|
I'm not, but the "volatile" argument is a bit nonsensical in that respect. It is not comparable to a currency that is volatile due to politics, nor stocks that are supposidly volatile.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: I'm not, but the "volatile" argument is a bit nonsensical in that respect
Your previous point was that it was a good investment. Thus as an investment that should be the way that you go.
My point was and is that at a currency it is too volatile as a replacement for anything. It lacks the controls that modern currencies must have (and lack of controls are proven in history to be a problem.) And that has nothing to do with it being suitable or not as an investment.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Your previous point was that it was a good investment. Thus as an investment that should be the way that you go.
I have no spare to invest 
jschell wrote: It lacks the controls that modern currencies must have
The price-movement is mostly based on not having that control. It is market-driven, not controlled by a government or a bank.
How is some bureaucrat having "controls" going to improve on that situation?
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: The price-movement is mostly based on not having that control. It is market-driven, not controlled by a government or a bank.
Presumably my previous statements did not make it clear that I understand that.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: How is some bureaucrat having "controls" going to improve on that situation?
Because it keeps the volatility low. When I pick up a loaf of bread off the shelf and it says $2 it doesn't help me nor the market if the currency volatility increases that price to $4 by the time I get to the checkout.
Much less if I can't even get to my money when I get to the checkout.
A major vulnerability has frozen hundreds of millions of dollars of Ethereum | TechCrunch[^]
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Because it keeps the volatility low. When I pick up a loaf of bread off the shelf and it says $2 it doesn't help me nor the market if the currency volatility increases that price to $4 by the time I get to the checkout.
You wouldn't complain if the price is $1, and neither would the grocer if that means that the value of his cash-register doubles.
You yammer about volatility, but only for the currency that is appreciating, and claiming that the depreciating currencies would be better 
jschell wrote:
A major vulnerability has frozen hundreds of millions of dollars of Ethereum | TechCrunch[^]
Aren't you glad a decent argument came along, eh?
Yes, one takes that risk with technology.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: You wouldn't complain if the price is $1, and neither would the grocer if that means that the value of his cash-register doubles
How is that relevant to my example?
Eddy Vluggen wrote: and claiming that the depreciating currencies would be better
Wrong.
I did not say that. I am rather certain that I specifically said that wasn't true in other posts.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Yes, one takes that risk with technology.
And my point in this long thread is that in terms of my personal life and in every historical economy analysis that I have seen no one wants nor considers that sort volatility a good thing in currency.
The risk and the volatility are problems.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote:
How is that relevant to my example?
It explains how it is nonsense
jschell wrote:
Wrong.
I did not say that. I am rather certain that I specifically said that wasn't true in other posts.
Yes, you did - the (upward) volatility of BC is bad, and so, the alternative being only depreciating (inflating) fiat..
jschell wrote: And my point in this long thread is that in terms of my personal life and in every historical economy analysis that I have seen no one wants nor considers that sort volatility a good thing in currency.
You want to paint it "volatile" - that is not the same. The silver-price is volatile as it is unpredictable and varies wildly. BC is not volatile, it is in a rally - while all other fiat-currencies are racing to the bottom.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Yes, you did - the (upward) volatility of BC is bad, and so, the alternative being only depreciating (inflating) fiat..
I did not. I said, again repeating what I said....
Drastic up or down turns is currency is bad. Period.
No increases or modest down turns in currency is considered not ideal. Especially if it continues.
Modest increases in currency is considered the ideal. This is not to say exactly what value 'modest' represents.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: You want to paint it "volatile" - that is not the same. The silver-price is volatile as it is unpredictable and varies wildly. BC is not volatile, it is in a rally - while all other fiat-currencies are racing to the bottom.
If you are unclear what it means when I say volatile then I suggest you read up.
[^]
[^]
...and many others.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Drastic up or down turns is currency is bad. Period.
Drastic up does not seem so bad if you're the one holding it. You keep painting that as volatility
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Drastic up does not seem so bad if you're the one holding it. You keep painting that as volatility
A drastic uptake in a national currency IS bad. If an Venezuelan oil tanker is about to off load a supply of oil to Syria and the payment is supposed to be in US dollars and the dollar goes up 1000% just before offload occurs exactly how much is going to be paid? Syria does not want to pay the original amount because they are now, in real terms, paying ten times as much. But Venezuelan does not want to take a 10% payment because, as a payment, they were expecting the buying power that the original payment represented.
Those sort of tends extend throughout the entire economy. They impact supply lines, worker compensation, service costs, etc.
Even worse if it drops 2000% the next day.
That means that no one is willing to make long term plans. That is exactly what happens with hyperinflation. It isn't that devaluation is occurring with hyperinflation but rather the uncertainty. If the inflation rate was guaranteed to be 10% a week, then they can deal with that. But when they have no idea what it will be a week much less than a month then economy crashes because expenditures can only be initiated on an immediate basis.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Even worse if it drops 2000% the next day.
Yes, something that all fiat currencies do in the end. All of the fiat-currencies in the history of mankind have always reached their intrinsic value. BC has not yet had such a loss; might be due to the fact that the appreciation is not caused by fluctuations between currencies, but because it is gaining market - demand is growing, and there are not enough BC available to satisfy demand.
The more people use it, the more demand will rise; that is somewhat different from volatility - that is what we have in the fiat Euro, it reacts to any political European article, every Brexit-headline, and any rumours from Super Mario.
jschell wrote:
That means that no one is willing to make long term plans. That is exactly what happens with hyperinflation.
That would only be if people would try to get rid of the currency and flood the market with it. BC aren't flooding the market - but the Central Banks are flooding the world with fiat-currencies.
Simple and basic economics
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Yes, something that all fiat currencies do in the end. All of the fiat-currencies in the history of mankind have always reached their intrinsic value
"fiat currencies" have no intrinsic value. If you are trying to claim they all have already reached zero then that is not true.
And none of that addresses my point on volatility at the effect of that on day to day basis of a national economy.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: That would only be if people would try to get rid of the currency and flood the market with it
Incorrect. If BC is is drastically going up day to day then it would have a serious impact on day to day economics of a nation. And BC has done exactly that. Doesn't matter if it flatlines in a week or a month. What matters is the serious consequences when it is rapidly rising or falling.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: "fiat currencies" have no intrinsic value. If you are trying to claim they all have already reached zero then that is not true.
Not "already". Read the same sentence again
jschell wrote: And none of that addresses my point on volatility at the effect of that on day to day basis of a national economy.
Because volatility it is not. Price does not change due to heavy changes in (geo)politics, economics - price is slowly climbing because acceptance (and hence marketshare) is slowly climbing.
jschell wrote: What matters is the serious consequences when it is rapidly rising or falling.
That's what I said about Apple
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Not "already". Read the same sentence again
You said "Yes, something that all fiat currencies do in the end."
Since not all have reached the end that cannot be true.
And if you are merely suggesting that when a currency is no longer in use it has no value then that is true for all crypto currencies as well.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: . Price does not change due to heavy changes in (geo)politics, economics - price is slowly climbing because acceptance (and hence marketshare) is slowly climbing.
Prices for all crypto currencies have moved drastically over very short periods of time.
That means they are all "volatile."
Eddy Vluggen wrote: That's what I said about Apple
Which has nothing at all to do with the needs that exist for a currency of a nation.
|
|
|
|
|
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
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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? 
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
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 stock, any stock, fail the first case.
All crypto currency fails both instances.
There are current examples in the world right now that are true for 1 and fail 2. And the repercussions for those are very evident. And there are past examples where there were attempts to substitute something for 1 and it always resulted in 2 failing.
|
|
|
|
|
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
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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
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?
|
|
|
|
|
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
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
