About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Friday, June 3, 2011 - 1:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I remember the discussions back in the early nineties about on-line payment systems. And we talked about the pros and cons of identification, authentication, and anonymity. We kept coming back to concepts that never got off the ground - third party, on-lne authentication firms that individuals could subscribe to. They would be able to tell that you are you and then tell a web site, "This person, who is anonymous to you, is known to us and we will vouch for them." We cooked up lots of designs that we hoped would preserve anonymity while diminishing the forms of irresponsibility that often accompanies being anonymous.

We also talked about the explosion in web-based transactions that would occur if we could implement an effective, economic way to make micro-payments. That it would be fantastic to have a mechanism to charge people tiny amounts of money. Like an encyclopedia web site - you go to it and look something up, see an abstract, want to read more, click the "Buy" button and get charged 2 cents. We always thought that it could be done through a partnership with phone companies. One company could be the clearing house for all the web-sites, and provide a monthly amount to the phone company who added stuff to the phone bills of the customers and remitted the funds to the clearing house for distribution. To this day we still don't have a decent micro-payment system... not that I know about. And it isn't that tough of a design problem. The thought has always been that the transaction charges eat up too much of the profit.

Post 1

Friday, June 3, 2011 - 4:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is definitely intriguing. Regarding micropayments from what I understand reading a bit on bitcoin currency the smallest transaction with no fee is 0.01 BTC which at the current exchange rate of 14 dollars per BTC that's just 14 cents.

Post 2

Friday, June 3, 2011 - 4:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
14 cents is getting real close to a micro-payment but it should be even smaller - the idea is to make it so small that no one would hesitate to click and get whatever it is. For example, having to pay 2 or 3 pennies would not stop anyone from dialing information to look up a number instead of getting out of a chair, walking 15 feet and looking it up in a phone book.

On iTunes, you can pay 99 cents for a song and that is a reasonable price, but if a person could download a tune that would play three times before locking - for 3 cents - and then being able to unlock it with the click of a button, for another 3 plays for another 3 cents would be another option but one that requires micro-payments.

Post 3

Friday, June 3, 2011 - 10:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Micro payments with bitcoin solution:

A bitcoin "bank" allows its customers to balances between eachother.

Customers put some bitcoins in this bank, transactions between customers within bank are free. Only transaction in/out of the bank would use the bitcoin p2p network.

I created a C# port of bitcoin. It was originally written in C. I'm planning on making an exchange server.

Bitcoins reached $13 today.

Post 4

Sunday, June 5, 2011 - 11:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is definitely very interesting. I don't have a full understanding but from what I can gather this could replace the possibility of gold as being a universal currency.  Bitcoins are characterized as being deflationary, as the value would increase in time because the demand would increase but the supply would be capped. This is similar to the fact that gold is essentially capped in supply and the bogus argument that "there isn't enough gold to service the world's economic needs" falls apart.

Just a few further thoughts ...

Again, I don't have a full understanding on how exchange traded fund (ETF) management maintains the tracking of an index, for instance, but consider the following ...

Assume that we have no SEC authority to regulate the market on a new product that I will call a "Virtual Index Tracking Fund, (VITF)." A company, or individual with some credentials, declares that the fund will track "the such-and-such index" and that there will be 1 million shares outstanding. There will be no management of the fund to cause it to track the index. Investors with confidence in the fund will buy the shares, sell them short or whatever, just like a stock. So, how would anyone know what the value of the shares was at any time? Because the fund has been "declared" to track the particular index. Traders will themselves create a strategy to track the index because they believe that other traders will view the fund in the same way.

Maybe I'm out to lunch so I'm open to criticism and discussion. It would seem to me that this has a similarity to Bitcoins in that it relies on belief in the product and the belief that other traders will have the same belief.

In other words why is it necessary for existing ETFs to be managed at all?

Sam


Post 5

Sunday, June 5, 2011 - 12:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The cap on gold is physical and the laws of physics prevent any end runs around that (barring Alchemy making a successful comeback). But the BitCoin.... I don't know, but I doubt that it can be limited in a way that can't be gotten around. At least that would be my worry.

The idea of a digital currency is fine and I think it is the way to go, but it should be backed by something. There should be some way that at any time anyone could exchange units of the digital currency for something real and finite and the issuing authority or sponsor would have to do so upon request.

Post 6

Sunday, June 5, 2011 - 12:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sam,

"In other words why is it necessary for existing ETFs to be managed at all?"

An index such as the S&P 500 is a set of stocks where each stock is allocated to the index. Allocated by adding a number of shares or % of issued shares to the index.

A index fund's manager then tries to create a fund which matches the ratio of shares of the index to the ratio of shares in his fund. You need the fund manager... because you need someone to do the buying and selling when the fund changes, and you need someone to do the buying and selling when people request to buy or sell the fund.

Bitcoins have a number of things that make them desirable:
1. Rarity: they cannot be created beyond the initial 21M
2. Easily tradable
3. Indestructible (they can be lost, but not damaged/destroyed)
4. Easily storable (very easy to hide private keys on digital storage media, low risk of being looted)

Currently the price of bitcoins is volatile due to them not being well proven in the public's eye, and low usage. I expect volatility to decrease as it becomes used more and has more time of not having traditional currency problems over time.

USD currently has a monetary base of 2.6T. Its rarity is assured by the US Gov (not currently a very strong assurance). Bitcoins have a monetary base of 21M. Its rarity is assured by mathematics (its either a bitcoin, or its not a bitcoin, mathematically provable). If people began using bitcoins (Ⓑ) instead of USD ($): $2.6T / Ⓑ21M, or a potential purchasing power of $1,238,095.24 USD per bitcoin. Bitcoins are available at mtgox.com for $17.20 today.

Post 7

Sunday, June 5, 2011 - 2:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean:

You seem to be missing the crux of what I'm trying to communicate. An existing index fund contains actual, real shares of the components of the index and the manager has to keep jockeying the relative proportions by buying and selling physical stocks to maintain the tracking of the index fund to the index itself. I maintain that it isn't necessary to have any stock holdings whatsoever in a virtual index fund.

Here's how it happens:

The owner declares that he is establishing a virtual index fund for "whatever" specific index and that there will be x number of shares issued. Next morning before the market opens there will be orders for buying and shorting, and those values will be spanning the anticipated opening index value. Why shouldn't they be something else? Because there is only one frame of reference and all the participants expect it to be that one. If the owner declared that it would track a different index then the offerings would correspond. The fund would have millions, perhaps billions of $ in its account but no stocks comprising the index. The only fees would be for bookkeeping and a small profit. It could almost operate without human intervention.

Please correct me if I've made any erroneous assumptions.

Sam

(Edited by Sam Erica on 6/05, 2:37pm)


Post 8

Sunday, June 5, 2011 - 5:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve:

The cap on gold is physical and the laws of physics prevent any end runs around that (barring Alchemy making a successful comeback). But the BitCoin.... I don't know, but I doubt that it can be limited in a way that can't be gotten around. At least that would be my worry.


More computer savvy people can correct me if I'm wrong, but Bitcoin is a peer to peer open source program, like bittorrent. So there's no single server running bitcoin, it can literally be on millions of servers so you'd have to control everyone's computer to alter the programming, basically an impossibility. So it's virtually immune from counterfeiting. You could issue an update to bitcoin and ask users to download a new version, but, no one would want to do this because arbitrarily changing the rules will affect their value.

The idea of a digital currency is fine and I think it is the way to go, but it should be backed by something. There should be some way that at any time anyone could exchange units of the digital currency for something real and finite and the issuing authority or sponsor would have to do so upon request.


Well in a way it is. It's backed by its purchasing power, the ability to trade it for goods and services online.

Post 9

Sunday, June 5, 2011 - 7:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John,

That will be nifty if that's the case - that it can't be cracked, hacked, or counterfeit - but I made a good living as a software developer and I'm not buying it at this point in time. I'll wait and see.

Paper money is "backed" by its purchasing power... it just isn't protected against inflation with an intrinsic worth, or with fixed-rate exchange rights for something that has intrinsic value.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 6/05, 7:40pm)


Post 10

Sunday, June 5, 2011 - 7:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Again, I'm no computer expert, but computer experts I've read say it would require an impossible level of computing power to hack bitcoin, especially at this level of distribution it currently has. Or at least unrealistic levels for any one entity to posses. It would have to be the majority of the computing power running bitcoin.

Post 11

Sunday, June 5, 2011 - 7:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Like I said, it would be great if that's the case, but I have a lot of respect for human ingenuity and not as much respect for claims that "it can't be done."

I'm not enough of an expert to say any more than that.

Post 12

Sunday, June 5, 2011 - 8:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes, like fiat money, bitcoin's backing relies on the trust of its use as a medium of exchange. However unlike a government fiat currency, bitcoin does not have a central authority that can arbitrarily inflate it through a printing press. But really why would gold be all that much different? Yes gold has some intrinsic value but not much on it's own. Gold's real value right now, besides uses as jewelry and some machinery and electronics, is its ability to trade it in for money to be used as purchasing power.

But more importantly, bitcoin has other attractive qualities. The transactions are anonymous, so your money can't be seized by a government and you could trade contraband.

Post 13

Sunday, June 5, 2011 - 8:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well Steve don't forget whatever perceived risks associated with bitcoin are they have to be weighed against the risks of any other currency, especially when the government forces us to use theirs. You probably won't find a currency that's perfect, just a better alternative.

Post 14

Sunday, June 5, 2011 - 9:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Perhaps the biggest reason why Bitcoins might be a good investment right now is that drug dealers and money launderers may start using them in a big way due to the untraceability feature. If that happens then the value could skyrocket to unimaginable values. Would it be unethical to invest in them with that prospect in mind?

Dean:

Any comments on my post #4?

Sam


Post 15

Sunday, June 5, 2011 - 9:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Individual drug dealers may be scummy people, but it is the law that is wrong - making the sale of drugs illegal. So, no, it would not be immoral to invest in that way. It isn't even support of scummy people.

If it does become the means of laundering money (another act, that by itself, is not immoral), then the government will try to shut Bitcoin down, and make it illegal. At that point you'll find out two things: If it was a good investment, and if the government can stop it. :-)

Post 16

Sunday, June 5, 2011 - 9:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Money is a commonly accepted medium of exchange, which developed as a way of overcoming the double coincidence of wants inherent in barter -- of finding something that other people will accept in exchange for something that they have that you happen to want. Given the limitations of a barter economy, which involve the relative difficulty of finding trading partners, people sought to acquire a medium of exchange -- something that many if not most people considered valuable for its own sake and which they would be willing to accept in exchange for whatever the buyers happened to want.

Cigarettes were used as money in prisoner of war camps and were considered valuable even by non-smokers, because they knew that other prisoners would accept them in trade for goods and services. But in the larger economy, gold and silver became the money of choice, because these metals were more durable than cigarettes and other perishable commodities, and because they were of homogeneous quality and possessed a relatively high unit value. Paper money developed only because originally the paper served as receipts for gold and silver, which were the actual money.

Once people became accustomed to trading paper dollars in lieu of the precious metals for which they were simply receipts, it was easy for the government to outlaw gold and silver as money and institute a paper fiat currency along with coins whose content had little intrinsic value. Since people were already accustomed to trading the paper dollars, they continued to accept paper in payment for goods and services, because they knew that other people would accept it in payment for their goods and services.

For digital currency to be effective, it would have to become valuable in the same way, since people would be willing to accept it in payment only if they were confident that other people would in turn be willing to accept it. For digital currency to be viable as a commonly accepted medium of exchange -- i.e., as money -- it would have to become as popular as regular money is today. I don't see that happening, even if it acquired a kind of cult status among a certain segment of the population, in which case, its use would be rather limited. Of course, in a free society, people could accept whatever they wanted as payment. But I wonder how many merchants would be willing to accept digital currency. They would have to be confident that their suppliers would accept it, who in turn would have to be confident that their suppliers would accept it, and so on. I'd be very surprised if it becomes popular enough to be a commonly accepted medium of exchange.


Post 17

Sunday, June 5, 2011 - 9:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, right now there are a lot of companies that will exchange your fiat currency into bitcoins and back. For a list check out this link:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Trade





For digital currency to be effective, it would have to become valuable in the same way


It is valuable insofar as you can trade without government interference. Isn't that of value?

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Monday, June 6, 2011 - 3:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In The Denationalization of Money, F. A. Hayek takes to task the Austrians who argue for 100% gold backing for paper money. Hayek gives the example of an art dealer who owns the plates to make prints by a famous artist. It is in his interest to buy them back at the highest price in order to maintain their street value.

Generally, in this book, Hayek says that until and unless banking is truly a market business, we cannot know what forms it will take.

I point to the largely speculative value in stocks. True that common stocks come with voting rights and may also pay dividends but their values this moment are largely independent of either.

That speaks to William's concern that money must be a commodity. Commodity money has strong attributes, but they do not make it the best form of money. There may be no such thing, just as there is no best fuel for a prime mover, or best configuration for an engine.

I have a Facsimile reprint 1828 Dictionary of the American Language by Noah Webster that I bought about 10 years ago with egold which I earned writing articles for a patriotic website.


Post 19

Monday, June 6, 2011 - 4:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sam: re: #4:

Just declaring that a fiat currency (or fund as you call it) is equal in value to some other thing is not enough. You need someone to peg.

The value of such a "virtual" index fund would float per share from the value of the actual index fund, unless there were people who were willing to exchange one for the other dollar for dollar. This is how governments peg their currency to USD for example: they accept an exchange rate.

So unless someone was doing the pegging, I can't imagine the price would not float from the price of the real stuff. Even with the pegging, you would have to trust that the entity doing the pegging would continue to peg through the future. I doubt any entity would be trustworthy enough that the value of this virtual index fund would equal the real index fund share for share.

Holding the virtual index fund is not the same as holding the real index fund. Hence the price simply would not be the same. As soon as the Fed stopped pegging USD to gold and silver, USD's value floated away from the price of gold and people stopped trading it for its declared value.

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.