jschell wrote:
Why it is volatile is irrelevant.
It is not volatile, it is climbing; and you brought it up as an argument. "Volatile"; it is over 8000 dollars now :)
jschell wrote:
I have repeatedly pointed out that a national currency can NOT be volatile.
I did not say that it should be a national currency (or even legal tender), but that is the way the market is moving. Are you saying the market is wrong? :laugh:
jschell wrote:
Even once a year to have even a 10% uptick or downtick makes confidence in a currency decrease significantly. And that is not something that a national currency needs.
People hardly notice the 5% decrease in purchasing power (M3), as long as told that CPI is 2%. As hard as you wish, the rally cannot be put away as "volatility".
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Ehr, no, no single crypto-currency yet. You failed to give an example; if you want a list of failed fiat-currencies, just look at the one that wikipedia provides.
Irrelevant. As you said "and in the long run it has been true for all fiat " And that was the argument that you made to support fiat currencies. So I will say "in the long run" true of all crypto currencies. Feel free to prove that most of them will still be around in one million years.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
It is not volatile, it is climbing; and you brought it up as an argument. "Volatile"; it is over 8000 dollars
You seemed to be having difficultly with "volatile". The fact that it is going UP, is not relevant. What is relevant is that it is CHANGING over a short period of time. And in fact it has gone DOWN in a short period of time in the past as well. However EITHER of those conditions would make it unsuitable for a national currency. "High volatility is characterised by wide price swings of a particular asset in a short period of time" [^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
I did not say that it should be a national currency (or even legal tender),
I specifically said the following early in this chain of posts. Has it not been clear when I repeatedly said "national currencies" that I was not in fact referring exactly to that? "Currencies of first world nations do not." The Lounge[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
as long as told that CPI is 2%. As hard as you wish, the rally cannot be put away as "volatility".
Seems to be confusion on your part again. I am referring to both of the following. Not one or the other. Not independent from each other. 1. National (country) currency 2. Must not be volatile. So stocks in a stock market, any stoc
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Ehr, no, no single crypto-currency yet. You failed to give an example; if you want a list of failed fiat-currencies, just look at the one that wikipedia provides.
Irrelevant. As you said "and in the long run it has been true for all fiat " And that was the argument that you made to support fiat currencies. So I will say "in the long run" true of all crypto currencies. Feel free to prove that most of them will still be around in one million years.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
It is not volatile, it is climbing; and you brought it up as an argument. "Volatile"; it is over 8000 dollars
You seemed to be having difficultly with "volatile". The fact that it is going UP, is not relevant. What is relevant is that it is CHANGING over a short period of time. And in fact it has gone DOWN in a short period of time in the past as well. However EITHER of those conditions would make it unsuitable for a national currency. "High volatility is characterised by wide price swings of a particular asset in a short period of time" [^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
I did not say that it should be a national currency (or even legal tender),
I specifically said the following early in this chain of posts. Has it not been clear when I repeatedly said "national currencies" that I was not in fact referring exactly to that? "Currencies of first world nations do not." The Lounge[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
as long as told that CPI is 2%. As hard as you wish, the rally cannot be put away as "volatility".
Seems to be confusion on your part again. I am referring to both of the following. Not one or the other. Not independent from each other. 1. National (country) currency 2. Must not be volatile. So stocks in a stock market, any stoc
jschell wrote:
And that was the argument that you made to support fiat currencies. So I will say "in the long run" true of all crypto currencies. Feel free to prove that most of them will still be around in one million years.
Haha, you know as well as me that such a thing would be nonsense; what Voltaire means is that all fiat-currencies are eventually devalued (usually by the indebted government), and in our history they all have been debased to nearly nothing. A BC cannot be debased, since they amount is set and cannot be printed on demand. So to counter your ridiculing - yes, the physical equivalent of BC will still exist.
jschell wrote:
I specifically said the following early in this chain of posts. Has it not been clear when I repeatedly said "national currencies" that I was not in fact referring exactly to that?
Bailing out? :p
jschell wrote:
Seems to be confusion on your part again. I am referring to both of the following. Not one or the other. Not independent from each other. 1. National (country) currency 2. Must not be volatile.
Again, wrong. The market does not care about your "musts".
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
jschell wrote:
And that was the argument that you made to support fiat currencies. So I will say "in the long run" true of all crypto currencies. Feel free to prove that most of them will still be around in one million years.
Haha, you know as well as me that such a thing would be nonsense; what Voltaire means is that all fiat-currencies are eventually devalued (usually by the indebted government), and in our history they all have been debased to nearly nothing. A BC cannot be debased, since they amount is set and cannot be printed on demand. So to counter your ridiculing - yes, the physical equivalent of BC will still exist.
jschell wrote:
I specifically said the following early in this chain of posts. Has it not been clear when I repeatedly said "national currencies" that I was not in fact referring exactly to that?
Bailing out? :p
jschell wrote:
Seems to be confusion on your part again. I am referring to both of the following. Not one or the other. Not independent from each other. 1. National (country) currency 2. Must not be volatile.
Again, wrong. The market does not care about your "musts".
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
A BC cannot be debased, since they amount is set and cannot be printed on demand. So to counter your ridiculing - yes, the physical equivalent of BC will still exist.
You keep harping on the stock market so there are many companies that went bankrupt and their stock certificates can still be purchased. Some times by the unknowing but often knowingly by people who value it for the esthetics and not monetary value. Same is true of old currency. Some can sell for a lot but not as a currency but rather as a collectible. Neither of those validate that it is relevant as a national currency however.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Bailing out?
Which perhaps, again, suggests that you are not clear on what I am talking about.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Again, wrong. The market does not care about your "musts".
What part of that following statement is unclear to you? The "market" has nothing to do with national currencies. You keep suggesting that asset commodification is a good thing and the immediately conclude from that that a national currency would be better if the same was true. That is a vast leap which ignores that the first is not the same as the second and it also ignores the historical data that shows that the conditions that make markets ideal are the exact things that one does not want for a national currency.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
A BC cannot be debased, since they amount is set and cannot be printed on demand. So to counter your ridiculing - yes, the physical equivalent of BC will still exist.
You keep harping on the stock market so there are many companies that went bankrupt and their stock certificates can still be purchased. Some times by the unknowing but often knowingly by people who value it for the esthetics and not monetary value. Same is true of old currency. Some can sell for a lot but not as a currency but rather as a collectible. Neither of those validate that it is relevant as a national currency however.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Bailing out?
Which perhaps, again, suggests that you are not clear on what I am talking about.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Again, wrong. The market does not care about your "musts".
What part of that following statement is unclear to you? The "market" has nothing to do with national currencies. You keep suggesting that asset commodification is a good thing and the immediately conclude from that that a national currency would be better if the same was true. That is a vast leap which ignores that the first is not the same as the second and it also ignores the historical data that shows that the conditions that make markets ideal are the exact things that one does not want for a national currency.
jschell wrote:
Same is true of old currency. Some can sell for a lot but not as a currency but rather as a collectible. Neither of those validate that it is relevant as a national currency however.
It does not need to be a collectible :)
jschell wrote:
The "market" has nothing to do with national currencies.
That's why Draghi adresses it when talking about future policies.
jschell wrote:
You keep suggesting that asset commodification is a good thing and the immediately conclude from that that a national currency would be better if the same was true.
No - observing that despite the warnings, people are using BC. Also observing a lot of inflation in M3, something the BC doesn't have.
jschell wrote:
That is a vast leap which ignores that the first is not the same as the second and it also ignores the historical data that shows that the conditions that make markets ideal are the exact things that one does not want for a national currency.
Yes, you want those conditions for a national currency. I'll start the list, and you finish it - since you're the expert; * a currency has to be easily divideable (ie, one airoplain is not dividable enough to buy bread) * a currency has to be lasting (ie, it should not rot, hence bread is no currency) There's five of them, and it is usually the market that chooses its money. If the people do not like their legal tender (like in Germany) then they will find something else to use as money.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
jschell wrote:
Same is true of old currency. Some can sell for a lot but not as a currency but rather as a collectible. Neither of those validate that it is relevant as a national currency however.
It does not need to be a collectible :)
jschell wrote:
The "market" has nothing to do with national currencies.
That's why Draghi adresses it when talking about future policies.
jschell wrote:
You keep suggesting that asset commodification is a good thing and the immediately conclude from that that a national currency would be better if the same was true.
No - observing that despite the warnings, people are using BC. Also observing a lot of inflation in M3, something the BC doesn't have.
jschell wrote:
That is a vast leap which ignores that the first is not the same as the second and it also ignores the historical data that shows that the conditions that make markets ideal are the exact things that one does not want for a national currency.
Yes, you want those conditions for a national currency. I'll start the list, and you finish it - since you're the expert; * a currency has to be easily divideable (ie, one airoplain is not dividable enough to buy bread) * a currency has to be lasting (ie, it should not rot, hence bread is no currency) There's five of them, and it is usually the market that chooses its money. If the people do not like their legal tender (like in Germany) then they will find something else to use as money.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
It does not need to be a collectible
It is your argument that fiat currency some how always go bad where as cryptos do not. You have not presented any argument at all that supports that. You didn't support the first and you did not support the second.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Yes, you want those conditions for a national currency. I'll start the list, and you finish it - since you're the expert;
You do understand that private currencies have already been tried - right? And that they failed? Do you know why they failed?
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
I'll start the list, and you finish it - since you're the expert;...There's five of them,
There are "five" of them because those are how crypto proponents are attempting to rationalize that crypto currencies are better. Naturally I am not going to accept that definition at all. And none of those address volatility, which I have pointed out numerous times.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
It does not need to be a collectible
It is your argument that fiat currency some how always go bad where as cryptos do not. You have not presented any argument at all that supports that. You didn't support the first and you did not support the second.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Yes, you want those conditions for a national currency. I'll start the list, and you finish it - since you're the expert;
You do understand that private currencies have already been tried - right? And that they failed? Do you know why they failed?
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
I'll start the list, and you finish it - since you're the expert;...There's five of them,
There are "five" of them because those are how crypto proponents are attempting to rationalize that crypto currencies are better. Naturally I am not going to accept that definition at all. And none of those address volatility, which I have pointed out numerous times.
jschell wrote:
It is your argument that fiat currency some how always go bad where as cryptos do not. You have not presented any argument at all that supports that.
I did, as well as the reason, and the technical reason why BC can't.
jschell wrote:
You do understand that private currencies have already been tried - right? And that they failed? Do you know why they failed?
It's called fiat, not private. Gold and silver always worked.
jschell wrote:
There are "five" of them because those are how crypto proponents are attempting to rationalize that crypto currencies are better.
The ideas of what makes a good currency were long established before BC. Most of them apply to gold.
jschell wrote:
And none of those address volatility, which I have pointed out numerous times.
There isn't any. Anyone who owns it became wealthier because the price rises due to increase in demand. What volatility?
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
jschell wrote:
It is your argument that fiat currency some how always go bad where as cryptos do not. You have not presented any argument at all that supports that.
I did, as well as the reason, and the technical reason why BC can't.
jschell wrote:
You do understand that private currencies have already been tried - right? And that they failed? Do you know why they failed?
It's called fiat, not private. Gold and silver always worked.
jschell wrote:
There are "five" of them because those are how crypto proponents are attempting to rationalize that crypto currencies are better.
The ideas of what makes a good currency were long established before BC. Most of them apply to gold.
jschell wrote:
And none of those address volatility, which I have pointed out numerous times.
There isn't any. Anyone who owns it became wealthier because the price rises due to increase in demand. What volatility?
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
and the technical reason why BC can't.
And I already refuted that reason.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Gold and silver always worked.
The metal itself? No it didn't. There were problems with those as well. First, as a metal and only a metal, it was subject to the same problems as barter in that one could not buy something with any assurance that the cost would not change radically. Second as coinage the were often problems such as the coins not actually being the right amount. And there could and were shortages of the metal necessary to produce new coins. Coinage was not successful because of the actual metal weight but rather because of the perceived value. History of the English penny (1154–1485) - Wikipedia[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
The ideas of what makes a good currency were long established before BC. Most of them apply to gold.
Then find a citation with your five "rules" that proves the rules existed before crypto currency.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Anyone who owns it became wealthier because the price rises due to increase in demand. What volatility?
You apparently continue to have a problem understanding the definition of "volatility". What part of the numerous definitions that I provided did you not understand?
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
and the technical reason why BC can't.
And I already refuted that reason.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Gold and silver always worked.
The metal itself? No it didn't. There were problems with those as well. First, as a metal and only a metal, it was subject to the same problems as barter in that one could not buy something with any assurance that the cost would not change radically. Second as coinage the were often problems such as the coins not actually being the right amount. And there could and were shortages of the metal necessary to produce new coins. Coinage was not successful because of the actual metal weight but rather because of the perceived value. History of the English penny (1154–1485) - Wikipedia[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
The ideas of what makes a good currency were long established before BC. Most of them apply to gold.
Then find a citation with your five "rules" that proves the rules existed before crypto currency.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Anyone who owns it became wealthier because the price rises due to increase in demand. What volatility?
You apparently continue to have a problem understanding the definition of "volatility". What part of the numerous definitions that I provided did you not understand?
jschell wrote:
And I already refuted that reason.
You didn't :)
jschell wrote:
And there could and were shortages of the metal necessary to produce new coins
No, not shortages; people spending more than they own. And from barter, the metals are the ones that are most fit for trade.
jschell wrote:
Then find a citation with your five "rules" that proves the rules existed before crypto currency.
Google the ones I presented? :)
jschell wrote:
What part of the numerous definitions that I provided did you not understand?
I'm refuting that it is normal trading volatility; it is appreciation. Also does not look like it is something that is going away soon :-D
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
jschell wrote:
And I already refuted that reason.
You didn't :)
jschell wrote:
And there could and were shortages of the metal necessary to produce new coins
No, not shortages; people spending more than they own. And from barter, the metals are the ones that are most fit for trade.
jschell wrote:
Then find a citation with your five "rules" that proves the rules existed before crypto currency.
Google the ones I presented? :)
jschell wrote:
What part of the numerous definitions that I provided did you not understand?
I'm refuting that it is normal trading volatility; it is appreciation. Also does not look like it is something that is going away soon :-D
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
No, not shortages; people spending more than they ow
You didn't read the link that I posted.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Google the ones I presented?
Yes. And again I don't see a link from you that provides a definition which is not crafted specifically to present crypto currencies in a positive light.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
I'm refuting that it is normal trading volatility; it is appreciation
Again this merely demonstrates you do not not understand my multiple definitions of volatility. The following is "volatile". Just as the run up ("appreciation") the day before was as well. Bitcoin loses over a fifth of its value in less than 24 hours | Reuters[^]
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
No, not shortages; people spending more than they ow
You didn't read the link that I posted.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Google the ones I presented?
Yes. And again I don't see a link from you that provides a definition which is not crafted specifically to present crypto currencies in a positive light.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
I'm refuting that it is normal trading volatility; it is appreciation
Again this merely demonstrates you do not not understand my multiple definitions of volatility. The following is "volatile". Just as the run up ("appreciation") the day before was as well. Bitcoin loses over a fifth of its value in less than 24 hours | Reuters[^]
jschell wrote:
You didn't read the link that I posted.
We had history in school, it didn't change :) There is no shortages in coins. That's simply one way of saying you're poor.
jschell wrote:
Yes. And again I don't see a link from you that provides a definition which is not crafted specifically to present crypto currencies in a positive light.
It does not need a positive light :)
jschell wrote:
Again this merely demonstrates you do not not understand my multiple definitions of volatility. The following is "volatile". Just as the run up ("appreciation") the day before was as well. Bitcoin loses over a fifth of its value in less than 24 hours | Reuters[^]
Haha, yes, they took the biggest delta they could find in a short span; and no, not volatility, but politics. As you can see at the current price, it did not change much, did it? :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
jschell wrote:
You didn't read the link that I posted.
We had history in school, it didn't change :) There is no shortages in coins. That's simply one way of saying you're poor.
jschell wrote:
Yes. And again I don't see a link from you that provides a definition which is not crafted specifically to present crypto currencies in a positive light.
It does not need a positive light :)
jschell wrote:
Again this merely demonstrates you do not not understand my multiple definitions of volatility. The following is "volatile". Just as the run up ("appreciation") the day before was as well. Bitcoin loses over a fifth of its value in less than 24 hours | Reuters[^]
Haha, yes, they took the biggest delta they could find in a short span; and no, not volatility, but politics. As you can see at the current price, it did not change much, did it? :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
There is no shortages in coins. That's simply one way of saying you're poor.
Again you didn't read the link that I posted.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
and no, not volatility,
Yes specifically volatility as I specifically defined numerous times. What part of the definition confuses you?
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
There is no shortages in coins. That's simply one way of saying you're poor.
Again you didn't read the link that I posted.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
and no, not volatility,
Yes specifically volatility as I specifically defined numerous times. What part of the definition confuses you?
jschell wrote:
Yes specifically volatility as I specifically defined numerous times. What part of the definition confuses you?
With China banning crypto's it is still a rally. Best performing asset this year. $11,850. "Volatile"; I'm sure that the people holding the currency will be weeping about it.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
jschell wrote:
Yes specifically volatility as I specifically defined numerous times. What part of the definition confuses you?
With China banning crypto's it is still a rally. Best performing asset this year. $11,850. "Volatile"; I'm sure that the people holding the currency will be weeping about it.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
"Volatile"; I'm sure that the people holding the currency will be weeping about it.
Again I provided multiple definitions of volatility and multiple explanations about how that volatility made it unsuitable as a national currency. It certainly looks like the investment community agrees with my definition. "The exchange halted trading twice on the first day to stem volatility. The exchange operator has rules in place to stop trading after price swings of 10 percent." Bitcoin futures soar amid frenzy over virtual currency - ABC News[^] And that is the futures market which allows for and accepts more "volatility" than regular markets. I also explained multiple times that the investment possibilities of any asset has nothing to do with the suitability to be used as a national currency.