nodoll

no profile record

comments

last yeardiscuss

On one hand, your idea has merit. But it is not without subtle risks. These could be mitigates by doing proper mitigation measures. But again, you cannot be sure how this will work out. May be the rich have some assets that they can sell off to meet the increased tax burden. This means that they don't have to manage those assets, which can contribute to reduced stress, which could lead to a better nights sleep. This will in turn cause them to wake up and exploit the worker class with increased vigor. But they could also use their now superfluous attention to engage in reddit or hackernews or watch youtube reels, and start zombifing and eventually end up being a d-crat..So who knows how it will work out.

last yeardiscuss

No, the new coin will be exactly as valuable as Bitcoin, ensured by the community consensus. That is the whole point.

last yeardiscuss

[flagged]

last yeardiscuss

[flagged]

last yeardiscuss

None required. Once the vulnerability is known, everyone will be incentivized to migrate to the new coin.

last yeardiscuss

>They are keeping it to themselves...

So how would this graph look if it did trickle down? Just curious..

last yeardiscuss

> no incentive to trickle anything down...

Of course you are not hoping they will do out of their good of their hearts.

They would naturally want to enrich themselves, and one way to do that is launch new business and employ people, which in turn leads to the transferring back of the wealth to the people. In this manner, this also boosts economy in ways that a simple tax hike would not.

last yeardiscuss

Is there some fundamental flaw with that idea, or are you rejecting it on the basis of some "reports" of the idea not having worked before?

last yeardiscuss

That article has a chart which shows some price fluctuations and follows that gold standard did not prevent it. But that would require the price fluctuations are only caused by changes in money supply. Which I have a hard time agreeing with.

I get the drawbacks of gold backed money. But I think it dwarfs when compared to a debt based money. Basically I think debt based economies tend to foster rampant exploitation. Yea, I think inflation is really exploitation and thievery. There is no other way to see it. Debt based economies cannot work in a fair way without a way for the community to extract values from the entities that are indebted. It might be a government, or it might be a person. When a bank gives out a loan, it can ask for some collateral. But what collateral does a government provide when it issues a bond?

So in short, a gold backed economy might hinder progress or slow it down, but it won't actually enable thievery and exploitation. But the modern economies does that, and so they are a much bigger evil than a gold backed one.

last yeardiscuss

When I said "Work" I didn't mean POW puzzle solving.

But solving PoW puzzle to mine bitcoin is also useful work in the sense that it adds one coin to the economy, which is why miners are rewarded for it.

last yeardiscuss

> where __value__ comes from and how/where it is stored

Value comes from people and the work they do. A currency, or a system of money, or let us speak plainly, a system of economy tracks the value provided by a person to the community. If you have 100$ with you, that means that you have done 100$s worth of work for the community. Same with bitcoin, if you have 100 bitcoins with you, that is a proof that you have done that much work for the community. And you are entitled to the same amount of work from the community. You redeem it by paying with this currency, the other people of the community for their services.

So in otherwords, paper currency is just a distributed ledger. Instead of a ledger with some values written in a piece of paper against your name, you just hold the corresponding amount of paper currency to prove the work that you have done. When you consider all the currency held by a the people in a community, it is really a ledger that is distributed over the people in that community.

A bitcoin economy can work exactly like this. Fundamentally because in reality, in a real economy, you are not storing the value, you are tracking it.

This makes sense, because an economy really is a system that enables people helping each other, ensuring that no one takes more than they provide, or have to provide more than they take.

last yeardiscuss

I think the community will replace it with a better algorithm and existing coins will be swapped for the new coin. Transactions might be required to be frozen for a while though..

last yeardiscuss

>What distinguishes Bitcoin from Titcoin, another kind of cryptocurrency which also is with a 'capped supply'?

The presence of a growing community that are willing to accept it for good and services.

> why the gold-standard died..

You don't want the entire economy of a country to be based on capped assets. That would limit the size of your economy. But such assets can work well as a reserve. Gold works because of its intrinsic value, and is not dependent on the presence of a community that accept it. But its intrinsic value can disappear overnight. Bitcoin works as reserve because of the presence of a growing community that accept it, and is dependent on the community. But its value would not disappear and is only decided and ensured by the community.

So it really a matter of reaching community wide consensus. Bitcoin have it right now and there is no fundamental reason why it would lose its value. Sure governments can ban it, and it ll lose its value. But if the government itself is holding reserves in it, then we can be pretty sure that that would not be done.

So to answer your question, gold standard died because it would limit the size of the economy that it can support, because supply of gold is limited.

last yeardiscuss

That is not an illusion. Bitcoin supply is capped.

If you actually share what you mean by illusion, I can try to address it.

last yeardiscuss

>With a 2.5 trillion dollar tax cut...

So the idea is that this will be reinvested, leading to more productivity and job, which is a more sustainable way of getting rid of debt.

If you tax the rich, chances are that their business will cut spending, lay off people and increase unemployment. So while "Tax the rich" looks impressive if you are looking only superficially, it is not very sustainable.

last yeardiscuss

The idea described in the post makes sense to me. Bitcoin is idealized gold.

Today gold have some advantage over bitcoin in that it has some intrinsic value. But if someone finds a way to covert iron into gold, your reserve will disappear overnight.

But no such risk for bitcoin. The maximum supply is capped at some number.

last yeardiscuss

[flagged]

last yeardiscuss

>The military "altruistic" peacekeeping is a major benefit

Sure, but I think they are waking up to the fact that they cannot afford it, at least for now.

>much harder stand in future negotiations.

Well, from what Trump is saying, it seems that US didn't get the better end of a lot of deals, so it seems that it is spending resources for this peacekeeping but not getting any of the benefits in return..

last yeardiscuss

a currency is backed by value generated by the people and the natural resources of a country.

last yeardiscuss

>the exact thing the spending is meant to boost.

Sure, but that is 800bn that could have been spent on more meaningful things. People would be more happy to redeem that by their work..