Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday October 25 2017, @01:02PM   Printer-friendly
from the first-they-ignore-you-then-they-laugh-at-you-then-they-fight-you dept.

As someone that follows the developments in Bitcoinland closely, it has been difficult to find an article that does a good job of summarizing the drama surrounding the community. This Forbes article (Google Cache) only scratches the surface, but does a good job doing so:

On or around November 16, Bitcoin, the original cryptocurrency created by a novel technology called blockchain — a masterpiece of game theory, cryptography and, of all things, the age-old ledger — will split into two chains, each with its own set of coins. Hodlers [Note: 'hodl' - is a meme that started here] should be happy about suddenly owning double the number of Bitcoins except for the fact that the question of which of these will be called the true Bitcoin is, for now, up in the air — and that could create turmoil in the market. Anyone willing to bet their money by selling one set of coins for another stands to take a financial hit — either because they've picked the wrong side, or, for technical reasons, because selling one set may actually cause a sale on both sides of the chain.

[...] How the first cryptocurrency reached this cliffhanger in its journey is a story that has been many years in the making and finally pits against each other what were strange bedfellows anyway: the cypherpunks who, years before Bitcoin even existed, developed the various technologies that finally resulted in the first true digital asset and the Silicon Valley types who popularized the cryptocurrency that now has at least tens of millions of users and a $100 billion market cap. Whether one side will prevail or their death match will destroy Bitcoin is anyone's guess.

Is this how Bitcoin finally dies? (This bitcoiner thinks bitcoin will be wounded, but will live on.)


Original Submission

Related Stories

Bitcoin SegWit2x Fork Cancelled, Prices Surged... and Sagged 20 comments

news.bitcoin.com reports that the proposed blocksize increase to 2MB from 1MB of the SegWit2x fork of Bitcoin has been cancelled.

The post states that "the Segwit2x effort began in May with a simple purpose: to increase the blocksize and improve Bitcoin scalability.

[...] [Bitgo CEO, Mike ] Belshe predicts that "as fees rise on the blockchain, we believe it will eventually become obvious that on-chain capacity increases are necessary. When that happens, we hope the community will come together and find a solution, possibly with a blocksize increase. Until then, we are suspending our plans for the upcoming 2MB upgrade."

The term "SegWit2X" is a combination of "Segregated Witness" which offloads some of the transaction data from the blockchain leading to smaller entries and "2X" refers to doubling the block size. More background at Explainer: What Is SegWit2x and What Does It Mean for Bitcoin?.

They further note that the prices surged by more than $500 in the first hour after the announcement and hit a new high of $7900 per coin.

But, as of this being written (2017-11-10 02:50:00 UTC), the price of a bitcoin is back down to $7,254.56.

Related:Will This Battle For The Soul Of Bitcoin Destroy It? - SoylentNews
Saudi Prince Predicts Demise for Bitcoin


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by bradley13 on Wednesday October 25 2017, @01:19PM (3 children)

    by bradley13 (3053) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @01:19PM (#587350) Homepage Journal

    Bitcoin survived the Bitcoin-Cash fork, it will survive this one. The stupid thing is this: The one that will remain "the one, true bitcoin" is the one that gets to keep the name. I haven't looked into the details, but I assume that is the one that is keeping to the original specification. The fork (iirc, increasing the block size) will get a different name, and will therefore become the second step-sibling, along with Bitcoin-Cash.

    Both forks represent urgently needed improvements to Bitcoin. Both will lose out to real-world branding and politics. That's the way it always is. Who remembers when Intel, National and Motorola all had competing processors in the PC space? At the time, I did a review of the three options. It was absolutely clear: National had the best, most consistent architecture, Motorola was ok, Intel's x86 was technically the ugliest. Intel had the better politics.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Snow on Wednesday October 25 2017, @02:47PM

      by Snow (1601) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @02:47PM (#587391) Journal

      You are wrong, sir.

      This fork is different (and it's explained in the article). With Bitcoin Cash, transactions were not valid on both chains. A Bitcoin Cash transaction was not valid on the main chain and vice-versa. That is not the case with this fork. This fork is intended to replace the main chain. Transactions will be valid on both chains (no replay protection). Also, Bitcoin Cash has an emergency difficulty adjustment algorithm that keeps it viable when hashing power is low. These forks do not.

    • (Score: 2) by Bobs on Wednesday October 25 2017, @02:59PM (1 child)

      by Bobs (1462) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @02:59PM (#587393)

      Good points - the better marketing often beats the best specs.

      Yet I suspect we are still in the "myspace" stage of digital currency, and Bitcoin could be displaced by one that is ubiquitous and easier to use.

      For example, imagine what would happen if Apple launched the "iCoin" - linked to their digital wallet and "Apple Pay" tech.

      Suddenly 100's of millions of people and devices with the easy ability to buy, sell, trade in the digital currency and with a huge market of apps and services to purchase with it. They could even prime the pump by offering discounts on everything purchased using iCoins for the first year or so.

      And you could "mine" your own iCoin, but only by using official Apple-made computers running OS XI!

      What can Bitcoin do to stand-out in a marketplace full of a multitude of digital currency options?

      If a newer, younger, better-looking model comes along what is to prevent Bitcoins from returning to their intrinsic value?

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by WillR on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:52PM

        by WillR (2012) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:52PM (#587518)

        imagine what would happen if Apple launched the "iCoin" - linked to their digital wallet and "Apple Pay" tech

        For starters, I would wonder what the benefit of buying something with cryptocurrency that's tied to my unique iphone (and therefore to my real world identity) might be over boring old credit card based apple pay...

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @01:32PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @01:32PM (#587355)
    I think I really should get off my butt and get on Monero... But I'll probably miss the train again just like I did Bitcoin...
    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @09:44PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @09:44PM (#587580)

      There's plenty of room on the Monero train, what with the adaptive blocksize and all...

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by DECbot on Wednesday October 25 2017, @01:49PM

    by DECbot (832) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @01:49PM (#587366) Journal

    No, but that's still the plan.
    With love,
    -The Bankers

    --
    cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @01:54PM (15 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @01:54PM (#587368)

    Summary of the article.
    Developer group 1: We want bigger blocks to handle more transactions
    Developer group 2: We want simpler blocks to handle more transactions
    Users: We just want a working system which requires a single, standard way of doing things

    D1 and D2 may be exposing a fundamental flaw in BC.
    A store of wealth needs predictability and if a squabble between developers on something this minor eliminates this, then maybe the whole support system idea wasn't so great.

    Assuming the summary is correct, standards committee's have had this problem for eon's.
    Often because D1 and D2 have differing patent portfolios.
    One useful solution is to do both and get on with it.
    That might be a single fork with slightly bigger and simpler blocks.

    Unfortunately, the other standard standards story is 'the neat thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from'.
    Hopefully this won't end up that way.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday October 25 2017, @02:47PM (12 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 25 2017, @02:47PM (#587390) Journal

      A store of wealth needs predictability and if a squabble between developers on something this minor eliminates this, then maybe the whole support system idea wasn't so great.

      It's not minor. The key problem is that Bitcoin currently isn't handling the volume of traffic very well both due to a low number of transactions possible per second and due to related DoS attacks [coindesk.com] that also slow things down. The two approaches of these fork handle these problems in different, incompatible ways.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @03:48PM (11 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @03:48PM (#587417)

        To a user, predictability is fundamental, having a solution for a faster transaction rate is major, but the technical difference between the 2 solutions is minor.

        To have a minor technical difference kill the fundamentals would be unfortunate.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 25 2017, @03:58PM (10 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 25 2017, @03:58PM (#587424) Journal

          To a user, predictability is fundamental

          Most such users wouldn't be in Bitcoin in the first place, if that were true. And for the rest, the reduced latency of holding bitcoins means more predictability no matter the fork.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @04:14PM (8 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @04:14PM (#587435)

            Bitcoin was a great idea, then transaction fees popped up, decentralization became centralized as powerful mining groups were created. Turns out it can be "owned" if someone can corner enough of the hashing market. Along with the unpredictability of the base price Bitcoin is a massive failure at it's own goals.

            • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday October 25 2017, @04:25PM (2 children)

              by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday October 25 2017, @04:25PM (#587443) Journal

              I get the impression that it has been embraced in the last two years mostly as a device to move capital across borders and avoid regulations (for as long as it is still possible to do so before a crackdown). After that there's donations to open source software devs and a few dark web drug purchases. Finally, you have the experiments with using it in consumer settings (buying a coffee or pizza), which are impractical because of the wildly fluctuating coin value.

              --
              [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @05:46PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @05:46PM (#587464)

                "which are impractical because of the wildly fluctuating coin value"

                it's only impractical when you are trying to use humans to do the calculations. that's ridiculous on it's face.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:06PM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:06PM (#587527) Journal

                  it's only impractical when you are trying to use humans to do the calculations.

                  Bitcoin uses computers for the calculations. Valuation is independent of transaction calculations.

            • (Score: 1, Troll) by bob_super on Wednesday October 25 2017, @06:11PM (4 children)

              by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @06:11PM (#587475)

              Democracy was a great idea, then election costs popped up, decentralization became centralized as powerful interest groups were created. Turns out it can be "owned" if someone can corner enough of the influence market. Along with the unpredictability of the voter base, democracy is a massive failure at it's[sic] own goals.

              Silver lining: Unlike the US constitution, at least the Bitcoin algorithms are not considered perfect, sacred and untouchable, by half of the users.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:20PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:20PM (#587502)

                There are constitutional amendments for a reason. Democracy is the best we've got so far, and we're learning how hard it is to keep centralized interests from gaining power. Next step: blockchain democracy!

                Our current problems are due to a belief that the constitution is perfect, sacred and untouchable, quite the opposite. What is your game bob?

              • (Score: 3, Informative) by jmorris on Wednesday October 25 2017, @11:59PM (2 children)

                by jmorris (4844) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @11:59PM (#587622)

                No, Democracy is probably the absolute worst form of government since it is known to fail every time it is tried. That is why the Founders gave us a Constitutional Republic with extensive safeguards against the known evil of Democracy. Those safeguards obviously failed and need repair.

                Democracy is 51 voting to piss in the cornflakes of 49 in the minority and if everyone believes in Democracy the only thing the 49 can do is make sure the vote was fair before being obligated to "respect the will of the majority" and chug the piss. The Republic we were supposed to have was based on inalienable Rights so some things were simply out of bounds, no matter the size of the majority. Others were simply very difficult, requiring super majorities, elections across long periods of time to thwart momentary passions, etc.

                • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday October 26 2017, @01:26AM (1 child)

                  by bob_super (1357) on Thursday October 26 2017, @01:26AM (#587658)

                  I missed the part where having a democracy meant you have no absolute rights. Silly me. Be right back, I have a few documents to burn, let's start with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights...

                  What about the part where your favorite republic allows blatantly unconstitutional laws to be voted and come into effect, with no other recourse than finding a plaintive with standing to get said law reviewed, on condition that the 9 robed ones bother to take some time to look into it and write an opinion?
                  How many amendments are currently being breached with your consent because you're scared of brown people from various countries?

                  • (Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Thursday October 26 2017, @02:24AM

                    by jmorris (4844) on Thursday October 26 2017, @02:24AM (#587672)

                    Didn't I say the safeguards failed in our Republic? We need to repair it by removing the Democracy that crept in along with the other nastiness.

                    And no, you have no rights in a Democracy other than what the majority wills. That is what the word means. Which is why they always destroy themselves and are a bad idea.

                    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights us a U.N. thing, meaning Communist. Which is why nothing from that poisoned tree is good and none of it thrives.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @04:43PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @04:43PM (#587447)

            Of course market predictability is not expected for something like this.

            I meant transaction predictability as in if I ask for X, X will happen.
            Perhaps a better word instead of predictable is dependable.

            How the market turns out over time depends on if folks believe in BC as a useful thing.

            To be useful, sure it needs a faster transaction rate, but the effect of the transactions has to remain dependable.
            This minor technical squabble over how to implement faster seems like it is unnecessarily putting dependablity in jeopardy.

            If the only way to sort something this minor out requires this much drama, then what is going to happen when something major comes along?
            If users can't depend on a stable system, how is it useful except for short term things?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @06:14PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @06:14PM (#587476)

      Assuming the summary is correct, standards committee's have had this problem for eon's.
      Often because D1 and D2 have differing patent portfolios.
      One useful solution is to do both and get on with it.
      That might be a single fork with slightly bigger and simpler blocks.

      This is exactly what the 2MB upgrade is: a standards-committee style compromise.

      TFA mentions that the problem is: that that New York Agreement to implement the compromise did it in two parts. The "rearrangement" (Segwit) first, followed by a block size upgrade 3 months later. The flaw in that plan is that one side got what they wanted back in August, and now do not want to allow the second part of the upgrade to take place.

      I personally divested into the "wild card" (Bitcoin Cash) and Monero. Bitcoin Cash takes what is good about segwit (a quadratic hashing fix as replay protection), and simply scales by raising the block-size to 8MB (as a start). Because I am no longer invested in Bitcoin-segwit: I don't really care which fork wins.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:01PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:01PM (#587496)

      shorter:

      some banker scum: we want to undermine -see what I did here- your confidence in bitcoin hardforking the thing and luring people into running their corporate controled software/blockchain oh and we still want to make profit out of it

      rest of people: just make an ICO for your crap and fuck off

  • (Score: 4, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 25 2017, @02:33PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 25 2017, @02:33PM (#587382) Journal

    one coin to rule them all. Get your genuine Mordor currency here! Genuine Mordor Murder bits, lowest exchange rates around!!

  • (Score: 2) by ledow on Wednesday October 25 2017, @03:01PM

    by ledow (5567) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @03:01PM (#587394) Homepage

    Forked to death.

  • (Score: 2) by looorg on Wednesday October 25 2017, @03:04PM (3 children)

    by looorg (578) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @03:04PM (#587396)

    Bitcoins have a soul? Is that some kinda blockchain scam?

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday October 25 2017, @03:17PM (1 child)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday October 25 2017, @03:17PM (#587401) Journal

      Believe in the heart of the coins.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Wednesday October 25 2017, @04:22PM

        by mhajicek (51) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @04:22PM (#587439)

        Use the blockchain to secure your soul, then sell it.

        --
        The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
    • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday October 25 2017, @10:16PM

      by maxwell demon (1608) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @10:16PM (#587594) Journal

      Sure. And you treat your bitcoins very badly by keeping them captured in wallets, chained to a block. Send your bitcoins to me, for salvation of their soul!

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  • (Score: 2, Funny) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday October 25 2017, @04:24PM

    by nitehawk214 (1304) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @04:24PM (#587442)

    If you fork your children, you have to sleep on their zombies when they die.

    --
    "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday October 25 2017, @04:40PM (17 children)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @04:40PM (#587445) Journal

    Fuck cryptominers, fuck day traders, and fuck every rent-seeking son of a bitch who tries to live without working. Get a real job, assholes.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 2) by bradley13 on Wednesday October 25 2017, @05:05PM (15 children)

      by bradley13 (3053) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @05:05PM (#587457) Homepage Journal

      Well, yes, but... I do think digital currencies have an important role to play. If we can prevent governments from stomping on them, digital currencies offer an alternative to central banks. Which reduces governments' ability (by at least a small amount) to screw with us.

      --
      Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @06:17PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @06:17PM (#587477)

        Sure they have a role, but this wild investment fire in Bitcoin is highly suspicious. The value is in being able to trade cryptographically secure tokens, and what value any one token has will probably drop when there are a few hundred "coins" around. Eventually people will easily be able to pay in 38 Bitcoins 230 Dogecoins 5,883 Ethereum or whatever combo the seller accepts. How such tokens acquire a precise value is the real trick and as the inflation curve shows it is not even close to stable.

        Personally I find the transaction fees to be almost identical to the banking model. I'll let the wiki speak for itself.

        Transaction fees are voluntary on the part of the person making the bitcoin transaction, as the person attempting to make a transaction can include any fee or none at all in the transaction. On the other hand, nobody mining new bitcoins necessarily needs to accept the transactions and include them in the new block being created. The transaction fee is therefore an incentive on the part of the bitcoin transactor to make sure that a particular transaction will get included into a block.

        I like the extortion here: on the other hand, nobody mining new bitcoins necessarily needs to accept the transactions and include them in the new block being created.

        So it is voluntary, unless you want your transaction to be accepted, then it is not voluntary. Sure sure anyone can run their own miner, but as has been stated if a group can control enough of the total hashing power then they can become the Bitmafia.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday October 25 2017, @06:24PM (13 children)

        by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @06:24PM (#587481)

        I get the distinct impression that you have no clue what a central bank actually does or why it was invented. A lot of crypto-currency advocates seem to think that in a back room somewhere Janet Yellen is rubbing her hands together in glee as she crashes the US dollar just for the fun of it or something. Which is not at all what she and her foreign counterparts actually do.

        The Federal Reserve and other central banks have 2 main responsibilities:
        1. Prevent inflation from getting too high or low. If inflation is too high, then the currency no longer acts as a store of value because its purchasing power drops too quickly, and you get Zimbabwe or Wiemar Germany where you need a wheelbarrow full of cash to buy a loaf of bread. If inflation is too low (or even below zero, causing deflation), then money doesn't circulate enough because it's safer to hold on to cash than it is to invest the money, and that lack of investment reduces job growth. The Fed usually targets around 2% inflation.

        2. Prevent unemployment from getting too high or low. If unemployment is too high, the problems are obvious, namely you now have a bunch of people not working who are desperately looking for cash. If unemployment gets too low, then you get into what's known as a "wage-price spiral" that creates high levels of inflation and you've got the "stagflation" of the 1970's.

        They generally do an OK job of it. If you look at the US historical inflation numbers [in2013dollars.com], you'll notice that the numbers smooth out quite a bit after you get well into the 20th century and central banking figures out how to do its job, compared to the wild and often deflationary fluctuations of the 19th century. Even the worst year of inflation under the Fed, 1947, isn't anywhere near as bad as some of the pre-Fed years. And if you believe that deflation is a good thing, read up on William Jennings Bryan and why his inflationary policy of adding silver to the currency was so popular.

        And, if your concern is "But the value of my wealth is dropping! No fair!", then the problem is that you're refusing to invest your money somewhere. If you want to play it safe, buy T-Bills, because if those collapse then your cash is also worthless. If you want to play it a bit less safe, try state and municipal bonds. Next level down is usually bonds issued by stable corporations. Stock index funds where you basically get whatever the Dow or S&P 500 is the next level of stability down from that. Picking individual stocks is substantially more risky than that. If you're worried that the thing you're buying isn't a real thing with inherent value, well then I'll point out your pieces of paper saying "100 dollars" on them don't have inherent value either, and suggest you try real estate or commodities trading. And if you're specifically worried the US government is going to go straight to hell in a handbasket, then you'll want to look outside the US, maybe do some foreign exchange trading. The whole point of inflation is to encourage you to get your cash out of your mattress and put it towards something useful.

        Lastly, if your concern is that the President and Congress use the Fed to mess with you, that's why there are all sorts of mechanisms to insulate the Federal Reserve from control by the politicians.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @06:37PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @06:37PM (#587487)

          The whole point of inflation is to encourage you to get your cash out of your mattress and put it towards something useful.

          But currencies like Bitcoin have strong deflationary tendencies right? At least at the start.

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:21PM (1 child)

            by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:21PM (#587503)

            But currencies like Bitcoin have strong deflationary tendencies right?

            Yes, and that's one of its major problems. Most people getting involved in Bitcoins are doing so as an investment, not as a way of actually buying something, and their plan is to simply hang onto it and watch it grow in value until they want to convert it into an actual currency to buy something with. Which makes it more like buying rare collectables or something than a currency.

            --
            The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
            • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday October 26 2017, @12:02AM

              by jmorris (4844) on Thursday October 26 2017, @12:02AM (#587623)

              Yup, collectables you can't even really see. Rare Pepes are the real long term investment vehicle!

        • (Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday October 25 2017, @06:54PM (5 children)

          by curunir_wolf (4772) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @06:54PM (#587492)

          Sure it "flattens out" - because the central banks demand only one direction: Inflation. Because that's the only way to keep the money flowing toward the top (the oligarchs). Deflation can often be a good thing, but not for the ones holding the most money. It's designed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

          And, if your concern is "But the value of my wealth is dropping! No fair!", then the problem is that you're refusing to invest your money somewhere.

          Until the central bankers and the oligarchs decide to create an investment bubble out of whatever it is most people have invested most of their money in, like, I don't know, maybe YOUR HOUSE, and then when the bubble bursts they just print up a bunch of money and hand it out to the top-level banks to cover those losses and go around kicking all the poorest homeowners out on the street.

          If you're unsure what the Federal Reserve has done since its inception here is a handy chart for you [comparegoldandsilverprices.com].

          --
          I am a crackpot
          • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:32PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:32PM (#587510)

            ^ this crackpot sees trends

          • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:55PM (3 children)

            by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:55PM (#587521)

            Because that's the only way to keep the money flowing toward the top (the oligarchs). Deflation can often be a good thing, but not for the ones holding the most money. It's designed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

            That is pretty much the exact opposite of reality.

            The basic rule: You want inflation if you're a borrower, and deflation if you're a lender. The oligarchs are, for the most part, lenders - that's how lots of banks and even non-banks like GM and hospitals make their money. The middle class and poor are mostly borrowers (the main difference being the middle class is much more likely to have collateral like their house or car). As an example, let's say you've borrowed $1000 for 1 year at a fixed rate of 5% APR, and to simplify the math it's all due in 1 lump sum at the end of the year. Now, the loan terms were written in nominal values, so you have to pay back $1050 regardless of what $1050 is actually worth in today's dollars. So if there's high inflation, say 15%, then you actually are going to pay back $900 worth, which is rather nice for you. If there's 15% deflation, on the other hand, you're going to have to pay back $1200 worth.

            Now, the banks aren't stupid, so they try to predict inflation and factor that into the interest rates, but they'd be perfectly happy to see the actual inflation rates end up lower than their predictions.

            The reason you think inflation is the source of the problem probably has more to do with your wage or salary not being adjusted for inflation. What should be happening is that your employer can sell things at, say, 3% more after the year is up, so to keep you at roughly the same salary level s/he gives you a 3% cost-of-living raise. That's not happening because there's a surplus of labor in most fields in most places, so supply and demand is driving all wages down. The careers that aren't experiencing those sorts of problems are fields that artificially create shortages like doctors, and management because they're the ones deciding who gets paid how much.

            --
            The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
            • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday October 26 2017, @12:05AM (1 child)

              by jmorris (4844) on Thursday October 26 2017, @12:05AM (#587624)

              The basic rule: You want inflation if you're a borrower, and deflation if you're a lender.

              That rule applies in most cases. It applies in every case but one, the case where you are the one inflating. Printing money is a tax on everyone holding the currency being printed. The 'lender of last resort' is also the printer of new money so they win both ways.

              • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday October 26 2017, @11:56PM

                by Thexalon (636) on Thursday October 26 2017, @11:56PM (#588057)

                If you're the Fed, you don't want to inflate the currency too much, because if you do the profits on your loans goes down. That said, any profits the Fed manages to make go right into the US Treasury, which means that's taxes we don't need to pay. And unlike private banks, the Fed board that makes these decisions can't give themselves raises whenever they feel like it.

                I get that you can't stand fiat currency, but there's no evidence to suggest that the Fed is trying to wreck the US dollar. After all, if they really wreck the dollar, they will be among those up against the wall because the revolution came.

                --
                The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @05:32AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @05:32AM (#587711)

              one thing you forgot to mention: in many European countries, there are laws about salaries being raised with the inflation rate, at least for public sector workers.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @06:59PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @06:59PM (#587495)

          I get the impression that you think central banks only do "good"

          Money printing has historically been a big enabler of financing wars. Read
          any economic history if you don't believe this.

          Money printing also allows governments to deficit spend on projects/programs
          of dubious value.

          Where would the United States be if the country collectively had invested in
          manufacturing automation and not sold/exported technology to offshore interests?
          Instead, the deficit spending has helped keep the military industrial complex the main
          industry in the US.

          Remember, no fiat currency that has ever existed has survived in a long-term sense.
          A reasonable extrapolation of this historical fact is that the US Dollar will not make it
          either.

        • (Score: 2) by boltronics on Thursday October 26 2017, @02:07AM (2 children)

          by boltronics (580) on Thursday October 26 2017, @02:07AM (#587666) Homepage Journal

          The whole point of inflation is to encourage you to get your cash out of your mattress and put it towards something useful.

          If that were true they would teach stocks and investments in school as a compulsory subject everywhere.

          --
          It's GNU/Linux dammit!
          • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday October 26 2017, @11:58PM (1 child)

            by Thexalon (636) on Thursday October 26 2017, @11:58PM (#588060)

            At least where I was growing up, we covered stocks and investments in our mandatory econ 101 course, as well as in some of our math courses (since it's probably the most important application of exponential functions in the real world).

            --
            The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @05:59PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @05:59PM (#587471)

      I'm spending my very limited funds to try and make sure we have private money and to hopefully fund other operations. Global digital currency and a cashless society is probably a forgone conclusion. The only question is whether people have *private* digital currency or not. What that would enable is limitless. Voluntary government, voluntary insurance, self "employment" for everyone in the world who can develop a skill, etc. I mine Monero with the FOSS miner, xmr-stak-amd.

(1)