re: Winklevoss Twins Plan First Fund For Bitcoins

The Twins better hurry.

BTC message boards are calling today's price drop a "collapse."

Bump for any sort of response.

quote:

---

Do you think most of the the "wealth" around the world isn't created electronically and recorded in some sort of electronic balance sheet?

---

Yes, you're right. And it's all a house of cards.

quote:

---

I know your end result is no dilution of your purchasing power

---

yep

quote:

---

but no matter what the mining code the valuation of bitcoin will still be dependent on how attractive it is compared to other alternatives.

---

Very true. That's where the scarcity of bitcoin comes into play.

quote:

---

there will always be alternatives

---

of course there will be. Unlike the Federal Reserve and US government, I welcome currency competition. The cream will rise to the top. It may or may not be bitcoin. It won't be a fiat currency.

quote:

---

It may control the "supply" (which seems contradictory to the fact it is infinitely divisible)

---

This disappoints me, Benny, because I thought you were smarter than some of the others here. I really can't believe you are making this argument.

You do realize that you are essentially saying that 1.00000000 brought out to more decimal places equates to an increase in supply. If you are that mathematically ignorant, then perhaps I was giving you too much respect.

quote:

---

but its value has and will always depend on the amount of demand for it

---

Yep. Isn't that beautiful?

quote:

---

They started keeping track of the dollar index in 1967. Think about these figures:

- Over that entire time period (1/31/67 to 7/3/2013) the dollar index has declined an annualized 0.77%.
- The dollar was worth the most on 2/25/1985 (well past when central banks came in the picture and we left the gold standard) and the lowest on 4/22/2008 (-3.21% annualized).
- Since the low in 2008 that dollar has appreciated an annualized 2.92% and since the first QE announcement in 2010 it's appreciated an annualized 3.00%.
- I mean hell its basically worth the exact same as it was at the end of 1990.

---

As for most of the rest of your post, I'll just say it like this: We've had this discussion before. The literature you read differs from the literature I read. That's all it comes down to. We could sit here and argue back and forth about this crap until the cows come home but it doesn't look like either of us is going to change our mind any time soon.

As for the "smoothing" argument, I'm sorry but I don't buy it and I don't know how anyone with a lick of intelligence buys it. Your buddy Benny even admitted that the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression. Oh, I know, I know, you argue that it's because they didn't do enough. I will further argue that central banking caused the current mess that we're in as well. So much for smoothing.

Even if we accept that recessions were more volatile and frequent before central banking, they were also shorter and tended to correct themselves naturally.

To respond to a particular point:

quote:

---

BTW nice cherry pick, Greenspan himself stated several times that the gold standard is no way to run monetary policy.

---

I didn't post that quote to argue returning to a gold standard. I honestly don't give a shite how the state decides to handle its issues as long as people are free to use whatever currency they want to.


And that's the crux of this whole issue:

Why are we even having these debates on bitcoin? That is the core question here.

Why not allow people to use whatever they prefer as a means of exchange?

Why do governments fear that?

Bitcoin is basically a tyranny test. If it is truly no threat to the central banking power structure, then they should just ignore it...right? But if it is a threat, then we will see them attack it with technology, propaganda and legislation.

The next decade will surely be interesting.

quote:

---

Marvel Comics is not considered 'literature.'

---

You shut your statist whore mouth

quote:

---

Bitcoin is basically a tyranny test. If it is truly no threat to the central banking power structure, then they should just ignore it...right? But if it is a threat, then we will see them attack it with technology, propaganda and legislation. 

---

It's not an economic threat. It's getting attention from government agencies because it's primarily used for money laundering and drug dealings FACT.

Mr. WikiTiger, I have some questions about the article and about bitcoins. Please help me to understand this better.

First the article says:

quote:

---

But it is far from certain that securities regulators will approve. Even if they do, such a fund would face major challenges, including the current bottlenecks that stop bitcoins from being easily bought and sold.

---

What are these "current bottlenecks"? Is it:

quote:

---

A limited number of stores and Web sites are accepting bitcoin as payment, but for now it is primarily a vehicle for speculators.

---

Or is it:

quote:

---

The inaccessibility, and the limited quantity of bitcoins, appeal to users who are skeptical of governments and central banks. But it has made the system vulnerable at times to hackers and technology flaws.

---

Also, the article says this:

quote:

---

Unlike traditional money, bitcoins exist in no physical form and are not backed by a central bank. Instead, the coins are created by a network of users who solve complex mathematical problems — a method known as “mining” — to generate bitcoins. Only a finite number of bitcoins can be created — 21 million — with the current count at about 11 million. A limited number of stores and Web sites are accepting bitcoin as payment, but for now it is primarily a vehicle for speculators

---

Why is it necessary to solve a complex mathematical problem in order to obtain bitcoins?

Thank you for your attention to my questions.

quote:

---

What are these "current bottlenecks"?

---

It's difficult to buy and sell bitcoins, just as the article stated. There are exchanges setup all over the world that allow you to do this, but the red tape you have to go through to get legacy money to those exchanges is pretty significant. Once you have bitcoins, however, sending them to individuals or business is extremely easy.

It's also true that there aren't many stores and sites that accept it yet, but that number continues to grow every day.

As for the technology flaws, well, bitcoin is a protocol and it is secure. However, third parties that deal in bitcoin have been hacked and bitcoins have been stolen from them.

quote:

---

Why is it necessary to solve a complex mathematical problem in order to obtain bitcoins?

---

It's a concept called proof of work. It secures the bitcoin network and allows for the processing of transactions. The system rewards people who perform this work with "mined" bitcoins as well as transaction fees for the transactions they process.

quote:

---

of course there will be. Unlike the Federal Reserve and US government, I welcome currency competition. The cream will rise to the top. It may or may not be bitcoin. It won't be a fiat currency.

---

You can always very easily exchange currency (although I wouldn't recommend it from a financial perspective due to the bid/ask spread outside of the market).

quote:

---

This disappoints me, Benny, because I thought you were smarter than some of the others here. I really can't believe you are making this argument.

---

Come the frick on Wiki, I know you aren't versed in the applicational aspect of finance so I've held back from any sort of "name calling" as it doesn't enhance the conversation so don't infer my "ignorance" when you missed my point. My point is that it becomes no different than any other current forms of fiat currency compared to currencies base on a "real" asset, from an applicational standpoint. For example, say all currency goes to your idea of competiting crypto currencies. Bitcoin currently has a value of 1 compared to crypto currency B. Say crypto currency B appreciates to 2 bitcoins, or 0.50 bitcoins per crypto B, or bitcoin appreciates to 2 Cryto B, etc.. If a good or service is denominated in crypto B then you would just pay 2 or 0.5 bitcoins for it. That's the spot market which is pretty straightforward but not the crux of your arguement, however even though moving a decimal doesn't constitute additional supply it falls into the same structure we currently have in that there isn't a "base" or "floor" value that you have to always default to. So now to the futures market, where if crypto currencies became a worldwide institution companies would do most of the business in as they don't want to have currency volatility with transactions. Since the future "supply" of bitcoin, and possibly other future crypto currencies, is a somewhat known figure, futures contracts of bitcoin will bake this into futures prices much like expected interest rates and inflation are baked into the prices of current currency contracts. If there was an all encompassing crypto currency index that goods and services would be denominated in then you would base the price you pay off a bitcoin/crypto index (which is exactly what the dollar index is in my previous post that you ignored), and futures contracts would base expected demand/supply into these as well. My point is supply is essentially a moot point with currencies, which I will continue on here:

quote:

---

Yep. Isn't that beautiful?

---

Central bank easing monetary policy has no effect on the true applicational supply of fiat currency unless there is economic activity, hence me covering the book entry format in the previous post. The perception may change initially with currency traders shedding dollar long exposure or increasing shorts in the expectation of future weakening, but the end result is you won't actually get an increase in the "supply" of a currency until there is buying of foreign currency denominated goods or lending or credit which is dependent on a lot more factors than just easy monetary policy. Relative demand and relative fundamental economics will be the true drivers of currency valuation, which is why the dollar has appreciated against almost every currency this year.

This is what frustrates me so much when people say the "dollar is tanking", "we're printing the dollar to oblivion", or "we're going to lose our reserve currency status". Relative demand spawned through relative attractive economics drive currency value. Central bank "printing" will not affect whether or not we keep or lose the reserve currency status, that will only be affected by economic activity. China is the only real threat but people massively overestimate how quickly that will come. You not only need economic size and strength, but you also need transparancy, confidence in authority, social stability, etc. which China is severely lacking. They have even admitted as such in closed quarters.

quote:

---

As for most of the rest of your post, I'll just say it like this: We've had this discussion before. The literature you read differs from the literature I read. That's all it comes down to. We could sit here and argue back and forth about this crap until the cows come home but it doesn't look like either of us is going to change our mind any time soon.

---

Wiki, I've read a lot from the Austrian school, I read ZeroHedge daily, I've read and respect Ron Paul, hell I've wasted my times and even read Zeitgeist material. It has nothing to do with what literature we've both read, it comes down to appicational reality. A lot of those theories make perfect sense in theory but just don't work in reality. Using the best data available at a time is the only way to truly make judgements at a point in time, which is why I posted the dollar index information which I'm not sure why you ignored?

quote:

---

As for the "smoothing" argument, I'm sorry but I don't buy it and I don't know how anyone with a lick of intelligence buys it.

---

And I don't know how anyone with a "lick" of intelligence can't see the data. Currencies are much more stable than they were pre-central banking and economic growth is much more stable than it was pre-central banking. The "shorter and correct themselves naturally" portion in regards to recessions is just not true in regards to the "shorter" aspect. Even if you include the great depression the average length of recessions since 1913 has been 1 year and 1 month. If you want me to I can go do the math for pre-1913 duration of recessions, but I promise you it'll be longer. Just by spot checking my guess is it'll be around 1 year and 6 months, and I'm being conservative.

quote:

---

Your buddy Benny even admitted that the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression. Oh, I know, I know, you argue that it's because they didn't do enough.

---

It's not an arguement. That's what he meant. I've spoken with and sat at several conferences and speaker series with Fed members, affiliates, and governors and everytime that is mentioned they delve into how the Fed didn't do enough. Most of this stuff is a debate/arguement. This isn't, that's what Ben meant. This is one of those we shouldn't waste time on argueing, that's exactly what he meant.

quote:

---

I will further argue that central banking caused the current mess that we're in as well. So much for smoothing.

---

What, low growth? That's just a natural convergence. High debt? That's a completely different, and much, much longer, conversation which I will half-way disagree with you. I will admit the Fed has given politicians a safety blanket feeling which isn't the Fed's fault, it's a lack of oversight on politicians. The Fed has tried to fight back against politicians several times (mainly Volcker).

Speaking of the natural divergence, if you really want to read something that I almost completely agree with, a masterpiece by Michael Spence is here. Great piece of literature. Absolutely worth the read.

quote:

---

Why are we even having these debates on bitcoin? That is the core question here.

---

Because my entire point of arguement here are my two questions in the previous post.
1. How will this be any different than what we currently have?
2. How is it any better than what we currently have?

quote:

---

Why not allow people to use whatever they prefer as a means of exchange?

Why do governments fear that?

---

This is completely different conversation, because governments are people. As much as you want to think there are grand conspiracies, there really aren't that many. Your point on tyranny is confusing, do you honestly think there is a group of people just chilling and deciding what the fate of the world is on a daily basis?

quote:

---

Your casting pearls before swine......

---

quote:

---

Favorite team: Arkansas

---

ISWYDT

You are not the first person to ask Wiki for answers as to why people should use Bitcoins, or how Bitcoins are superior to existing forms of money. You just asked them in general terms rather than specific. I, and others, have asked Wiki what recourse Bitcoin users will have against others with whom they have grievances, and he usually abandons the thread at that point, or he just plain ignores the question. So, I don't expect a response to your questions.