# Is Crypto dying or just dropping for the moment?

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
That is why the economy as it is is based on growth. Invest today expecting in the future to get back your investment plus more than inflation.

It is whay people with money do not stuff money in a matress or just leave it in the bank.

One claimed benefit of crypto was getting rid of currency trading. In a broad sense it is not about corruption or incompetence, it is more about hte complexity of modern goabal economics and free trade and nationalism. China would never agree to any glaobal currency.

How that would be manged across nations would be an impossible political mess. It could even make corruption worse. Brexit in part was about the Brits having their own currency.

The idea of fairness is a myth especially on a global scale. The fact that the system as it is works at all most of the time is a miracle.

The free markey global sustem is not about fairness. It is about aggressive competition with winners and loosers.

Unlie the USA te Chinese govt is behind major Chinese busness fosterng theft of intectual property.They can keep l;abor wages atrficialy low. That certainly is not fair as far as we see it.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
China woud like to replace the dollar with the yen
Really? Why? The Chinese have little love for the Japanese, and zero reasons I can see to adopt their currency.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
Brexit in part was about the Brits having their own currency.
Only insofar as that the utterly nonsensical and counterfactual claim that they might not be allowed to was floated by the factually averse side of the debate. The UK had an absolute and ironclad opt-out from the euro, as a founding member of the EU; They could never have been forced to give up the Pound Sterling.

However, should they ever wish to rejoin the EU, they would now have to do so as a new applicant, and would not have that special status. Leaving the EU has actually made it more plausible that the UK might have to abandon her own currency at some future date, as one of the requirements to rejoin.

#### Jayjay

##### Contributor
China woud like to replace the dollar with the yen
Really? Why? The Chinese have little love for the Japanese, and zero reasons I can see to adopt their currency.
I think he meant yuan.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
China woud like to replace the dollar with the yen
Really? Why? The Chinese have little love for the Japanese, and zero reasons I can see to adopt their currency.
I think he meant yuan.
Yeah, but so long as the government doesn't allow it to trade at market rate there's no way that's going to happen.

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor
Yeah, but rvonse is certain that while economically things are completely opposite what he thinks it is, it just have to get there because...

#### Elixir

##### Made in America
Take away the ability to enslave the population paying taxes (which is their labor) in the dollar currency....and there would be a dollar crises tomorrow.
Oh really?
What happens to the dollar and why?
Is 7-11 going to accept bitcoin but not dollars the next day? When the gov stops printing and lending dollars are dollars going to get less, or more valuable?

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
If we really want true justice we can do away with currency and just make everything free, right?

If you get rid of currency there is still economics.

What and how much gets produced
Who gets what and how much
Who does what and how much does a person get, or does everybody get exactly the same

You can not discuss currency outside of the free market system and how goods, devices, and labor are valued in terms of a currency. Supply and demand.

The value of currency itself floats. A problem we have had with China is they have not in the past allowed its currency to float which can make cost of manufacturing artificiality low. They can fix wages and cost of materials.

I am no expert, but global economics on the scale of today is not trivial and changes can have serious unintended consequnces. Trump's China tariffs for example harmed American farmers more than it did anything to China.

I do not see how going to crypto changes anything. In most systems a crypto currency woud have to be able to float with economic conditions. I think a gloabl currncy with a fixed value woud be a problem.

If each country went crypto as a standard equivalent to paper money then nothing chnanges.

#### Jayjay

##### Contributor
I do not see how going to crypto changes anything. In most systems a crypto currency woud have to be able to float with economic conditions. I think a gloabl currncy with a fixed value woud be a problem.

If each country went crypto as a standard equivalent to paper money then nothing chnanges.
That's a very good point.

The Eurozone is already having problems with less competitive member states like Greeze being sucked dry because euro is too strong for their export industries, while countries like Germany benefit. As do EU states that kept their own currency, like Sweden or Poland. A global currency, digital or not, would have the same problems.

#### RVonse

##### Veteran Member
The value of currency itself floats.
Not sure if you mean this is how it is today or if you mean this is how it should be. If you mean this is how it is today, I agree with you. But if you mean this is in anyway desirable, I very much disagree. One of the biggest goals of a currency is stability. In the perfect economic world, the global reserve currency would never inflate or deflate and it would always remain perfectly stable. And in the beginnings of the UK reserve currency and US reserve currency that was indeed the case. Business producers and consumers alike would always know what the paper in their pocket was worth and they could accurately expect what their currency savings would purchase in the future. Such a perfectly stable currency greatly reducing pricing errors and mal-investments that we routinely see today in the energy, housing, and auto markets.

Last edited:

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
The value of currency itself floats.
Not sure if you mean this is how it is today or if you mean this is how it should be. If you mean this is how it is today, I agree with you. But if you mean this is in anyway desirable, I very much disagree. One of the biggest goals of a currency is stability. In the perfect economic world, the global reserve currency would never inflate or deflate and it would always remain perfectly stable. And in the beginnings of the UK reserve currency and US reserve currency this was indeed the case. Business producers and consumers alike would always know what the paper in their pocket was worth and they would count on what their savings would buy exactly that value in the future. Such a perfectly stable currency would greatly reduce pricing errors and mal-investments that we routinely see today in the energy, housing, and auto markets.
In the perfect economic world, there would always be a small amount of inflation, to reflect the fact that any sane person would rather have $20 today than$20 next week.

#### RVonse

##### Veteran Member
Yeah, but rvonse is certain that while economically things are completely opposite what he thinks it is, it just have to get there because...
It certainly isn't just me. There were many others looking at the same concerns who founded bitcoin as the solution.

#### RVonse

##### Veteran Member
If we really want true justice we can do away with currency and just make everything free, right?

If you get rid of currency there is still economics.

What and how much gets produced
Who gets what and how much
Who does what and how much does a person get, or does everybody get exactly the same

You can not discuss currency outside of the free market system and how goods, devices, and labor are valued in terms of a currency. Supply and demand.

The value of currency itself floats. A problem we have had with China is they have not in the past allowed its currency to float which can make cost of manufacturing artificiality low. They can fix wages and cost of materials.

I am no expert, but global economics on the scale of today is not trivial and changes can have serious unintended consequnces. Trump's China tariffs for example harmed American farmers more than it did anything to China.

I do not see how going to crypto changes anything. In most systems a crypto currency woud have to be able to float with economic conditions. I think a gloabl currncy with a fixed value woud be a problem.

If each country went crypto as a standard equivalent to paper money then nothing chnanges.
Just because it never has been done does not necessarily mean a better global financial system is not possible.

#### RVonse

##### Veteran Member
The value of currency itself floats.
Not sure if you mean this is how it is today or if you mean this is how it should be. If you mean this is how it is today, I agree with you. But if you mean this is in anyway desirable, I very much disagree. One of the biggest goals of a currency is stability. In the perfect economic world, the global reserve currency would never inflate or deflate and it would always remain perfectly stable. And in the beginnings of the UK reserve currency and US reserve currency this was indeed the case. Business producers and consumers alike would always know what the paper in their pocket was worth and they would count on what their savings would buy exactly that value in the future. Such a perfectly stable currency would greatly reduce pricing errors and mal-investments that we routinely see today in the energy, housing, and auto markets.
In the perfect economic world, there would always be a small amount of inflation, to reflect the fact that any sane person would rather have $20 today than$20 next week.
First you have to have a dead stable unit of exchange. After that you can talk about setting your interest rate.

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor
Yeah, but rvonse is certain that while economically things are completely opposite what he thinks it is, it just have to get there because...
It certainly isn't just me. There were many others looking at the same concerns who founded bitcoin as the solution.
Bitcoin is rife with inflation and deflation. It is utterly useless as a currency! It continues to exhibit this wild behavior (mainly because it has no basis for value at all), and you keep warning us about the dollar (which hasn't dropped in value by 50% over the last few months, nor gone up wickedly by 50% in a period of a month). Money doesn't work well when it can be worth 1.5x in a month.

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
Yeah, but rvonse is certain that while economically things are completely opposite what he thinks it is, it just have to get there because...
It certainly isn't just me. There were many others looking at the same concerns who founded bitcoin as the solution.
Bitcoin is rife with inflation and deflation. It is utterly useless as a currency! It continues to exhibit this wild behavior (mainly because it has no basis for value at all), and you keep warning us about the dollar (which hasn't dropped in value by 50% over the last few months, nor gone up wickedly by 50% in a period of a month). Money doesn't work well when it can be worth 1.5x in a month.
Honestly these days anyone using digital currency tries to spend as little time on Bitcoin as they can possibly manage.

There are even high-throughput automated channels for conversion now called "atomic swaps".

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
The value of currency itself floats.
Not sure if you mean this is how it is today or if you mean this is how it should be. If you mean this is how it is today, I agree with you. But if you mean this is in anyway desirable, I very much disagree. One of the biggest goals of a currency is stability. In the perfect economic world, the global reserve currency would never inflate or deflate and it would always remain perfectly stable. And in the beginnings of the UK reserve currency and US reserve currency this was indeed the case. Business producers and consumers alike would always know what the paper in their pocket was worth and they would count on what their savings would buy exactly that value in the future. Such a perfectly stable currency would greatly reduce pricing errors and mal-investments that we routinely see today in the energy, housing, and auto markets.
In the perfect economic world, there would always be a small amount of inflation, to reflect the fact that any sane person would rather have $20 today than$20 next week.
First you have to have a dead stable unit of exchange. After that you can talk about setting your interest rate.
I didn't say a word about interest rates. A dead stable currency implies that $20 today is exactly as valuable as$20 next week, or next year.

But everyone values money today over money later. So $20 next week is worth less than$20 today, unless your money continually increases in value.

Therefore (ceteris paribus) you can only have a stable currency if you also have deflation.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
If we really want true justice we can do away with currency and just make everything free, right?

If you get rid of currency there is still economics.

What and how much gets produced
Who gets what and how much
Who does what and how much does a person get, or does everybody get exactly the same

You can not discuss currency outside of the free market system and how goods, devices, and labor are valued in terms of a currency. Supply and demand.

The value of currency itself floats. A problem we have had with China is they have not in the past allowed its currency to float which can make cost of manufacturing artificiality low. They can fix wages and cost of materials.

I am no expert, but global economics on the scale of today is not trivial and changes can have serious unintended consequnces. Trump's China tariffs for example harmed American farmers more than it did anything to China.

I do not see how going to crypto changes anything. In most systems a crypto currency woud have to be able to float with economic conditions. I think a gloabl currncy with a fixed value woud be a problem.

If each country went crypto as a standard equivalent to paper money then nothing chnanges.
Just because it never has been done does not necessarily mean a better global financial system is not possible.
Of course but crypto currency does nothing. The global economic system as we have it today was not designed, it evolved over time. It is what it is because it works reasonably well most of the time.

Chinese and Russian communism were hell bent on detroyng the western system. China rebuilt it self by in the end by participating in it.

If anybody has an idea for a different system on a global scale that works better in terms of some definition of justice or fatness that works with humans and nations as they are, I am all ears.

On paper Russian ad Chinese communism was fair and just.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
The value of currency itself floats.
Not sure if you mean this is how it is today or if you mean this is how it should be. If you mean this is how it is today, I agree with you. But if you mean this is in anyway desirable, I very much disagree. One of the biggest goals of a currency is stability. In the perfect economic world, the global reserve currency would never inflate or deflate and it would always remain perfectly stable. And in the beginnings of the UK reserve currency and US reserve currency that was indeed the case. Business producers and consumers alike would always know what the paper in their pocket was worth and they could accurately expect what their currency savings would purchase in the future. Such a perfectly stable currency greatly reducing pricing errors and mal-investments that we routinely see today in the energy, housing, and auto markets.
I do not think that is possible unless both currency and economy is controlled. That s what the Soviets tried to do.

Currency floats in accordance with supply and demand as well as other factors. That is one way the economy is regulated. Money supply.

The value of currency reflects the economy. As somebody pointed out Greece which is essentiallynow a welfare state and Germany with a good economy both suffer from a common currency.

As an engineer I look at economics as a system of mass and energy governed by the principle of conservation. Everything has to add up at any point in time.

In Seattle the min wage is about $15/hour. The local economy can sustain that. In a small rural town in India payng somebody$15/hour in US dollars would not work.

There are negatives to the global free market system. One of the positives is flexibility. Another is that it runs itself without a lot of daly control by governments.

I do not think there is any practical way to control the global economy, it is far too complex. An attempt could easily make things far worse.

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor
If we really want true justice we can do away with currency and just make everything free, right?

If you get rid of currency there is still economics.

What and how much gets produced
Who gets what and how much
Who does what and how much does a person get, or does everybody get exactly the same

You can not discuss currency outside of the free market system and how goods, devices, and labor are valued in terms of a currency. Supply and demand.

The value of currency itself floats. A problem we have had with China is they have not in the past allowed its currency to float which can make cost of manufacturing artificiality low. They can fix wages and cost of materials.

I am no expert, but global economics on the scale of today is not trivial and changes can have serious unintended consequnces. Trump's China tariffs for example harmed American farmers more than it did anything to China.

I do not see how going to crypto changes anything. In most systems a crypto currency woud have to be able to float with economic conditions. I think a gloabl currncy with a fixed value woud be a problem.

If each country went crypto as a standard equivalent to paper money then nothing chnanges.
Just because it never has been done does not necessarily mean a better global financial system is not possible.
Of course but crypto currency does nothing. The global economic system as we have it today was not designed, it evolved over time. It is what it is because it works reasonably well most of the time.
Indeed a good point. The field of economics isn't pure science. Our understanding, shifting, modifications are based on trail and error... a lot of error. And our Great Recession which was a regulatory driven failure, still didn't do anything to our economy as drastic as the Great Depression and the reactions of nations to it.
If anybody has an idea for a different system on a global scale that works better in terms of some definition of justice or fatness that works with humans and nations as they are, I am all ears.

On paper Russian ad Chinese communism was fair and just.
Russian communism never existed on paper as far as I'm aware. I don't think any of those guys were smart enough to actually put forth an actual proposal.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
The value of currency itself floats.
Not sure if you mean this is how it is today or if you mean this is how it should be. If you mean this is how it is today, I agree with you. But if you mean this is in anyway desirable, I very much disagree. One of the biggest goals of a currency is stability. In the perfect economic world, the global reserve currency would never inflate or deflate and it would always remain perfectly stable. And in the beginnings of the UK reserve currency and US reserve currency this was indeed the case. Business producers and consumers alike would always know what the paper in their pocket was worth and they would count on what their savings would buy exactly that value in the future. Such a perfectly stable currency would greatly reduce pricing errors and mal-investments that we routinely see today in the energy, housing, and auto markets.
In the perfect economic world, there would always be a small amount of inflation, to reflect the fact that any sane person would rather have $20 today than$20 next week.
First you have to have a dead stable unit of exchange. After that you can talk about setting your interest rate.
I didn't say a word about interest rates. A dead stable currency implies that $20 today is exactly as valuable as$20 next week, or next year.

But everyone values money today over money later. So $20 next week is worth less than$20 today, unless your money continually increases in value.

Therefore (ceteris paribus) you can only have a stable currency if you also have deflation.

Nope. You're not proving your point. A currency is stable if the $buys the same amount of stuff every year. #### Jayjay ##### Contributor The value of currency itself floats. Not sure if you mean this is how it is today or if you mean this is how it should be. If you mean this is how it is today, I agree with you. But if you mean this is in anyway desirable, I very much disagree. One of the biggest goals of a currency is stability. In the perfect economic world, the global reserve currency would never inflate or deflate and it would always remain perfectly stable. And in the beginnings of the UK reserve currency and US reserve currency this was indeed the case. Business producers and consumers alike would always know what the paper in their pocket was worth and they would count on what their savings would buy exactly that value in the future. Such a perfectly stable currency would greatly reduce pricing errors and mal-investments that we routinely see today in the energy, housing, and auto markets. In the perfect economic world, there would always be a small amount of inflation, to reflect the fact that any sane person would rather have$20 today than $20 next week. First you have to have a dead stable unit of exchange. After that you can talk about setting your interest rate. I didn't say a word about interest rates. A dead stable currency implies that$20 today is exactly as valuable as $20 next week, or next year. But everyone values money today over money later. So$20 next week is worth less than $20 today, unless your money continually increases in value. Therefore (ceteris paribus) you can only have a stable currency if you also have deflation. Nope. You're not proving your point. A currency is stable if the$ buys the same amount of stuff every year.
No currency is stable by that metric, because prices of goods also change relative to each other. Your future dollar is worth different amount depending on what you intend to use it for.

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
The value of currency itself floats.
Not sure if you mean this is how it is today or if you mean this is how it should be. If you mean this is how it is today, I agree with you. But if you mean this is in anyway desirable, I very much disagree. One of the biggest goals of a currency is stability. In the perfect economic world, the global reserve currency would never inflate or deflate and it would always remain perfectly stable. And in the beginnings of the UK reserve currency and US reserve currency this was indeed the case. Business producers and consumers alike would always know what the paper in their pocket was worth and they would count on what their savings would buy exactly that value in the future. Such a perfectly stable currency would greatly reduce pricing errors and mal-investments that we routinely see today in the energy, housing, and auto markets.
In the perfect economic world, there would always be a small amount of inflation, to reflect the fact that any sane person would rather have $20 today than$20 next week.
First you have to have a dead stable unit of exchange. After that you can talk about setting your interest rate.
I didn't say a word about interest rates. A dead stable currency implies that $20 today is exactly as valuable as$20 next week, or next year.

But everyone values money today over money later. So $20 next week is worth less than$20 today, unless your money continually increases in value.

Therefore (ceteris paribus) you can only have a stable currency if you also have deflation.

Nope. You're not proving your point. A currency is stable if the $buys the same amount of stuff every year. No currency is stable by that metric, because prices of goods also change relative to each other. Your future dollar is worth different amount depending on what you intend to use it for. Not to mention that stability of that kind chokes the economy: the closer to "dead" stability, the more it drives speculation on the currency itself. But keeping the currency inflationary, it makes for a situation where holding too much is a losing game. The problem, of course, is that the truly wealthy invest in things that don't lose value for sitting on them. The problem, again, is that ownership of estate, currency, etc, is tight. If our system allowed for these resources to accrete over time from the holders to the producers, the whole situation would resolve itself, maybe over the course of 5-10 years. #### Loren Pechtel ##### Super Moderator Staff member Not to mention that stability of that kind chokes the economy: the closer to "dead" stability, the more it drives speculation on the currency itself. But keeping the currency inflationary, it makes for a situation where holding too much is a losing game. The problem, of course, is that the truly wealthy invest in things that don't lose value for sitting on them. The problem, again, is that ownership of estate, currency, etc, is tight. If our system allowed for these resources to accrete over time from the holders to the producers, the whole situation would resolve itself, maybe over the course of 5-10 years. Inflation hurts the people who have dollars or dollar-denominated debt instruments. The average person and retirees, not the wealthy. #### Jarhyn ##### Wizard Not to mention that stability of that kind chokes the economy: the closer to "dead" stability, the more it drives speculation on the currency itself. But keeping the currency inflationary, it makes for a situation where holding too much is a losing game. The problem, of course, is that the truly wealthy invest in things that don't lose value for sitting on them. The problem, again, is that ownership of estate, currency, etc, is tight. If our system allowed for these resources to accrete over time from the holders to the producers, the whole situation would resolve itself, maybe over the course of 5-10 years. Inflation hurts the people who have dollars or dollar-denominated debt instruments. The average person and retirees, not the wealthy. That's why I would apply equally leaky functions to stock operations: on sale or dividend, lose a percentage of each stock towards the worker share for that company. It would create a granularity to stocks, essentially Satoshi much like cryptocurrencies have and then if someone wants to sell as a worker, they can sell out their share, or accrete it as a voting bloc. I've brought this up before. It would have to be a percentage rate set by the Fed on all companies traded and held by residents as part of their declared income. I'm not exactly sure the mechanics of it, and it's not like I expect it to happen or become a popular idea in my lifetime. I'm still going to consider it and try to figure good mechanics of such out. Ownership cannot be allowed to exist in perpetuity. #### Jayjay ##### Contributor Not to mention that stability of that kind chokes the economy: the closer to "dead" stability, the more it drives speculation on the currency itself. But keeping the currency inflationary, it makes for a situation where holding too much is a losing game. The problem, of course, is that the truly wealthy invest in things that don't lose value for sitting on them. The problem, again, is that ownership of estate, currency, etc, is tight. If our system allowed for these resources to accrete over time from the holders to the producers, the whole situation would resolve itself, maybe over the course of 5-10 years. Inflation hurts the people who have dollars or dollar-denominated debt instruments. The average person and retirees, not the wealthy. That's why I would apply equally leaky functions to stock operations: on sale or dividend, lose a percentage of each stock towards the worker share for that company. It would create a granularity to stocks, essentially Satoshi much like cryptocurrencies have and then if someone wants to sell as a worker, they can sell out their share, or accrete it as a voting bloc. Or you could create new worker stocks out of thin air (much like cryptocurrency mining) at each transaction. That would dilute the value of all other stocks in circulation though. #### Jarhyn ##### Wizard Not to mention that stability of that kind chokes the economy: the closer to "dead" stability, the more it drives speculation on the currency itself. But keeping the currency inflationary, it makes for a situation where holding too much is a losing game. The problem, of course, is that the truly wealthy invest in things that don't lose value for sitting on them. The problem, again, is that ownership of estate, currency, etc, is tight. If our system allowed for these resources to accrete over time from the holders to the producers, the whole situation would resolve itself, maybe over the course of 5-10 years. Inflation hurts the people who have dollars or dollar-denominated debt instruments. The average person and retirees, not the wealthy. That's why I would apply equally leaky functions to stock operations: on sale or dividend, lose a percentage of each stock towards the worker share for that company. It would create a granularity to stocks, essentially Satoshi much like cryptocurrencies have and then if someone wants to sell as a worker, they can sell out their share, or accrete it as a voting bloc. Or you could create new worker stocks out of thin air (much like cryptocurrency mining) at each transaction. That would dilute the value of all other stocks in circulation though. Yeah, essentially there's no entropy at play as regards leverage in financial terms. The realization came to me one day when I made a bad decision in an MMO that had major losses on certain kinds of character death (EVE online). Someone leveraged me into an extortion where they were able to kill my character which would have cost me a large amount of progression, and then after the extortion, did not resolve the situation as they had promised. This led to the realization that bad actors, if there is nothing to force the release of leverage, will not relinquish it no matter what they extort with it. Legal markets need the means to decay leverage, because otherwise, such leverage allows infinite extortion. Perhaps that was even the point of the design of ownership, laid down as it were by people who had the leverage and wanted to "keep a good thing going". The thing is, it's not a good thing. It's the shape of a boot stomping on a human face for all eternity and a lot of people just haven't seen it yet. #### steve_bank ##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ... Inflation is a part of the system Wages growing faster than inflation is a growing economy. Wages growing lower than inflation is a recession. Inflation is a continuous dynamic interaction of supply & demand, increasing supply costs, and wage increases. There is entropy. If you suiff yiur money in a mattress it looses value. Investing in a growing economy cancels inflation. Currency is irrelevant. What matters is how much you have to pay and how many hours you have to work locally to buy something. The Big Mac index was introduced in The Economist in September 1986 by Pam Woodall[2] as a semi-humorous illustration of PPP and has been published by that paper annually since then. Although the Big Mac Index was not intended to be a legitimate tool for exchange rate evaluation, it is now globally recognised and featured in many academic textbooks and reports.[3] The index also gave rise to the word burgernomics.[4] The theory underpinning the Big Mac index stems from the concept of PPP, which states that the exchange rate between two currencies should equalize the prices charged for an identical basket of goods.[5] However, in reality, sourcing an identical basket of goods in every country provides a complex challenge. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), over “3,000 consumer goods and services, 30 occupations in government, 200 types of equipment goods and about 15 construction projects” are included in the current PPP calculations.[6] In effort to simplify this important economic concept, The Economist proposed that a single McDonald’s Big Mac could be used instead of a basket of goods. A McDonald’s Big Mac was chosen because of the prevalence of the fast food chain worldwide, and because the sandwich remains largely the same across all countries.[7] Although a single sandwich may seem overly simplistic for PPP theory, the price of a Big Mac is derived from the culmination of “many local economic factors, such as the price of the ingredients, local wages, or how much it costs to put up billboards and buy TV ads”.[8] As a result, the Big Mac index provides a “reasonable measure of real-world purchasing power”.[8] #### Derec ##### Contributor That's why I would apply equally leaky functions to stock operations: on sale or dividend, lose a percentage of each stock towards the worker share for that company. It would create a granularity to stocks, essentially Satoshi much like cryptocurrencies have and then if someone wants to sell as a worker, they can sell out their share, or accrete it as a voting bloc. Sounds less like Satoshi and more like penny shaving from Office Space, but with stocks. #### Derec ##### Contributor (contd.) I'm not exactly sure the mechanics of it, and it's not like I expect it to happen or become a popular idea in my lifetime. I'm still going to consider it and try to figure good mechanics of such out. It would either involve a 3.5" floppy disk ... ... or Richard Pryor typing in "Overide[sic] all security" Ownership cannot be allowed to exist in perpetuity. Why the fuck not? Now, if a company wants to reward their employees with this stock shaving scheme, they should be free to do so. But it should not be government mandated. #### Jarhyn ##### Wizard @Derec nice dishonest quote, asking for a reasoning when you had already cut the reasons offered Legal markets need the means to decay leverage, because otherwise, such leverage allows infinite extortion. #### Jayjay ##### Contributor ... or Richard Pryor typing in "Overide[sic] all security" That guy delivering the mail is going to have serious back problems if he keeps it up. Get the man a taller cart. If this is how fictional corporations treat their fictional employees, I'm all for "overiding security" and redistributing their obscene profits to the common man. #### Bronzeage ##### Super Moderator Staff member I never got why gold has value other than it’s shiny so people like it. It has no utility. Bitcoin, near as I can figure has no utility either. I tried to find why some of the others might have value based on some utility and end up reading about their blockchain. The blockchain looks to have some utility, like Ethereum but the coin associated with it? I can’t make the connection. Ripple has a coin that has a definable utility but other than that, I don’t know. I haven’t read them all and have no intention of doing so. I suppose I’m just missing the connection between blockchain and it’s associated coin. Gold became the gold standard of portable wealth because it's fairly rare and most people are confident of their ability to tell real gold from counterfeit. The inherent problem with a gold based economy is it's difficult to move beyond subsistence living. If you produce a surplus of wheat, it will spoil before you can eat it all. You have to sell, or lose it. That's great if someone has gold, but the supply of wheat can easily out grow the gold supply. In preindustrial days, most things of immediate utility had a shelf life. I'll trade wheat for eggs, but only as many eggs as I can eat before they spoil. It's crazy to limit the increase in wealth created by a good harvest by the availability of a rock. The modern economy is based on easy transfer of wealth and more importantly, loaning your surplus wealth to someone else. Credit banking is essentially a magic trick which creates money. If we're limited to how many rocks we own, that's not possible. What puzzles me about bitcoin and the like is, the original premise was to create a currency which could not be manipulated by governments and international banks. What they created was a currency which is dependent on an international infrastructure which is controlled and maintained by governments. Whatever temptation to buy bitcoin I may have had evaporated when I saw a bitcoin terminal in my local convenience store. I can use this machine to buy bitcoin, or transform bitcoin into dollars and deposit them in my bank. All I need are my account numbers and passwords, which I will happily type into the keyboard on the big yellow box next to the Slurpee machine. #### Jarhyn ##### Wizard I never got why gold has value other than it’s shiny so people like it. It has no utility. Bitcoin, near as I can figure has no utility either. I tried to find why some of the others might have value based on some utility and end up reading about their blockchain. The blockchain looks to have some utility, like Ethereum but the coin associated with it? I can’t make the connection. Ripple has a coin that has a definable utility but other than that, I don’t know. I haven’t read them all and have no intention of doing so. I suppose I’m just missing the connection between blockchain and it’s associated coin. Gold became the gold standard of portable wealth because it's fairly rare and most people are confident of their ability to tell real gold from counterfeit. The inherent problem with a gold based economy is it's difficult to move beyond subsistence living. If you produce a surplus of wheat, it will spoil before you can eat it all. You have to sell, or lose it. That's great if someone has gold, but the supply of wheat can easily out grow the gold supply. In preindustrial days, most things of immediate utility had a shelf life. I'll trade wheat for eggs, but only as many eggs as I can eat before they spoil. It's crazy to limit the increase in wealth created by a good harvest by the availability of a rock. The modern economy is based on easy transfer of wealth and more importantly, loaning your surplus wealth to someone else. Credit banking is essentially a magic trick which creates money. If we're limited to how many rocks we own, that's not possible. What puzzles me about bitcoin and the like is, the original premise was to create a currency which could not be manipulated by governments and international banks. What they created was a currency which is dependent on an international infrastructure which is controlled and maintained by governments. Whatever temptation to buy bitcoin I may have had evaporated when I saw a bitcoin terminal in my local convenience store. I can use this machine to buy bitcoin, or transform bitcoin into dollars and deposit them in my bank. All I need are my account numbers and passwords, which I will happily type into the keyboard on the big yellow box next to the Slurpee machine. To be fair, the way those work is that you make an ATM transaction and they send it to your Bitcoin wallet address. The wallet address you send it to SHOULD just be a number, no password required. It is... Well, I'm not going to say impossible but "not plausible" to reverse engineer anything from a wallet address. I'm unsure how the reverse would function. #### Bronzeage ##### Super Moderator Staff member I never got why gold has value other than it’s shiny so people like it. It has no utility. Bitcoin, near as I can figure has no utility either. I tried to find why some of the others might have value based on some utility and end up reading about their blockchain. The blockchain looks to have some utility, like Ethereum but the coin associated with it? I can’t make the connection. Ripple has a coin that has a definable utility but other than that, I don’t know. I haven’t read them all and have no intention of doing so. I suppose I’m just missing the connection between blockchain and it’s associated coin. Gold became the gold standard of portable wealth because it's fairly rare and most people are confident of their ability to tell real gold from counterfeit. The inherent problem with a gold based economy is it's difficult to move beyond subsistence living. If you produce a surplus of wheat, it will spoil before you can eat it all. You have to sell, or lose it. That's great if someone has gold, but the supply of wheat can easily out grow the gold supply. In preindustrial days, most things of immediate utility had a shelf life. I'll trade wheat for eggs, but only as many eggs as I can eat before they spoil. It's crazy to limit the increase in wealth created by a good harvest by the availability of a rock. The modern economy is based on easy transfer of wealth and more importantly, loaning your surplus wealth to someone else. Credit banking is essentially a magic trick which creates money. If we're limited to how many rocks we own, that's not possible. What puzzles me about bitcoin and the like is, the original premise was to create a currency which could not be manipulated by governments and international banks. What they created was a currency which is dependent on an international infrastructure which is controlled and maintained by governments. Whatever temptation to buy bitcoin I may have had evaporated when I saw a bitcoin terminal in my local convenience store. I can use this machine to buy bitcoin, or transform bitcoin into dollars and deposit them in my bank. All I need are my account numbers and passwords, which I will happily type into the keyboard on the big yellow box next to the Slurpee machine. To be fair, the way those work is that you make an ATM transaction and they send it to your Bitcoin wallet address. The wallet address you send it to SHOULD just be a number, no password required. It is... Well, I'm not going to say impossible but "not plausible" to reverse engineer anything from a wallet address. I'm unsure how the reverse would function. I wonder how often bitcoins are sent to someone else's wallet. #### steve_bank ##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ... In the news crypto fraud is in full swing. Criminals have figured out how to launder crypto currency so it can't be traced. #### Jarhyn ##### Wizard In the news crypto fraud is in full swing. Criminals have figured out how to launder crypto currency so it can't be traced. Dude, all it takes is an atomic swap through XMR, then doing all operations in XMR, then doing an atomic swap back to BTC. I never got why gold has value other than it’s shiny so people like it. It has no utility. Bitcoin, near as I can figure has no utility either. I tried to find why some of the others might have value based on some utility and end up reading about their blockchain. The blockchain looks to have some utility, like Ethereum but the coin associated with it? I can’t make the connection. Ripple has a coin that has a definable utility but other than that, I don’t know. I haven’t read them all and have no intention of doing so. I suppose I’m just missing the connection between blockchain and it’s associated coin. Gold became the gold standard of portable wealth because it's fairly rare and most people are confident of their ability to tell real gold from counterfeit. The inherent problem with a gold based economy is it's difficult to move beyond subsistence living. If you produce a surplus of wheat, it will spoil before you can eat it all. You have to sell, or lose it. That's great if someone has gold, but the supply of wheat can easily out grow the gold supply. In preindustrial days, most things of immediate utility had a shelf life. I'll trade wheat for eggs, but only as many eggs as I can eat before they spoil. It's crazy to limit the increase in wealth created by a good harvest by the availability of a rock. The modern economy is based on easy transfer of wealth and more importantly, loaning your surplus wealth to someone else. Credit banking is essentially a magic trick which creates money. If we're limited to how many rocks we own, that's not possible. What puzzles me about bitcoin and the like is, the original premise was to create a currency which could not be manipulated by governments and international banks. What they created was a currency which is dependent on an international infrastructure which is controlled and maintained by governments. Whatever temptation to buy bitcoin I may have had evaporated when I saw a bitcoin terminal in my local convenience store. I can use this machine to buy bitcoin, or transform bitcoin into dollars and deposit them in my bank. All I need are my account numbers and passwords, which I will happily type into the keyboard on the big yellow box next to the Slurpee machine. To be fair, the way those work is that you make an ATM transaction and they send it to your Bitcoin wallet address. The wallet address you send it to SHOULD just be a number, no password required. It is... Well, I'm not going to say impossible but "not plausible" to reverse engineer anything from a wallet address. I'm unsure how the reverse would function. I wonder how often bitcoins are sent to someone else's wallet. Almost never. Bitcoin wallet have a certain pattern to how they exist, so invalid addresses will not transact. #### lpetrich ##### Contributor Crypto money laundering rises 30%, report finds - BBC News - 2022 Jan 26 Criminals laundered$8.6bn (£6.4bn) of cryptocurrency in 2021, up by 30% from the previous year, a report by blockchain data company Chainalysis says.

Chainalysis says it tracks cryptocurrency wallets controlled by criminals such as ransomware attackers, malware operators, scammers, human traffickers, dark net market operators, and terrorist groups.

By following flows of cryptocurrency from addresses associated with criminal activity, Chainalysis was able to estimate the amount "laundered".

It says most cryptocurrency is laundered through a limited number of services - for example, particular exchanges favoured by criminals - and shutting these could have a big impact.

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
Crypto money laundering rises 30%, report finds - BBC News - 2022 Jan 26
Criminals laundered $8.6bn (£6.4bn) of cryptocurrency in 2021, up by 30% from the previous year, a report by blockchain data company Chainalysis says. Chainalysis says it tracks cryptocurrency wallets controlled by criminals such as ransomware attackers, malware operators, scammers, human traffickers, dark net market operators, and terrorist groups. By following flows of cryptocurrency from addresses associated with criminal activity, Chainalysis was able to estimate the amount "laundered". It says most cryptocurrency is laundered through a limited number of services - for example, particular exchanges favoured by criminals - and shutting these could have a big impact. The issue is that at this point, you can't shut down the exchanges because at this point, it's all going to be atomic swaps, of bitcoins to XMR. You would have to shut down a peer network to do it and good luck at doing that! From an observer standpoint on the Bitcoin blockchain, it is all just transfer into and out of the XMR black box network as a constant and uninterruptible stream of exchange with an unobservable middle. #### steve_bank ##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ... Dude, blow it out your butt. One of the alleged selling points for crypto was traceable transactions. Criminals could not be able to hide trasactions and launder money. Opps, missed it on that one. Peole have lost thoisands of daollrs in scams. So far crypto has shown no benifit at all, other than profits for a few. Complexity in technology related to crypto currency is a serious hazard. Complexity in technology I know. Unforseen comsequnces. Some people are emotionally addicted to technology and live on the fascination. The value of crypto is only what somebody is willing to pay for it. Like Pet Rocks. ### The Dutch tulip business​ From about the early 1600s to about the mid-18th century, the Dutch Republic's economic, business and financial systems were the most advanced and sophisticated ever seen in history.[18][19][20][21][22][23] In its Golden Age, the Dutch Republic was responsible for many pioneering innovations in economic, business and financial history of the world,[24] like the first well-recorded asset price bubble in history (in the 1630s), early stock market bubbles and crashes had their roots in socio-politico-economic activities of the 17th-century Dutch Republic (the birthplace of the world's first formal stock exchange and stock market),[25][21][26][27] the Dutch East India Company (the world's first formally listed public company) and the Dutch West India Company, in particular. The introduction of the tulip to Europe is often questionably attributed to Ogier de Busbecq, the ambassador of Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor, to the Sultan of Turkey, who sent the first tulip bulbs and seeds to Vienna in 1554 from the Ottoman Empire.[28][29] Tulip bulbs, along with other new plant life like potatoes, peppers, tomatoes and other vegetables, came to Europe in the 16th century.[30] These bulbs were soon distributed from Vienna to Augsburg, Antwerp and Amsterdam.[31] Their popularity and cultivation in the United Provinces (now the Netherlands)[32] is generally thought to have started in earnest around 1593 after the Southern Netherlandish botanist Carolus Clusius had taken up a post at the University of Leiden and established the hortus academicus.[33] He planted his collection of tulip bulbs and found that they were able to tolerate the harsher conditions of the Low Countries;[34] shortly thereafter, the tulip began to grow in popularity.[35] The tulip was different from other flowers known to Europe at that time, because of its intense saturated petal colour. The appearance of the nonpareil tulip as a status symbol coincides with the rise of newly independent Holland's trade fortunes. No longer the Spanish Netherlands, its economic resources could now be channelled into commerce and the country embarked on its Golden Age. Amsterdam merchants were at the centre of the lucrative East Indies trade, where one voyage could yield profits of 400%.[36] As a result, tulips rapidly became a coveted luxury item, and a profusion of varieties followed. They were classified in groups: the single-hued tulips of red, yellow, or white were known as Couleren; the multicolored Rosen (white streaks on a red or pink background); Violetten (white streaks on a purple or lilac background); and the rarest of all, the Bizarden (Bizarres), (yellow or white streaks on a red, brown or purple background).[37] The multicolour effects of intricate lines and flame-like streaks on the petals were vivid and spectacular, making the bulbs that produced these even more exotic-looking plants highly sought-after. It is now known that this effect is due to the bulbs being infected with a type of tulip-specific mosaic virus, known as the "tulip breaking virus", so called because it "breaks" the one petal colour into two or more.[38][39] Growers named their new varieties with exalted titles. Many early forms were prefixed Admirael ("admiral"), often combined with the growers' names: Admirael van der Eijck, for example, was perhaps the most highly regarded of about fifty so named. Generael ("general") was another prefix used for around thirty varieties. Later varieties were given even more extravagant names, derived from Alexander the Great or Scipio, or even "Admiral of Admirals" and "General of Generals". Naming could be haphazard and varieties highly variable in quality.[40] Most of these varieties have now died out.[41] #### Jarhyn ##### Wizard Naw, the value of crypto wasn't necessarily traceability so much as validation of payment: you can prove you paid, you can prove you were paid, but beyond that, "the selling point" of certain cryptocurrency models was "no tracking". Nobody asked you to buy in so I don't understand why you think anyone needed to be sold on it. People invented the number system, people traded on the basis of the number system people seek systematic determination of ownership of numbers within the system. Anyone who didn't see the utility of token you could exchange online without bank or government involvement wasn't thinking about this clearly. At any rate, BTC<>XMR atomic swaps are a thing now, and that can't be shut down without shutting down every exchange. #### Jimmy Higgins ##### Contributor As we continue with the reporting on whether Crypto is dying or not, Bitcoin has continued to plummet. Still, over$23,000 per coin, but nearing only a third of what it peaked at in November 2021. Most of the other cryptos have crashed and burned, losing what little money ever existed in them.

We might be seeing the death of the imaginary currency version of the Pet Rock.

Or it could be worth $70,000 tomorrow. #### Jarhyn ##### Wizard As we continue with the reporting on whether Crypto is dying or not, Bitcoin has continued to plummet. Still, over$23,000 per coin, but nearing only a third of what it peaked at in November 2021. Most of the other cryptos have crashed and burned, losing what little money ever existed in them.

We might be seeing the death of the imaginary currency version of the Pet Rock.

Or it could be worth \$70,000 tomorrow.
I'll note, you should compare the value of Bitcoin recently to the value of Monero.

Bitcoin is in free fall and somehow Monero has retained a significant portion of it's value.

I wonder why...

it's because Monero is the internal virtual currency for the drug trade.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
Alchemists spent a lot more timein turning lead to gold than crypto currency has been around. So crypto will not die for a long time, if at all.

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
Alchemists spent a lot more timein turning lead to gold than crypto currency has been around. So crypto will not die for a long time, if at all.
Well, that and people need a currency that they can trade in, somehow, that allows them to have verifiable, but untraceable transactions online.

It was an interesting problem insofar as developing something that functioned like cash transactions but did so on the internet.

Bitcoin is going to crash and burn, though.

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
I think the biggest issue is that, in many respects, the government needs to provision for large-scale extralegal economies, and such economies will stop dealing in cash as much as they are able because cash is stupid and it's the 21st goddamn century so let's fucking bank like it!

If governments want to keep being able to tax the flow of such dollars through their laundry fronts, they will accept the existence of economic surfaces to crypto markets that support privacy and not interfere too heavily.

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor
Alchemists spent a lot more timein turning lead to gold than crypto currency has been around. So crypto will not die for a long time, if at all.
We might be in the Great Depression or Housing Crash of '08 for crypto at this point. Without FDIC and Celsius pausing withdrawals, there could be "billions" in lost assets as the Ponzi scheme that is crypto and Celsius might have just popped. As long as Crypto kept increasing, things were good.

Things were looking great. But the second the banking or quasi-banking company you business with says they can't pay you, that is a red flag of insolvency.
Celsius said:
Acting in the interest of our community is our top priority. In service of that commitment and to adhere to our risk management framework, we have activated a clause in our Terms of Use that will allow for this process to take place. Celsius has valuable assets and we are working diligently to meet our obligations.
To be able to make certain you get your money, we aren't giving you your money. The company took deposits of other people's Bitcoin, paid ridiculous interest rates on it that scream "SCAM!!!!", and now with Bitcoin at nearly a third of what it was, and them likely having little actual capitol... oh boy! So maybe this isn't exactly the death of crypto, but it should be the death of unregulated banks for funny money as when Celsius runs for the border to a nation with no extradition treaty, those bitcoins and crypto cease to exist. And I'm certain there will be lawsuits... but the people that gave their bitcoin and crypto, are fucked.

#### Artemus

##### Veteran Member
Every time there's been a crash like this I've thought that surely they must have run out of greater fools to scam, but the cycle always seems to repeat. I think what's happening is that newly minted college graduates who have a disposable income for the first time and believe themselves to be much more savvy than the last group start driving it up (see this article, for example) The bubble inevitably once again bursts and they lose everything, but there is a replacement set in a few years to make the same mistakes. It may never end.

#### Elixir

##### Made in America
Every time there's been a crash like this I've thought that surely they must have run out of greater fools to scam, but the cycle always seems to repeat. I think what's happening is that newly minted college graduates who have a disposable income for the first time and believe themselves to be much more savvy than the last group start driving it up (see this article, for example) The bubble inevitably once again bursts and they lose everything, but there is a replacement set in a few years to make the same mistakes. It may never end.
So you’re saying invest for the long term?