I'd hardly call Inflation robbing the masses, but QE meanwhile is robbing the masses.
Well, first let me say both are robbing the masses.
But, QE is not inflation at the same level of typical inflation, as the money is mostly just seeing the upper reaches of society. (e.g - Via QE, the banks are investing in bonds, the stock market, etc and most of society is not seeing that money.) I believe this can be verified with the velocity of money.
I still think QE causes some inflation, but not as much as I once thought (after reading about it).
Anyone jump in here as I'm going by what I've heard recently. And it's still a recipe for disaster.
If you increase the quantity of money, then all other things being equal, a unit of the money will be worth less: inflation.
But if you increase the supply of money and demand for the money increases, i.e. people want to hold more of it, a unit of the money may be worth more than before: deflation.
And if QE adds money to a money system where the amount of credit is collapsing the total money supply may be unchanged or even fall, so the tendency is still deflationary.
Even if a QE is not showing as inflation it still distorts the market. The QE benefits those who first get the money it represents, at the expense of those who already had savings: if it wasn't for the QE their spending power would have risen.
Looks like the TA-ers here believe that 152.91324 USD version October 2013 per bitcoin was "speculators getting ahead of themselves". I think not. We need this pace of appreciation if we are going to get to 1000 in a reasonable time.
10 years reasonable?
Too long ... bitcoin has averaged a doubling every 4 months or so.
On that basis, three more doublings should be possible in about a year!
To get a loan - or not to get a loan. That is the question.
I've only got 20% of my savings in BTC at the moment, but that was all the free cash I had and everything is else tied up in tax efficient savings/funds. So if I want to bring more fiat in quickly to catch this rocket I either need to liquidate something or take out a loan. I can get £7.5K @4.9% on a one year loan, with a 2 month payment holiday at the start and no early redemption penalty, which would take BTC up to 50% of my portfolio (poncey word, but you know what I mean). Is this a risk too far - or a no-brainer?
If you have other assets of equivalent value you could liquidate you are not making yourself a debt slave forever, even if bitcoin suffers catastrophic failure.
The potential reward remains huge while my gut says the risk of failure is much smaller by comparison, even if I cannot say what that risk is.
If you feel underweight in bitcoin, buy some more. To most of us it seems a rare opportunity.
I'm pretty sure a lot of people are trying to buy BTC but have no idea how, pending verification on bitstamp/gox or are just not in china/usa/russia to buy them straight.
I sent verification documents to Stamp at the end of last week. Still no email. Does anyone know the queue length at the moment?
I hope they get you done soon. I've been waiting a day and half, and thought that was a long time.
I think they must be snowed under: they announced they're recruiting quite a few more staff ...
So, lets get a vote put up for the following naming conventions:
1. "ceebits" (cBTC) / "embits" (mBTC) / "mybits" (µBTC)
2. "centi-bit" (cBTC) / "milli-bit" mBTC / "micro-bit" µBTC / "satoshi" (sBTC)
3. "cents" (cBTC) / "mills" mBTC / "mics" µBTC / "sats (satoshis)" (sBTC)
Or will this all need a seperate thread of its own?
Yes - if there's a Satoshi for No. 1 sBTC too?
Let's pester for a vote - I think it actually matters in terms of adoption and the future.
Maybe we will then be voting (as you suggested) for a next target of $2 / m
BTC !
EDITED doh...
I'm not sure these milli/micro divisions will stand the test of time.
If a bitcoin becomes worth $1 million, the mBTC will be $1,000, still too large for a base unit.
If bitcoin does go to $1 million, the satoshi is the new cent or penny.
How about using old terms like 'buck' or 'quid' for 100 satoshis? In time perhaps redesignate 100 satoshis as the new 'bitcoin'?
We could then call the mBTC a 'grand' or 'grand bitcoin'
All we'd need then would be a good term for a million of the 'new bitcoin' to replace the original!
If a large group adopts bitcoin now, at the current price or at a higher price, they would be sharing their wealth with the early adopters in proportion.
For example, if Greece adopted bitcoin, and 9 million BTC were circulating there with a value equivalent to 10'000 USD/BTC, then Satoshi's 1 million BTC would allow him to buy 10 billion USD worth of Greek property. Greece then would become 10 billion USD poorer.
That is why no sane government should allow privately issued money: the people who issue it take wealth from those who use it.
...
If Satoshi traded his (according to your example) $10 billion worth of bitcoin with Greeks for their property, they would not be any poorer because they'd have all that bitcoin in exchange. They might even be better off since by entering into the transactions they would have increased bitcoin's adoption and hence its value.
Yours is a false argument because your conclusion assumes bitcoin is worthless, which assumption is inconsistent with your premise that bitcoin is circulating with a value of $10,000/BTC.
If Satoshi traded his (according to your example) $10 billion worth of bitcoin with Greeks for their property, they would not be any poorer because they'd have all that bitcoin in exchange. They might even be better off since by entering into the transactions they would have increased bitcoin's adoption and hence its value.
Yours is a false argument because your conclusion assumes bitcoin is worthless, which assumption is inconsistent with your premise that bitcoin is circulating with a value of $10,000/BTC.
Bitcoins (or any currency) are not wealth, they are tokens that people can exchange for wealth with other people.
When you are measuring the wealth of one person or company, it is correct to include any currency that they own, because currency is so easily exchanged for other wealth with other people or companies.
But when you are measuring the wealth of a country or of a planet, you cannot include the currency that its inhabitants own, unless they can easily exchange it all with people outside the country or planet.
In that example, before Satoshi spent his stash, the Greeks owned a lot of houses and land, and 9 million bitcoins. After Satoshi's buying spree, they would own a lot fewer houses and land, and 10 million bitcoins. Unless they can use that 1 M bitcoins to buy 10 billion USD worth of stuff from people outside Greece, they will be poorer by 10 billion USD.
Wealth comprises those assets people value and people can value bitcoin just as they can value other currencies, gold, art, houses or anything else.
It is not necessary that in order to include their currency in their measure of wealth people must be able easily to exchange all their currency with people outside their country or planet. It is only necessary that at the margin they can exchange a part of their currency for something they value more highly: currency has value as a means of exchange and it does not matter with whom they exchange it. A more freely exchangeable currency will, all other things being equal, clearly be superior (more valuable) than a less freely exchangeable currency, but the idea that the whole currency must be exchangeable with people outside the country or planet is false: it is enough that you can find one person willing to transact with you.
If Greeks choose to exchange property for $10 billion of bitcoin they are not obviously poorer by $10 billion, unless you presuppose no one wishes to exchange anything for bitcoin any more so soon after it becoming worth $10,000/BTC. There is no obvious reason to make that supposition; it would be an arbitrary assumption. Apart from anything else, there is no obvious reason why bitcoin could not become a means of exchange for dealing with Greeks if Greeks valued them.