SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Motherboard reports on a strange Bitcoin "lottery" that is now claimed to be a marriage proposal.
Strange event #1: someone claiming to be the anonymous hacker who stole 119,000 Bitcoins from the Bitfinex Bitcoin exchange announced a "lottery" to win 1000 Bitcoins on Reddit, garnering over 7000 responses on the thread from people posting their Bitcoin addresses on the chance that this was somehow legit.
Strange event #2: the Reddit poster actually sent 1000 Bitcoins to the address of one of the users in the thread. Almost immediately the money was sent from that destination to yet another address, one with a public note attached that says "Please send me some money. I'm very poor."
Strange event #3: the poster on Reddit who received the money emerged, admitted to knowing the original poster (not surprising), and revealed that somehow this entire event is some sort of wedding proposal to her (very surprising).
I'm not sure what to think of this. If it's a scam I'm not quite sure who got ripped off.
Previous Coverage: Bitcoin Exchange Bitfinex has been hacked. 119,756 BTC Stolen
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Thursday August 18 2016, @07:45PM
The money that I get to pay the interest on my debt? That's money I earn from work, ultimately the money I get from producing stuff. The money I get as interest on my savings? That's money other people give me for the privilege of borrowing the utility of that money for a period of time.
I'm quite confused why interest and debt is mysterious.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by vux984 on Thursday August 18 2016, @10:54PM
I'm quite confused why interest and debt is mysterious.
You seem quite confused period. Because your explanation was dead wrong.
The money that I get to pay the interest on my debt? That's money I earn from work, ultimately the money I get from producing stuff. The money I get as interest on my savings? That's money other people give me for the privilege of borrowing the utility of that money for a period of time.
Working / producing things creates something of value that can be exchanged for money; but it doesn't explain where the money itself is coming from.
The new "money" itself is created the moment the debt is created, not when you work/produce something.
And more importantly, and where things get "weird", is that the new money created by the debt cannot be satisfied by currency. If you start with fixed amount of cash and no debts, and do ALL transactions in cash, the minute anyone anywhere creates an interest bearing debt the system can no longer be settled to cash again... ever; and for better or for worse this inevitably creates a feedback cycle of continual borrowing ever increasing amounts to settle the previous debts.
Even in modern systems, with electronic accounts counting as currency etc the system can never be settled, because of 'interest'.
A lot of people feel this is not a "good thing".
It doesn't matter how much anyone or everyone works, the cycle of borrowing to pay previous debts cannot be erased. On an individual personal level you might be able to get ahead, but that just means somewhere else someone else is that much further behind.
Historically, eventually the systems have always collapsed. The currency system was reduced to the base value of the metal coins while prices hyper inflated to the base value of the paper's currency's utility as fuel for fires and insulation etc. Debts holders were left with nothing. And those with (or who could take) tangible assets (land, buildings, metals, rare skills) would became the new elite in the next economic system after the currency resets anew.
The current global economy is really no different. And macro economics / global finance is a game of trying to keep the expanding debt cycle from collapsing by trying to prevent hyperinflation, massive deflation, by trying to strike a balance between GDP, and inflation etc.
This is all created by 'interest' remove interest from the equation, and a much simpler and possibly more stable system occurs. Of course, without interest, there isn't much motivation to lend other people money either.
THIS is why interest and debt are in your words is "mysterious".
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday August 19 2016, @12:19AM
Working / producing things creates something of value that can be exchanged for money; but it doesn't explain where the money itself is coming from.
.
Money is the exchange! Money does not exist, so it does not come from anywhere. Do we have a goldbug on our hands? The historical accident that made metals that do not tarnish into a symbol of exchange is just that, an historical accident. Much better is they system on Yap, where large stones are used for money. Eliminates the nuisance of pocket change all together, much like bitcoin.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Friday August 19 2016, @06:07AM
Money is the exchange! Money does not exist, so it does not come from anywhere.
I'm sorry that's just nonsense. Of course it exists.
Do we have a goldbug on our hands?
No. I'm not even sure why you went there. I only mentioned gold in the context that when a 'monetary system' collapses the unit carriers of wealth dissociate from the money and are only worth their intrinsic value -- coins worth the utility of the base metals; paper currency worth its utility as fuel for fire or insulation or confetti... whatever... bank account balances in a computer database... completely worthless.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday August 19 2016, @07:15AM
I'm sorry that's just nonsense. Of course it exists.
No, your nonsense is nonsense! If money exists, show me the money! C'mon, don't be shy, show me! Coins or bullion? Obviously you completely missed the first point. Bank notes, certificates of deposit, pounds of flesh of Genovese gentlemen? This are what they are, they are not money! And your one's and zero's in a database somewhere, why do you discount these? Not having a base utility of value is no liability to a currency whose function is to facilitate trade. So I can't see what your problem is, with currency systems degenerating. If they do, it is only due to the mystification of the system, the re-ification of value both in commodities and currency, so all we have to do is abandon such capitalist fantasies. Goldbug! You know you are, if you think money actually exists. It only exists to the extent that intellectual property exists, which is to say, and I do mean to say, as much as. .ljlfjkfalfah;klh +++Carrier Lost, and all his money.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Friday August 19 2016, @07:51AM
Not having a base utility of value is no liability to a currency whose function is to facilitate trade.
Where in this thread did I ever suggest otherwise?
Bank notes, certificates of deposit, pounds of flesh of Genovese gentlemen? This are what they are, they are not money!
They are money while we agree they are money. And then they stop being money and are just what they are.
It only exists to the extent that intellectual property exists
Pretty much yes. But it nevertheless it still exists. It has value, it can be counted and measured. And its more than "just an abstract idea". Its like ... Linux. It exists, right? Your not going to tell me Linux doesn't exist either are you?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday August 19 2016, @08:49AM
I just thought that maybe you were proposing to me. Now I see you are only a heartless macroeconomist! Oh, Heathcliff!!!
(Oh, btw, Linux does not exist. GNU/Linux, maybe. But more to the point, code is ones and zeros, in certain patterns, but just like the ripples on a pond or the colors in a rainbow, pattern does not implicate ontology. Prove me wrong?)
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday August 19 2016, @01:32PM
According to that standard, I maintain you have no emotions. Otherwise, show me your emotions. No, don't show me facial expressions. Don't show me specific sounds of the voice. Don't show me specific formulations you use. No, even a brain scan will not do, as that only shows electromagnetic activity; my computer has electromagnetic activity, too, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't have emotions. Show me the emotions themselves! Oh, you can't? Well, I guess they don't exist, then!
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday August 19 2016, @07:51PM
According to that standard, I maintain you have no emotions. Otherwise, show me your emotions. No, don't show me facial expressions. Don't show me specific sounds of the voice.
What you are saying, then, is that money only exists if I exist? Or only if I "feel" money exists? Ah, I think we have found the urquell of the goldbug! Darn solipsists!
My point was that money does not "exist" independently of economic exchange, or that is, of human activity. So money is not an "object" in the world as such, it is a convention, an arbitrary sign, or that is, fiat. The residual value of whatever is chosen by social convention to represent "money" is not really a factor that should determine what is so chosen.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Saturday August 20 2016, @05:55PM
My point was that money does not "exist" independently of economic exchange, or that is, of human activity. So money is not an "object" in the world as such, it is a convention, an arbitrary sign, or that is, fiat. The residual value of whatever is chosen by social convention to represent "money" is not really a factor that should determine what is so chosen.
But we're not sure WHY you are making this point. Nobody has argued otherwise. And its not the issue.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday August 20 2016, @06:27PM
Nobody has argued otherwise. And its not the issue
Agreed. I thought someone was making a point against fiat currency. BTW, how does a cryptographical scarcity function to replace physical scarcity in the bitcoin vs. gold equation? Isn't the main argument against fiat currency is that the issuing authority can release as much as they want? Isn't the fear over inflation a worry about residual value? But yes, topic closed. Was not the issue. I assume we are not getting married, now?
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Sunday August 21 2016, @05:29AM
BTW, how does a cryptographical scarcity function to replace physical scarcity in the bitcoin vs. gold equation?
As I see it, If a major world economy went bitcoin...
As the GDP of that economy goes up and the coins remain at relatively fixed scarcity; the price of goods is forced down. (Ie the buying power of one coin keeps going up... the currency seems to be inherently deflationary.
There are a lot of issues with a deflationary currency, not least of which, people are motivated not to spend or invest, since the coins will be worth more tomorrow, and still more the day after that. Deflation tends to stall economies.
I assume we are not getting married, now?
Always a bridesmaid, never a bride.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Friday August 19 2016, @02:24AM
I'm confused alright, but mostly about why you're saying what you're saying. You seem to think money either does or should only be created one-to-one as goods are created. How do services work in your mental model? What happens when I crash my car, and the total goods in the world decrease?
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Friday August 19 2016, @06:02AM
You seem to think money either does or should only be created one-to-one as goods are created.
Not at all. The supply of money relative to goods is not directly connected, I'm certainly not suggesting they are, nor that they should be.
How do services work in your mental model? What happens when I crash my car, and the total goods in the world decrease?
Theoretically the rest of the cars are revalued slightly higher relative to the money supply; due to the increased scarcity of cars. Of course, it would take a lot of crashes for that really to be directly visible relative to market noise, the constantly changing money supply, new vehicle manufacturing, other vehicle depreciation, ongoing repairs, other accidents, etc. Perhaps if you had a particularly rare and collectible car its loss might immediately impact the market for the rest.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Friday August 19 2016, @06:28AM
So what dark magic do you think loans with interest has?
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Friday August 19 2016, @08:02AM
So what dark magic do you think loans with interest has?
I thought I covered that. It's not dark magic. It starts a cycle that can't be closed.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Friday August 19 2016, @03:21PM
I don't follow your logic. If I borrow a dollar from you today, I could totally pay you two dollars tomorrow. There, we're done. If that was the only debt in the world, no problem
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Friday August 19 2016, @05:19PM
Nice counter example. Your right, the cycle only becomes unclosable when more money is borrowed than we started with. And then the only way to stay ahead of the interest is to continually borrow more. But that is how the real world's money supplies work.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Saturday August 20 2016, @03:49AM
I mean, if you borrow so much that you cannot make the payments, sure, that's an individual problem. But it's not systemic. I mean, let's say Alice loans Bob a dollar (actually, Bob promises to pay for an apple tomorrow). Bob then lets Charlie do the same with a banana. At this point, the entire monetary supply (Alice's dollar) is doubled in the world. Then, Alice buys a kiwi from Charlie, he repays Bob, and Bob repays Alice.
So, that whole system makes sense, right?
So, what's the mechanism whereby you think it's impossible. Is iit that it's too complex to see. I would think by induction, you cou;d show that the whole system makes sense.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Saturday August 20 2016, @05:52PM
I mean, if you borrow so much that you cannot make the payments, sure, that's an individual problem. But it's not systemic.
Actually yes. It is systemic. That is literally how the system works. It STARTS by borrowing so much that the payments cannot be made.
The current system starts with 0 dollars. The system is then 'booted' by issuing a debt instrument (bonds) where the country borrows against bonds it issues to create money. So it issues $1B in bonds, and gets $1B in dollars from that. Every one of those dollars must be paid back, with interest. There literally weren't enough dollars created to pay back the bonds due to the interest. The ONLY way to pay the back the bonds is to issue more debt to create more dollars to pay back the first bonds. But that new debt itself needs to be paid back, and that new debt carries its own interest... even more debt needs to be created... and it never ends.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Saturday August 20 2016, @09:37PM
Ah, I see your issue. That's not how the country started. It didn't start by borrowing dollars - it started by printing them. Eventually, it stopped doing that (to prevent runaway inflation) and now borrows dollars.
Even if it borrowed a billion dollars, that's not how the system would work. It would just mean that there was a billion dollars in debt. The US could say, take 3% of the dollars from everyone in taxes each year, 1% for interest and 2% to pay down the principle. After 50 years, there would be no more debt.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Sunday August 21 2016, @05:18AM
Even if it borrowed a billion dollars, that's not how the system would work.
What do you mean 'Even if'. They do this in the trillions.
It would just mean that there was a billion dollars in debt. The US could say, take 3% of the dollars from everyone in taxes each year, 1% for interest and 2% to pay down the principle. After 50 years, there would be no more debt.
We just going in circles. It doesn't matter if they taxed everybody 100% every year there aren't enough dollars in the entire economy to pay off all the principle + interest of all the outstanding debts because EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR IN THE ENTIRE ECONOMY RIGHT NOW IS MATCHED TO A DEBT SOMEWHERE. And its still not enough to cancel the debts because the interest on those debts is adding to the debt without creating dollars. So new dollars need to be created (via bond issues etc) but that just creates more debt and more interest. Its like using VISA to pay Mastercard. You can't get out of debt doing that.
If the country stopped creating new bonds, and just paid down its debt; its possible it might succeed because people would mortgage their homes etc to come up with those dollars. But its a closed system... and new money only enters the economy via debt instruments.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Sunday August 21 2016, @07:56AM
This just isn't true. Like, at all. Nowadays, governments don't just print money. But that's definitely how things started.
Each dollar is not matched to a debt. There is a supply of dollars. There are also a bunch of debts. But I don't follow why you think the government cannot just print a trillion dollars in bills.
In the US, the government has promised not to just do that, because it leads to bad things. But it could do it tomorrow (okay, probably in like 2 weeks, to change the legislation) if it needed to. Don't you remember the "platinum coin" idea when they were doing debt ceiling things? The idea the government would just coin like 15 trillion dollar platinum coins and pay off the whole debt that way (and crash the economy.)
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Tuesday August 23 2016, @06:43PM
I had to let that post percolate a few days, because... wow. just wow. Are you in some sort of weird denial?
Your argument is that the government can just print money and add it to circulation, without matching it to more debt; as a way to break the debt cycle we are in.
However, you agree that they promised not to do exactly that, then you noted that its actually not legal for them to do it either, and finally you observe that if they did do it 'leads to bad things', up to and including 'crash the economy'.
How dug-in to your position are you? You want to be "right" so badly that you are going to cling to to this nonsense? Fine then, your "right". The could completely trash the law, and crash the economy to prove you "right".
But you may remember I argued the economy eventually collapses under debt cycle that can't be closed.
And your counter argument is essentially, "nuh-uh, they can close the cycle", by just printing money, (which they promised not to do, can't legally do, and which even if they did, we both agree it crashes the economy.
So given that we both agree it crashes the economy, how does that break the debt cycle that leads to a collapse? Triggering an economic collapse to break the debt cycle that will lead to an economic collapse is like drowning someone that has incurable cancer to prevent the cancer from killing them. Bravo mission accomplished. It wasn't legal, and they are still dead. But you were right, you "beat the cancer".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 19 2016, @09:10AM
Go to minute 7 here and is clearly explained https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Friday August 19 2016, @05:35PM
Ugh... that actually *is* a good explanation. but the 'dum-dum dum-dum dum-dum' ominous music and the rest of the dramatic elements do more to distract than anything else. I wish they'd simply let the explanations stand for themselves rather than editorialize.