-
[quote user="Nielsio"] But what are they basing their speculation on? Again, you're assuming a steady demand to exist for this to be able to occur. So what actually drives the price of Bitcoin? [/quote] I was merely attempting to provide one possibility to show that a steady system is possible. So I'll do a story instead as I don't
-
[quote user="Nielsio"] Your theory that bitcoin provides the value of low transaction costs of other currencies (like USD) relies on there being steady demand for bitcoin in the first place. Where does this steady demand come from? There is no steady demand, as there is nothing steady in the future (such as direct use) to tie its price to
-
[quote user="Autolykos"] Could you give an example of a multi-step indirect exchange? [/quote] Nielsio provided one, I will provide others that are more relevant for our daily uses: using a credit card, using a debit card abroad, international wire transfers, western union, .... They all go through multiple steps of exchanging one form of
-
jmorris84, neither gold nor Bitcoin are money. Money is, per Mises/Rothbard/etc, a generally accepted medium of exchange. Gold and Bitcoin are media of exchange, but they are not generally accepted. Regarding my theses, all chapters have conclusions, and there's a final conclusion at the end. You can skip over the other parts and just read the conclusion
-
Smiling Dave, I'll just repeat that based on both my own calculations as well as the ones from the article you link on your blog, the velocity of circulation of Bitcoin is greater than M2 velocity of either USD or Euro, and that the argument from "hoarding" is decidedly anti-austrian, rather it is keynesian and gesellian. Your "definition"
-
[quote user="Nielsio"] 1. I have defined market money as money with its value grounded in future direct use. I have defined government money as money with its value grounded in future direct use in taxation (and other governmental requirements). [/quote] This does not match the definition of direct and indirect exchange as provided by Mises
-
[quote user="jmorris84"] Peter, Smiling Dave has defined it in his blog posts. I'm pretty sure that he has done so many times on this message board as well. [/quote] jmorris84, Dave uses a flowery writing style that may sound pleasant to some, but is very loose formally. I've been trying to get Smiling Dave to formulate his definitions
-
Ok Nielsio, then I must have misunderstood your argument, and don't actually understand it. If you admit multi-step indirect exchange, then your argument about prices is rendered irrelevant. If you use Bitcoin as a transaction mechanism on top of fiat money, then the fluctuations of exchange rates are irrelevant, because you just use the spot price
-
[quote user="jmorris84"] I think SD did a darn good job of explaining why Bitcoin will eventually find its way to the same destination of the Ithica Hour. After reading the other thread, there really wasn't any convincing argument made to prove otherwise. [/quote] jmorris84, kindly consult these posts that I made on my blog. I unmask how
-
[quote user="Smiling Dave"] 1. Nobody is actually buying anything with bitcoins. [/quote] Nobody is actually reading your blog. The five people are irrelevant (I arbitrarily decided a threshold). According to your own logic, you are a fraud and must collapse.