Economics Questions

Re: Is BitCoin the currency of the future?

boniek — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:09:28 GMT

"The EFF has stopped taking Bitcoin donations citing worries over the virtual currency's legal position and concerns that it was being seen as endorsing the digital money"

http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/EFF-stops-taking-Bitcoin-donations-1264221.html

Re: Is BitCoin the currency of the future?

Smiling Dave — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 22:19:30 GMT

Today, June 20 2011, you can download Peter Schiff's interview with a too Bitcoin person free from schiffradio.com

Tomorrow by 10 AM or so it will be gone.

Re: Is BitCoin the currency of the future?

Peter Šurda — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 20:35:46 GMT

filc:
We're talking past one another because each others point has nothing to do with the other.

Correct. However, you present multiple statements which contain logical fallacies. I listed them, you ignored them. What's worse, you present this approach as somehow intellectually superiour. Keep mumbling your mantras if you want.

Re: Is BitCoin the currency of the future?

filc — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 19:15:21 GMT

Peter:
Yet, you started arguing with me, and you object to almost everything I post.

It is correct that I have responded and critqued you once. The latter posts however have been response to comments you directed at me.

Peter:
Both of the examples you link to are attempting to show that Bitcoin is not money, however I again repeat that that's irrelevant.

For you! For you it is irrelevant, but not irrelevant to me, my discussion with everyone, and the entire topic of this thread for the past 30 pages. THIS IS WHAT I AM TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO YOU. Unplug your mind. The truth is your argument has nothing to do with me. We're talking past one another because each others point has nothing to do with the other. How many times must I repeat this? I said more then once that it doesn't sound like you or I have a legitimate quarrel yet you persist.

Peter:
Multiple times you have claimed to not see sentences which I posted just a couple of posts ago and that you yourself have reacted to already. This is a strong indication that you are not genuinly interested in a debate.

That is not what I claimed. I claimed that I ignore your posts as they have absolutely nothing to do with me or my argument. I have indeed said that multiple times. How many more times must I say it before it clicks with you?

Peter:
I don't think anyone says that BTC are widely accepted. The debate is about the future, not the present. The future with government interference with money. Not the future with anarchocapitalism.

Correct but some people were trying to argue that BTC's were a currency. That begun a debate of semantics. Again this is the entire premise of the first 25 pages of this thread. Maybe it has nothing to do with you, maybe not but your posts are entirely off base.

Peter:
Often when I showed you a problem with your argument, such as contradiction or a gap, you simply ignore it and start talking about something else.

You have offered no such evidence. Are you claiming that the regression theorem has gaps and contradictions? I hold no argument of my own, the argument I am putting forth is straight regression theoreem.

Peter:
Let me remind you let again that it was you who started to debate with me, not vice versa. What happened then, short term memory loss?

I didn't start a debate with you, you confused man. I responded to you in criticism on a single post. You went off the deepend badgering about all sorts of things.

The funny thing here is that I don't think you ever actually addressed my criticism in that post.

Peter:
They are if you use induction instead of deduction, and if the conclusions are not valid in all cases. And that is what regression argument does.

Thats incorrect but lets just get this on record. You think a priori and a posterori are mutually exclusive? Am I reading that correctly? Through this reasoning you've managed to eliminate the praxeological contributions made to regression theorem. Therebye ignoring Mises's own explanation when he uses Praxeology to arrive at the ultimate conclusion.

Peter:
Short term memory loss again I see. I listed the assumptions here.

Thank god. See I did ignore you. For good reason though.

Peter:
Money as defined by the regression theorem is an empirical phenomenon, not a praxeological one.

This is false. I don't want to debate with you over this. I don' want to spend the next 5 days explaining basic logic and philosophy to you only for you to disagree simply for the sake of disagreeing. I see no way of making a positive progression with you.

Praxeology and empiricism are not mutually exclusive, it's the opposite. They are necessarily and implied as mutually dependant. I won't explain it to you as I've long since lost any faith of being able to convince you. Even if I am right I think you'll just disagree out of spite.

the non-existence of government

Kind of. The regression theorem can still explain a number of things about currencies of decree. You are correct in that it won't explain how currencies of decree come into existence. This was stated several times over several pages now.

the non-existence of the digital

That is incorreect. Thats the equivilent of saying that if a new element was found in science, and this new element became a money that the regression theorem couldn't explain. The regression theorem can explain the migration to digital currencies. The type of currency and whether it's tangible or not has nothing to do with the fundamenntal mechanics of the theorem itself.

It sounds like you just WANT that to be the case. As stated 29384729387423 times over, it's all about exchange ratio's. You can't just hop from one currency to another without pre-established exchange ratio's. That IS STRAIGHT REGRESSION THEOREM.

Peter:
Bitcoin is not money. I agree

Then leave me in peace. Your upset that you don't understand what I am posting. Well go read a book man! I'm not going to teach you every detail of AE here. Especially if your going to harrass me.

Peter:
Bitcoin is not used for economic calculation. While I can't be 100% sure

NO you can be 100% sure as it would be radically in-effecient.

Peter:
mainly by legal tender laws, regulations of financial banking institutions and hatred of gold (I did not even mention illegal trades)

ANd if you read all of my posts you would have learned that this was established 25 pages ago(Somewhere in that mess of posts). So this point is mute.

Peter:
If money cannot fill that gap, non-money still might be able to and from the perspective of people living in that gap, become the dominant medium of exchange and unit of economic calculation.

Astronomically improbable. Bitcoin zealots like to think it's underlying features are more desired for then they really are. It won't happen for the reasons already explained. What does the gap do to existing exchange ratio's and economic(and accounting) calculations.

You won't be able to tell me because you don't know what economic calculation is, nor do you care about exchange ratio's and why they are relevant to the formation of a dominant money.

Peter:
Let's try to make a more formal analogy.

No my friend, this is what we're going to do. I am through with you and our discussion. As I stated before, I have said everythign thats needed to be said. I have more the sufficiently covered the topic. I am ignoring you for the rest of the day so as not to ruin my sunday.

It's likely that I'll ignore most of your future posts as well. =p

Re: Is BitCoin the currency of the future?

filc — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 19:14:37 GMT

Peter Šurda:

I just realised that The Real Plato has been using Bitcoin for economic calculation during his trip. So yet again, your argument that Bitcoin cannot be used for economic calculation is disproved. Yet again I'm pointing out how your argument is based on induction and normative assumptions, rather than deduction.

Ha, I don't even think you knwo what economic calculaton is to be able to make that argument.

Show me their accounting books.

Re: Is BitCoin the currency of the future?

Peter Šurda — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 11:53:32 GMT

I just realised that The Real Plato has been using Bitcoin for economic calculation during his trip. So yet again, your argument that Bitcoin cannot be used for economic calculation is disproved. Yet again I'm pointing out how your argument is based on induction and normative assumptions, rather than deduction.

Re: Is BitCoin the currency of the future?

Peter Šurda — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 09:39:32 GMT

filc:
I think it was established several pages ago that I had no particular argument directed at you.

Yet, you started arguing with me, and you object to almost everything I post.

filc:
In fact two different people on seperate occasions, not me, have gone out of their way to remind everyone the topic of the discussion.

Both of the examples you link to are attempting to show that Bitcoin is not money, however I again repeat that that's irrelevant.

filc:
Instead you probably just lied and said you did.

I think you are projecting your own faults to others. Multiple times you have claimed to not see sentences which I posted just a couple of posts ago and that you yourself have reacted to already. This is a strong indication that you are not genuinly interested in a debate.

filc:
I have stated this several times over, unless your arguing that BTC's are a widely accepted currency, a money, then we have no quarrel.

I don't think anyone says that BTC are widely accepted. The debate is about the future, not the present. The future with government interference with money. Not the future with anarchocapitalism.

filc:
If anything I corrected you in the past over your mis-information or mis-interpretation of key Austrian insights.

Often when I showed you a problem with your argument, such as contradiction or a gap, you simply ignore it and start talking about something else.

filc:
As I have no earthly idea w hat your "argument" is.

Let me remind you let again that it was you who started to debate with me, not vice versa. What happened then, short term memory loss?

filc:
Praxeology and empirical methods are not mutually exclusive.

They are if you use induction instead of deduction, and if the conclusions are not valid in all cases. And that is what regression argument does.

filc:
I asked you before, what normative assumptions?

Short term memory loss again I see. I listed the assumptions here.

filc:
You don't even know what my argument is.

I reread all the links you provided and there is still nothing new. You have two points:

Bitcoin is not money. I agree that based on the regression theorem it's not money, but I claim it's irrelevant

Bitcoin is not used for economic calculation. While I can't be 100% sure about this since I don't see in everyone's head, let's say for argument's sake it's true. However, again I claim it's irrelevant. If the argument had any weight, you would need to prove that it cannot be used for economic calculation in the future. Furthermore, your example with USD disproves your own argument, since I don't use USD for economic calculation either.

The reason why it's irrelevant I posted on my very first post in this thread: government interference with money, mainly by legal tender laws, regulations of financial banking institutions and hatred of gold (I did not even mention illegal trades). This creates a market gap. If money cannot fill that gap, non-money still might be able to and from the perspective of people living in that gap, become the dominant medium of exchange and unit of economic calculation. The fees that paypal charges, bad credit scores preventing you from getting a credit card, identification and forms you need to fill out when opening a bank account, the days and fees it takes to make an international bank transfer, that all creates an opportunity for a competitor. If gold (or any other money) would be able to fill that gap, don't you think it already would have?

filc:
Here is a whole other topic I started which explores alternative digital currencies

There is nothing wrong per se with that post. In fact, currencies did already come to existence like that. However, US hates them and attacks their issuers. Because digital currencies based on commodity or stock have backing, that presents a single point of failure: government confiscates the backing, shuts down the servers of the issuer and the currency becomes unbacked and technically unusable. This has already happened several times in the past and I said so in my first post. With Bitcoin, there is no centralisation and no backing, so nothing to confiscate. In order to make Bitcoin unusable, a government needs to ban or heavily regulate all computers and network communications. I'm not saying that is impossible, but what is important is that it takes comparatively more resources and is less likely to happen. That creates a comparative advantage and if Bitcoin can utilise it, there is a huge gap in the market that it can fill.

Let's try to make a more formal analogy. There is a demand for a good type M, which requires the features E and C. Due to network effects, whichever good has the best features E and C will become the dominant type-M good on the market. Let's call it G. Goods that do not have both of the features E and C will be automatically pushed out of the market for a type-M good and an attempt of them to compete with G would be pointless. Now, enter government. Government creates a new good, F, which does not have feature C. It then uses force to directly or indirectly push G out of the market as a type-M good. Governments being governments, F is kind of crap and people do not want to use given the choice. So, they create a new good, D, a derivative of G. However, the feature C makes it very easy for government to attack D, because it presents a single point of failure and the connection between C and D cannot utilise network effects. Furthermore, governments start attacking people producing D. Some guys then produce a new good, B. Like F, it does not have the feature C. This makes it less vulnerable to government interference, but also makes some people object to it because they require the feature C. However, since F has pushed out G out of certain market sectors, B can fill those. Some people make the theoretical argument that C is necessary for a good to be a type M good. This may be right, but since government is pushing goods that have the feature C out of the market, people who are the most frustrated with F and want the feature E will be better served with B than with G.

In other words, while you see the absence of Commodity foundation in Bitcoin as a disadvantage against Gold, you neglect to see that it is also an advantage compared to Gold when facing Fiat and government interference.

Re: Is BitCoin the currency of the future?

bbnet — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 23:55:07 GMT

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Re: Is BitCoin the currency of the future?

filc — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 21:12:32 GMT

Peter Šurda:
You are making a separate claim, rather than providing a counterargument to my argument.

I think it was established several pages ago that I had no particular argument directed at you. That your argument was inaplicable to the previuos discussion that occured over the past 20 pages.

In fact two different people on seperate occasions, not me, have gone out of their way to remind everyone the topic of the discussion. It certainly is not the case that I am mistaken as to what the OT was about.

Example1

Example2

Peter:
pretend to be interacting with others but actually just talking to yourself.

The last 25 pages speak otherwise. I have held dialogue's with many others, before you even came. The fact that you think I have not is just further evidence that you actually did not read everything I posted. Instead you probably just lied and said you did. I haven't even the slightest why your posting or what your badgering on about.

I have stated this several times over, unless your arguing that BTC's are a widely accepted currency, a money, then we have no quarrel. How many more times shall I repeat it to you?

Peter:
Of course, purely hypothetically, it is possible that you do have a counterargument and I just don't get it. That is why I am trying to get you to confront my arguments, which you refuse.

If anything I corrected you in the past over your mis-information or mis-interpretation of key Austrian insights. But I have never presented an argument to refute yours. As I have no earthly idea w hat your "argument" is.

The irony of accusing me of talking to myself is over the top here!

Peter:
Again, you guys are essentially talking to yourselves. You do not confront your opponents.

Yes, Micah, Moonshadow, and everyone else before you were were pigments of my imagination.

Peter:
It does deal with human action, but it does not reject empirical methods,

Neither does praxeology. A priorism and a posterori are not mutually exclusive. You place yourself into a false dichotomy to choose extreme degrees of each. They both work in tandem. Praxeology explains to us what we understand about the empirical world. It's an intregal part to the devleopment of the regressiom theorem. It explains to us the signifigance of exchange ratio's, the ultimate establishment of prices amongst a common medium and eventualy what is finally established as money. Praxeology and empirical methods are not mutually exclusive. They are necessarily intwined. The very concept of "Human Action" implies the objective observation of preference after action taken.

Peter:
normative assumptions that I have been pointing out since the beginning.

Your just confusing yourself here. I asked you before, what normative assumptions?

Peter:
I have expressed and repeated them several times.

Provide a link to your post where you explained the normative assumptions.

Peter:
Just another indication that your goal here is not a genuine discourse, but preaching dogmas.

The irony here is I have no direct quarrrel with you, yet you seem bent on creating one.

Hilarious. You must be getting frustrated at this point. Stop and think why? What are you frustrated at? What are you trying to prove to me? You don't even know what my argument is and you've provided evidence that you haven't read a single thing I've posted in the first 25 pages. So why do you invest so much energy in me specifically?

You must have missed all of these since you seem to believe I am talking to myself.

Here is my primary explanation of my argument.

My Argument

Here is a list of dialogue's I have had with others.

B , C , D , E , F ,

Here are are some of Clayton's posts I agree with.

A, B

But I suppose you think he was talking to himself to.

Here is a whole other topic I started which explores alternative digital currencies

So do you want me to waste my saturday re-referencing my posts for you?

Re: Is BitCoin the currency of the future?

Peter Šurda — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 20:14:17 GMT

filc:
Which is it, either I have an argument or I don't? Also if I have no argumetn why are you spending an exorbitant amount of time responding to essentially a non-argument?

You are making a separate claim, rather than providing a counterargument to my argument. That is what I am trying to point out, you are enclosed in your own reality, pretend to be interacting with others but actually just talking to yourself.

Of course, purely hypothetically, it is possible that you do have a counterargument and I just don't get it. That is why I am trying to get you to confront my arguments, which you refuse.

filc:
Finally there have been at least two other people besides me who have emphasized the point that myself and Clayton brought up which caused the original source of contention on this thread. So to say I have no argument is just dishonest.

Again, you guys are essentially talking to yourselves. You do not confront your opponents.

filc:
So regression theorem does not deal with exchange and ultimately human action?

It does deal with human action, but it does not reject empirical methods, because it is based on normative assumptions that I have been pointing out since the beginning.

filc:
What normative assumptions are you talking about?

I have expressed and repeated them several times. Just another indication that your goal here is not a genuine discourse, but preaching dogmas.

Re: Is BitCoin the currency of the future?

filc — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 18:16:21 GMT

Peter:
Just to make sure I didn't miss it, I reread your old posts. You did not provide an argument.

Peter:
You are rather obsessed with proving that Bitcoin does not fit into the regression theorem

Which is it, either I have an argument or I don't? Also if I have no argumetn why are you spending an exorbitant amount of time responding to essentially a non-argument?

Finally there have been at least two other people besides me who have emphasized the point that myself and Clayton brought up which caused the original source of contention on this thread. So to say I have no argument is just dishonest.

Peter:
Regression theorem is not praxeological, because it mixes normative assumptions with deductive reasoning.

So regression theorem does not deal with exchange and ultimately human action? What normative assumptions are you talking about?

[edit]

It just dawned on me that I actually re-stated my position to you several pages ago. =p

Re: Is BitCoin the currency of the future?

Peter Šurda — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 09:19:28 GMT

filc:
I provided my argument 25 pages ago. Don't get all upset because I don't want to spend the next 3 hours repeating myself to you.

Just to make sure I didn't miss it, I reread your old posts. You did not provide an argument. You are rather obsessed with proving that Bitcoin does not fit into the regression theorem, but do not explain why it is relevant. You just make a feeble attempt with showing that it's only used as a proxy at the moment. But that's an empirical issue rather than a deductive one. I don't use USD for economic calculation either, I use EUR. In order to use Bitcoin in economic calculation I go to bitcoincharts.com, get the USD/BTC exchange rate and then google for the USD/EUR exchange rate. By your own logic, USD is not a currency either because I don't use it for economic calculation. That's all nonsense of course, it's not based on deductive reasoning.

I'm saying it's irrelevant because regression theorem is based on normative assumptions and I clearly listed at least two which are not fulfilled at the moment. You completely ignore it. Regression theorem is not praxeological, because it mixes normative assumptions with deductive reasoning. The only way to fix it is to reformulate it without normative assumptions.

Bitcoin fills (or attempts to fill) a market gap that is predominantly caused by government interference. As long as the gap is there, Bitcoin (or one of its successors) will trade and have value. If Bitcoin fails, it won't be because it deductively follows from the regression theorem, rather due to empirical issues (internal failure or it will be pushed out of the market gap).

So I'll leave you to your obsession with obscure terms and faulty logic.

Re: Is BitCoin the currency of the future?

filc — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 01:19:10 GMT

MoonShadow:

I know the true answer to this one!

Not on this forum, you aren't.

You could inspire a more rational and mature conversation about bitcoin on 4chan than here.

Being dishonest isn't going to grant your position any merit. People here have gone way out of their way to explain things. Yet you expect it from them like they owe you.

Re: Is BitCoin the currency of the future?

filc — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 01:18:16 GMT

Peter Šurda:

filc, you provide merely more assertions and no arguments. If I'm confused, why don't you correct me? If my understanding is lacking, why don't you explain?

I provided my argument 25 pages ago. Don't get all upset because I don't want to spend the next 3 hours repeating myself to you.

Re: Is BitCoin the currency of the future?

MoonShadow — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 21:32:29 GMT

Peter Šurda:

Am I going to get some meaningful replies or not?

I know the true answer to this one!

Not on this forum, you aren't.

You could inspire a more rational and mature conversation about bitcoin on 4chan than here.