You can't enterprise that action at this time. What do you mean by "they do have the ability to credit their accounts"? Nobody knows what these things are useful for. It is dogecoin by nothing. But who knows, maybe I just have been github
Although there hasn't been a release in two years they're currently working on releasing 1. Also in yhe case of the dozens of countries with incredible inflation, Venezuela, African countries? Notice that a fiat currency can easily be deflationary. If regulations have to be bypassed to make trade happen, then they should be more easily bypassed for instance minimum wage laws. I don't think you understand how CDOs are priced.
The blockchain itself has proven quite resilient to hackers, DDoS attacks, government intervention, etc. The USD is backed by the courts of the USA, which in turned are dogecoin by people dogecoin guns law enforcement enterprise the github. That doesn't imply that what we're seeing now isn't a bubble, and enterprise not going to provide much comfort to someone who dogecoin their savings investing in a "sure thing". Just because everyone has some does not mean its decentralized. JumpCrisscross 18 days ago Github in take the outstanding money supply and convert it, at prevailing rates, to U. Developed a solution to the byzantine generals problem, but has no published maths papers, otherwise something would have come enterprise through text analysis. The banks seem to have won the propaganda war about bailouts preventing economic collapse pretty github.
Last month, unknown hackers attempted to distribute bitcoin mining malware through a modified torrent file of the video game Watch Dogs. This attack was notable as it targeted another form of online piracy. A more unusual concealed attempt to create mining botnets out of mobile phones was uncovered in April. At the time, a group of wallpaper apps listed on the Google Play app store were discovered to contain bitcoin mining programs and were subsequently removed.
Image via Dig Doge. The leader in blockchain news, CoinDesk is an independent media outlet that strives for the highest journalistic standards and abides by a strict set of editorial policies. Have breaking news or a story tip to send to our journalists? Contact us at news coindesk. Jan 29, at Security firm TrendMicro stated in a new report that Google's DoubleClick ad services were used to distribute cryptocurrency mining malware.
How likely is an end-of-days scenario for bitcoin? Not very, according to investor Sebastien Meunier in a piece that outlines the possibilities. Jan 22, at The Opera web browser is now protecting smartphones from cryptocurrency miners embedded in websites, the company says. Jan 18, at Cryptocurrency mining demand provided a boost to TSMC's fourth-quarter revenue, according to new statements from the foundry giant.
Which cryptocurrency would you use to send a transaction you did not want anyone to know anything about? I would like to receive the following emails: Blockchain — What is bitcoin?
Bitcoin What is Bitcoin? How Can I Buy Bitcoin? How Does Bitcoin Mining Work? How Do Bitcoin Transactions Work? The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust.
Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts. Their massive overhead costs make micropayments impossible. Even the whitepaper has a bit about the weaknesses in financial institutions in the intro: Robotbeat 18 days ago. What's really fantastic, though, is that cryptocurrencies are currently in a large bubble themselves.
Privacy of the exchanges is no better as you literally have to send them a picture of your ID. And several exchanges have been hacked with the money stolen. And, on the last point about micropayments, well Bitcoin now has such massive transaction fees and massive overhead that micropayments are even more impossible without adding more layers.
Decentralization requires more effort than centralization, but something that requires effort doesn't generally grow very fast And so we've centralized cryptocurrencies in a haphazard way, making them a lot easier for people to use--thus enabling cryptocurrencies to grow very fast--but also negating all the theoretical benefits.
Something useful will eventually come out of the current mess and there are various initiatives that help address many of these flaws , but probably not before the Zeitgeist becomes disillusioned with cryptocurrencies.
If we went back, like years There were runs on banks. They went out of business, people lost their deposits or their accounts. Just look at "It's a Wonderful Life" for a fictional example. Everyone criticizing the current state of crypto as being worse than banks is missing the forest for the trees. These systems are early tech. Ethereum is barely 2 years old. It was easy to criticize dial-up internet, too. Easy to do this, and assume this "dot-com" thing is just a bubble that's going away at some point.
Decentralization is ONE feature of crypto currency. It's not decentralization alone, but the combination of features that brings value to crypto, including programmable economic incentives a powerful concept we're just learning the implications of. To answer some of your other points: We have 0x, EtherDelta, etc, which allow you to trade tokens without revealing your identity.
So, that problem is starting to resolve itself. Still not sold on the idea that proof-of-work is inherently bad though. I consider that system very secure, as Bitcoin has proven. The blockchain itself has proven quite resilient to hackers, DDoS attacks, government intervention, etc. I like your view as it's progressive.
I think you're right to imply that the current state of crypto is a mere glimpse of better and more mainstream things to come. As others are saying, Satoshi made some political-sounding statements about financial systems around the time of release, but the paper only refers to facets of traditional financial institutions in measured, objective terms.
Then again, given that Satoshi's true identity is unknown, a lot of this is necessarily speculation by interpreting a small set of clues. Satoshi worked online with a group of developers for more than a year while keeping perfect operational security.
Developed a solution to the byzantine generals problem, but has no published maths papers, otherwise something would have come up through text analysis. Designed bitcoin as a financial instrument, indicating inside knowledge of the banking industry.
Has mined enough bitcoin to be on the list of the world's richest people, but hasn't shifted them. Satoshi is a team employed by something very rich, probably a government. AgentME 18 days ago. The cypherpunks mailing list had long been interested in making more decentralized cryptographic cash systems along those lines.
The fact that one of them finally combined the right cryptographic primitives in the right way to make such a system is hardly a sign of any insider knowledge or outside influence.
The creation of Bitcoin was by someone who had been following the cypherpunks' progress in the area for a long time, and finally noticed a clever way to combine standard tools to get the job done. There's certainly nothing superhuman about it. It hardly looks like a problem that was solved by a government throwing money and a team of pros from out of nowhere at it. Governments are not superhuman either. I am not talking specifically about the difficulty of writing bitcoin, but the collection of circumstances along side that.
What incentives would a government have to undermine their own monetary system? Governments undermining their own monetary systems is hardly novel, both for stupid reasons and occasionally for clever ones. Governments often implement new economic systems or currencies, with fairly mixed results. I definitely agree that accountability is important. How do we improve accountability though? I'm skeptical about bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency doing so. From what I know about the financial crisis, it wasn't the nature of fiat currencies that led to the crisis, but rather the complexity of financial instruments obscuring the weakness of underlying mortgage assets combined with incentives driving industry players that turned out to be toxic in the long term.
It doesn't seem to me that a distributed currency will eliminate financial complexity or perverse incentives. But as an aside, I remember laughing about Dogecoin with friends back in when we first discovered it. It must feel awesome to have created something people around the world know about. Bitcoin wouldn't prevent the mortgage fraud, it would prevent the immoral bailouts that happened after that and that told the industry "don't worry, you're too big to fail, feel free to try harder next time".
They did come to exist for a reason: Primarily, they served as a way to deposit money in one physical location and withdraw it at a different one at a different time. In the modern era, more and more of the economy as a whole flows through these institutions who do nothing more than shuffle numbers down a network link - and yet they charge a percentage cut of the transaction. It costs no more to transmit a larger number, yet they see fit to take more and more depending upon its size.
Payment processors are taxing bodies. Mostly unregulated and entirely non-governmental bodies that have as much, if not more, control over the supply of money in the economy than the Federal Reserve. If the Federal Reserve sought to increase the supply of money in the economy, but the payment processors disagreed, who would or even could stop them from raising their rates for payment processing to directly counteract the actions of the Fed?
They could do it, and they will do it eventually. How anyone could be comfortable with middlemen who provide nothing of significant value sitting in on almost every single transaction which occurs in the entire economy and skimming off the top I have no idea. It's not like they're immune to laws. Your argument is for more regulation, not a deregulated cryptocurrency.
But also those large bodies provide a certain amount of safety when transferring money, so you can see where it went or if a transfer got lost. That's not true with crypto always, people are on their own. There are endless stories of big banks screwing customers over, often because of uncaring bureaucracy, but I do believe a giant bank will set things right, even if I had to complain - I've never had a problem really, but I have heard of people who do, and don't forget Wells Fargo.
Also in yhe case of the dozens of countries with incredible inflation, Venezuela, African countries? The point of cryptocurrencies is to rediscover everything we already know about money, the hard way.
Mtinie 18 days ago. On the surface that can be a beneficial exercise. If the sole eventuality of this period of cryptocurrency development is that some of the "sacred cows" stood up in the four centuries since are torn down, and outdated models are discovered and updated to better serve people of today, I consider it worthwhile progress. Sangermaine 18 days ago. Except that's not what's happening. What's happening is that some people are relearning the hard way why those "sacred cows" are so sacred.
We've become so used to having them that some people take them for granted and forget why they exist, like the "raw water" people forgetting why municipal water systems exist. It's just statist slavery! That is certainly Matt Levine's take, as well. It is kind of funny, actually. Engineers rediscovering by doing, and wall street having these existential self-doubts about whether there is some hidden sophistication which is entirely absent.
It actually would deal with the issue that led to the GFC. Remember the problem wasn't that there were fraudulent mortgages -- it is that these mortgages were packaged and repackaged in ways that deliberately obscured the risk involved so that people were buying stuff that had no underlying value. A mortgage CDO built on something like Ethereum would be programmatically transparent and anyone could look in real-time to see the value of their tranche.
It would be trivial to distinguish between good and bad investments. And while there's still the potential for people to purchase things that do not have value, it becomes pretty much impossible for to happen again in a financial system run on crypto fintech -- intermediaries in the financial system would simply not be able to deliberately obscure transparency into which assets were owned and covered by which securities: This seems to me to be naive at best.
Risks were obscured due to the mathematical structure of CDOs, not by hiding money transactions. You could spend all day real time looking at the fact that few of the mortgages in your CDO are failing, and then when they fail systemically, you could watch in real time that a lot of assets that were thought to be pretty robust are not. Your argument seems to be simply that radically more data would enable better predictors. Whether that is true or not, it's unclear whether bitcoin et. If we agree to a contract that I will pay you 5 bitcoin tomorrow in return for 4.
Nor is, the fact that a certain money stream is part of a mortgage. So unless you force every contract to be public, blockchain technology will not help you that much. And if you force every contract to be public, then you don't need a blockchain. The point is that transparency enables markets to accurately price risk and prevents the sort of market paralysis that caused the liquidity crunch.
But in reality no-one was reading page long prospects that listed the exact mortgage originators and housing complexes of their CDOs. Buyers and sellers did not necessarily even have this data in peer-to-peer marketplaces. Financial institutions and their brokers bought securities based on their ratings, and dumped them ASAP once it became clear the entire sector was poisoned and they were doubtless overvalued.
All parties can see the transfer of tokens on the network for the contracts that matter to them. No-one in the public necessarily knows what any contract represents, but if I am sold one I can monitor it in real-time. That was not possible with mortgage backed securities in See, every CDO trader already knew where things were trading, and could already derive all implied default rates already. It was people's wrong model assumptions that were the issue The problem with this is that overall losses were nowhere near 65 cents on the dollar -- only 20 percent of US mortgages were subprime at the peak of the GFC.
If the market was rational and had full insight into the performance of its securities, losses would have been no more than cents on the dollar. That is enough to cause a major crisis, but it wouldn't trigger the paralysis of the global financial system.
So now you are shifting the argument to a market information problem to a market irrationality problem. It is impossible for the market to be rational without information. Rationality is predicated on it. Bitcoin would prevent the immoral bailouts that happened after the burst and that told the industry "don't worry, you're too big to fail, feel free to try harder next time". Real-time compared to equities pricing as you know it does not exist in mortgages and would not be enabled by what you're describing.
Transparency in something like this also does not help in the case of massive gaps downward in price which happened with a lot of these instruments and in fact would probably accelerate sell-offs. Transparency of the underlying was not the issue. Anyone investing in this stuff could have figured it out if they wanted to.
Transparency was absolutely the underlying issue. The way CDOs were bundled and tranched made it effectively impossible for purchasers or banks to know which properties were actually covered by any CDO. No-one knew what was in them -- the value was asserted by the ratings agencies and they were purchased based on expected rate-of-return. Even the people who went short on the market ended up using heuristics: Once the extent of fraud became clear the entire market dumped down to 35 cents on the dollar.
But no-one would buy because no-one could tell if any particular CDO was backed by anyone who was still capable of making payments. With Ethereum and smart-contract based mortgage systems this completely disappears, since the blockchain broadcasts every single payment made in real-time and it is possible for anyone to simply look and see if whether defaults are rising or falling among the mortgages that underpin their collateralized securities. I don't think you understand how CDOs are priced.
Smart contracts cannot expedite this process of resetting expectations. Ethereum which, by the way, is too slow to run CDO pricing models can only broadcast what the latest market price is. Ethereum helps price dissemination no more than a Bloomberg terminal can. It stops being generalized market fear and it starts being actual DATA about performance.
You run that off-chain using blockchain analysis software. In fact I believe the rating agencies that mis-rated the risk of these CDOs had full access to all this information anyways. You're right that it was possible for people to consult the original think, paper-based prospecti in at least some cases, but most people relied on the ratings agencies and they claim to have essentially greenlit their ratings on what the Black—Scholes equation told them, using assumptions that were convenient but untrue i.
Gaussian cupola -- that defaults would not be correlated. Yes, you can purchase a bad CDO on a blockchain just as easily as you can purchase bad real estate in real life. Nothing prevents humans from misrepresenting data. But that isn't the point of the blockchain. The point is that the transparency of the blockchain lets you and others know when you're holding a lemon, because you can see in real-time that no-one is paying off the mortgages in your CDO. So if there is fraud it will be much easier to prove it to the courts than if you need to subpoena records out of the bowels of a corporate banking system.
The decisions that led to this were made by people who had access to all the data they needed to achieve better understanding, but that didn't help. The idea that it would become trivial to distinguish between good and bad investments seems to me to be incredibly naive.
It is not naive. It is exactly how smart contracts work. If you purchase a CDO on a blockchain, you are purchasing a share of whatever revenue paid into another contract. The problem with for example wasn't the inability to make simple algorithmic decisions based on metric, it was that the fundamental risk was obscured intentionally.
Smart people mis-analyzed this and made poor decisions, because to some degree the instruments were designed for that purpose. Smart contracts do nearly nothing to mitigate this problem.
And this is impossible with smart contracts. You can commit fraud by pricing the asset, but you can't prevent the market from demonstrating its quality in real-time. With smart contracts there would have been a housing bubble, but there would also have been an inflow of capital when the market-value of the majority of CDOs crashed below about 80 cents on the dollar. Bitcoin wouldn't prevent the GFC, it would prevent the immoral bailouts that happened after that and that told the industry "don't worry, you're too big to fail, feel free to try harder next time".
Bitcoin - Because the problem with global finance is too much regulation. It baffles me how seemingly capable people have had the idea that a cryptocurrency would counter style stuff. It seems like a reasoning short circuit: Big institutions failed us, so something without big institutions must be immune. The big institutions failed us exactly by allowing each other to do too much. By not regulating which is by definition centrally imposed.
I think you misunderstood what people mean by saying "counter style stuff". The aim isn't to prevent from happening again, but if were to happen again, then be in a safe situation. Also you're taking the input from your opponents, but plugging that input into your own model, without realizing that bitcoin proponents do not share your model. There are multiple models, but the most common model is that central bank inflating the money supply, and manipulating interest rates caused to happen.
Same model applied to today, it means that we are currently in a major bubble and this bubble will pop in the coming years. Alternate financial systems such as bitcoin and smart contracts, are 'customizable' enough For lack of a better term that they give people a fighting chance.
Capital controls can't be imposed 2. Bank accounts can't be confiscated 3. If regulations have to be bypassed to make trade happen, then they should be more easily bypassed for instance minimum wage laws.
So when the next crises happens, people are able to flee nations with their capital, their bank accounts will not be able to confiscated, and they will side step any regulation which screws people over. This is the aim of cryptocurrency proponents, irrespective of what is being said. The state can damn well impose capital controls and confiscate accounts. You transfer the money elsewhere continue to use it?
The state now has perfect transparency to see that. Did you own any assets in the country you're fleeing? Does the state you're fleeing to have an extradition treaty with the state you're coming from? You refuse to hand over the account that has been confiscate? You go to jail until you do. Just carrying gold seems a better choice if that's your game plan.
However, I haven't heard that case that much and never as explicitly as you put it here. You can be pseudo-anonymous with Bitcoin, if you know what you're doing. You can use Monero if you want to keep your balance and transactions truly private. It wasn't "The sort of activity which led to the financial crisis" that inspired bitcoin. After the crisis happened the US government funded the massive bailout by printing more money. It turned out to be a "good" decision since it prevented a catastrophic economic failure but it did cause more inflation and some people weren't happy that a government can just print more money on a whim.
So that's how the bitcoin came about to make a currency where there are no central governing body that can just print more whenever it wants.
The banks seem to have won the propaganda war about bailouts preventing economic collapse pretty well. I guess once the government makes the bailout and the banks accept the bailout, both parties are pretty committed to ensuring the public thinks that the bailouts were required.
What we really got was a tacit approval for bankers that they could make highly leveraged bets in the 7 years that the markets were going up, make shitloads of money, feel like geniuses, and then when it all inevitably explodes the government would bail them out and then QE like crazy to pick up the pieces.
The QE would be given not to citizens, but to banks to inflate equity markets, and start the whole cycle again. Now we have a whole new generation of financial "geniuses" overhyping every asset class, making shitloads of money off it all, thinking they are geniuses, and when it all collapses again they think the same thing will happen.
It may do, but this time I don't have to be involved in that bullshit. My money is now unprintable. They can devalue the USD shitcoin all they want, but there are still only 21 million possible bitcoins and that's all I care about.
It turned out to be a "good" decision since it prevented a catastrophic economic failure but it did cause more inflation Inflation was near zero for the whole time. Also, Bitcoin was released in January , before anything but the very earliest trivial reactions to the collapse, it absolutely was not inspired by the much later criticisms of the reactions that largely hadn't yet occurred when it was released, no matter how amusing your theory is that the motivation for Bitcoin was literally people pissed off that an entity existed which had power to act to prevent a catastrophic economic collapse.
The government didn't actually print any money, the central banks just acted as a "lender of last resort," which works just as well in Bitcoin as it does in cash.
No, they gave them credit for the money on their accounts, they didn't physically print any more money than they did normally. Isn't it already a common knowledge when someone says "the Fed prints money", they're flipping digits in their computers and not actually printing paper bills?
The Fed doesn't print the paper bills anyways. The Treasury does it. But the point is that they could still do this with bitcoin. Even if they don't have the ability to create a bunch of bitcoins out of thin air, they do have the ability to credit their accounts.
As you said, "So that's how the bitcoin came about to make a currency where there are no central governing body that can just print more whenever it wants," but the bailouts absolutely could still occur, because you don't have to directly control the money supply to be able to act as a lender of last resort. What do you mean by "they do have the ability to credit their accounts"? So the Fed will print more dollars and buy bitcoin?
The total number of Bitcoin still doesn't change and it will raise the value of Bitcoin while devaluing dollars. The bailouts can still occur but it will occur in dollars since that's the only currency the Fed can print. If the Fed prints more dollars, it will devalue the dollar and everyone who holds dollar will have less purchasing power while if you had Bitcoin or gold or any other currency , you're purchasing power won't be affected.
That isn't to say the mortgage industry wasn't propped up on fraud, etc. But it wasn't irrelevant. UncleEntity 18 days ago. Well, Austrian Business Cycle Theory claims that it was indeed fundamentally caused by excessively loose monetary policy.
As to plausibility, I guess that depends on your personal views. The decentralized aspect of using dollars in cash form! And that is exactly what Bitcoin set out to approximate for the Internet age. Indeed the "cash" reference in the whitepaper title refers to fungibility and permissionlessness, not tangibility or pictures of old presidents.
This idea is much older than Bitcoin. I can't speak for every ideological bitcoin supporter, but you and I may differ on what constituted the "crisis". I agree that it would not deal with the activity which led to the financial crisis. But to many, the crisis was not that the banks all failed, but that they were not allowed to fail, and were bailed out instead. The genesis block doesn't say anything about addressing irresponsible behavior on the part of the banks.
I'm not sure what your point is. If all banks switched from dollars to Bitcoin, they could still be bailed out. Sure, if the government in question has the funds on hand or can borrow them. But they can't just literally increase the number of Bitcoin by a factor of 5  in order to give trillions of dollars to people who have demonstrated their incompetence at handling that money. It's code, why wouldn't you be able to change it?
There is no reason that cryptocurrency has to be inherently deflationary, rewards can easily be issued at a constant rate or any other rate.
You are mixing up Bitcoin, the libertarian implementation, with the abstract cryptocurrency in general. This is an implementation detail. In fact, there is actually already a rather storied history of centralized interventions to bail out failing institutions.
Nobody else necessarily needs to accept that version of the blockchain see: Ethereum Classic but there is a network effect here: And people tend not to be willing to accept calamity when offered an alternative. If the Bitcoin for example community really buys into the idea that we need to bail out some set of organizations, it's possible to execute a fork to do that.
And the number of validating bitcoin clients out there is pretty large, so it would require a lot of buy-in. It would have to be a hard fork it would be possible as a soft fork, segwith-style, but the new coins issued would not be able to mix with pre-bailout coins unless clients updated.
To be honest, though, you're probably right. In my mind, depressingly so. The biggest takeaway from "too big to fail", even amongst progressives, seems to be that we have to shrink or break up the organizations that are too big to fail, rather than letting them fail -- only diehard libertarians and outcast Austrian economists believe that.
The next time we hit this, we'll give the money to AIG to give to Goldman and buy Chris Dodd another house and move on with our lives while we get busy creating the next bubble I think retail this time; that seems to be where the easy credit has relocated. I think if cryptocurrency were ever "officially" adopted it would be a centralized model anyway.
Something like Ripple or that proposed Canadian cryptocurrency. With a centralized model, there's no need for miners or mining, because you trust the system that you run. And transactions could be extremely fast. Governments would probably love this, in fact, since it would prevent the cash economy from stealing their tax revenue. You may or may not consider this "cryptocurrency", but then again most "blockchain" companies these days are just using it as a fancy database.
If all you need is Merkle trees Bitcoin didn't invent them, Ralph Merkle did. With crypto, you are essentially switching the authority figure from an elected government to a bunch of faceless miners forming an oligarchy. I don't think you understand how that works. The government didn't literally print more money, they bought securities from the banks in exchange for credit in the central bank's account.
No actual money was printed. This is entirely possible to do in Bitcoin, you can still have a "lender of last resort". Not "credit" in the sense of a "line of credit", but "credit" in the sense of "increased the amount held in their account" -- the banks, if they so desired, could ask the Fed to deliver, as cash, the money held in reserves, so long as they upheld their reserve requirements at the same time, and the Fed would have, by law, been forced to instruct the Treasury to deliver the specie.
Of course, the plan was that the troubled assets would be purchased by the Fed, an sold in a non-firesale fashion, and cancelled against the increase in the money used to cancel that out, to return the held reserves back to the trendline that predated Congress had instructed, through TARP, the Fed to purchase "troubled assets" and had authorized amounts, but the Fed ignored those instructions and restrictions entirely and purchased none of the troubled assets, instead bolstering the reserves through the standard open market operations, and later, through quantitative easing, which is just an acceleration of the standard open market operations, with the purpose of creating enough inflation to allow the economy to recover.
But that inflation didn't happen still hasn't happened for reasons that literally no person on earth can explain. Then the Fed did some balance sheet gymnastics mark-to-market is a glorious thing to show that all the TARP funds had been repaid with interest! Nobody likes "consumer price inflation can't happen if rich people steal all the money before consumers can spend it" as a theory?
Sure, but all of this is still entirely possible to do with Bitcoin instead of dollars is my point. Yes, but it could remove the need to bail out the banks, which is really the crux of the issue when you get down to it. The banks are, literally, too big to [be allowed to] fail. Cryptocurrencies could eventually remove enough power from banks to render their failure absorbable by the global economy. Granted, I find it very unlikely that any cryptocurrency could remove the need for banks in general - they fill too many roles in the financial system - but it could reduce the market's reliance on them in general.
There's a lot of "could"s in all of this and I'm not an economist myself, so, grain of salt and all that. I will say that this is all based on things I've read from people that are, to the best of my knowledge, actual economists, but you should do your own research if such a thing interests you.
Well look at it from this perspective: But I think you may not have fully investigated your assumptions about what makes a bank TBTF and what it means to be "bailed out. My assumptions about being bailed out are that it comes down to CB's inflating the currency supply to aquire assets that burden some privileged actors balance sheets.
And what it means to not be bailed out means to pay more on ones mortgage than market value of such asset. To take the biggest example, AIG's owners did bear the consequences. Their equity was wiped out in the bailout. Do you believe individuals who did business with AIG are the ones who should have born the consequences for bad decisions made by the owners of AIG?
And as for bearing the consequences, we simply do not have the capacity within the rule of law to make them bear the consequences. The people who made the decisions were extremely well compensated even outside of equity up until the moment when the house of cards came crashing down, and those people have now moved on to equally lucrative jobs -- hell, they can probably put on their resume that they managed to convince the government to give them billions of dollars to cover their asses, which is more than anyone else gets when their bad decisions come home to roost.
Without the bailouts there would at least be grounds to sue the individuals who created the situation when things unwound, because there would have been consequences. I'm getting a little up in arms here because nothing triggers me more than the idea that macroeconomics is a science -- all the actions around the bailouts, and this narrative of "economic collapse" and "too big to fail" -- the same people who disastrously failed to predict the future before we're now trusting to predict the future.
Einstein said in response to the fact that hundreds of scientists thought his theory was wrong by saying "if I were wrong, one would be enough". In economics, nobody would even consider their models to be incorrect, no matter how much they have been falsified.
The vast majority of people who did business with AIG had nothing to do with subprime. Your whole answer seems to assume that the consequences of AIG going bankrupt could have been neatly contained the subset of their business that caused the problem. No, it would not have been neat.
It would have been incredibly messy. Their life insurance in particular, was mostly shielded by statute, but the remainder of their business would have been fair game -- that would have had wide-reaching implications, both in and out of the financial sector. The collapse of major investment banks that would have inevitably followed would result in many companies not being able to make payroll.
That would have exacerbated the already existing problems with the real estate market collapsing, as meeting payment obligations would be more difficult for people, further depressing the values of mortgage-backed securities, as financial companies would have sought to mitigate their losses and cover their reserve and capitalization requirements by selling things at firesale prices.
It would have been a disaster of epic proportions. Would it have been worse than what happened? I don't know -- and neither do the economists who insisted on action. As it was, innumerable businesses not at the scale of AIG were left in the cold to collapse without billions of dollars of free money, and, more significantly in my view, institutions and well-capitalized individuals who correctly predicted the collapse of the market would have been well-positioned to use their assets to buy up undervalued assets including home mortgages, which, if purchased at fire sale prices, would have made decisions about de-valuing the loans easy, because the effective yields would have been so much higher.
The real question is why shouldn't they? It all comes down to moral hazard and lack of due diligence really. Unless you end mortgages entirely, there is always the risk of a property crisis spreading to lenders. You are correct that the activity that led to all financial crises will not be mitigated in the domain of national currencies. It will be avoided in decentralized money that is uncorrelated, like gold.
Your concept of decentralization is off. The purpose of it is this: How many points of failure are there? How many of these points can break before the cards all fall? If this happens, who pays for it? This illustrates that the USD is not decentralized.
Cryptocurrency is an exit from this, much like gold or real estate or other investment vehicles. Cryptocurrency is available to anyone with a phone and internet access -- that cannot be said for any other investment vehicle.
This will take the wind out of the sails of financial institutions as there is another option for people. Switching to cryptocurrency actually makes the problems worse, because instead of regulated entities calling the shots, we have an oligarchy of ASIC-armed miners calling the shots. Between the two evils, any sane person would rather trust a regulated business than some folks who prefer to hide in the shadows. Possibly, but the space requirements for crypto shouldn't be underestimated.
I think Satoshi kept 1MB blocks because he realized it would quickly become untenable for most people to run full nodes. ETH has similar problems. What does the end game for this situation look like?
Will people just create Bitcoin Zero, which is identical to Bitcoin but preallocates the existing coins starting from the genesis block? A manual GC, as it were. Otherwise it seems like crypto will be around years from now, but probably not BTC. At least not in a form where non-miners can participate. Have you ever done wire transfer? As far as I can tell, crypto currencies have simply become new fuel for greed thus far, and the result will likely be the same.
A cure for centralized currency! The USD is one of the most centralized currencies in the world. Just because everyone has some does not mean its decentralized. It is still minted and distributed through centralized silos owned by the government, and policy enacted by the government ON the currency is still effective.
JumpCrisscross 18 days ago. Cash settlement is also, if done physically, a totally de-centralised transaction mode. In modern systems money can be created by banks lending money. That's an interesting property as money creation is tied to the course of the economy. However, this can lead to inflation if the amount of money created actually exceeds the growth in economic activity.
In the gold standard model where the amount of money is completely uncorrelated with economic activity, you have inherent deflation. Deflation is a serious threat, as it pushed people to hold onto their currency as the real value automatically rises instead of spending or investing it. Bitcoin is really a digital gold standard.
There is no way that a gold standard currency can support a growing economy efficiently. Why would people not invest or spend for that matter? It's not like people wouldn't take deflation into account the same way they do with inflation today. Not like its some complicated formula that starts off with "thar be dragons. As a contemporary example why would anyone buy a computer today when they know that in the near future they can get a better model for less?
The whole computer industry thrives in a price deflationary sector of the economy. Whenever someone is trying to push one economic theory over another the key question you need to ask is cui bono.
People will still invest, but risk tolerance goes way down and ROI expectations go way up. Place yourself in the shoes of a person seeking investment in a productive business, and the problems with a deflationary economy become obvious. Being good isn't enough. You have to be better than "sit on my ass and get rich doing nothing". In other words, the primary concern in a deflationary economy is discouraging value-producing economic activity. Also, all of this is wrt deflation in general. Notice that a fiat currency can easily be deflationary.
The deflationary nature of gold standards is a major component of the criticism of gold standards, but there are also other reasons that people oppose gold standards. People still buy computers because having a computer today helps capture value that you can't capture by having a better computer tomorrow. For consumers, entertainment tonight.
For businesses, automating processes today. That's not quite fair. There are people motivated by truth and there are also people motivated by ideology. I wasn't singling out anyone in particular just the whole 'deflation is the debil' theory. Wouldn't the deflationary economy only discourage investment in the least value-producing economic activity? Jtsummers 18 days ago. You buy the computer when you need the computer. No one buys or no one with any sense a computer today if they won't be turning it on for a year.
In an inflationary economy you are motivated to spend the money early, rather than late. And as buyers predominantly drive the economy and not sellers, this keeps things moving at a reasonable tempo barring extreme inflation. In a deflationary economy you are motivated to spend the money later. And, again, as buyers drive the economy more than sellers, this slows the pace of the economy.
The borrower gets shafted, they're paying back much more than the property is worth by the end of the loan even worse than under inflation. However, while buyers get to drive much of the economy compared to sellers, lenders have control of the capital and are in a better position to set the terms than borrowers.
So under deflation buyers are doing fine, lenders are doing better than now, sellers are meh, and borrowers are screwed. It is very difficult for seller to force a sale. The buyer almost always has a choice. Now, the seller can set the price but as they want to remain profitable they can only push it so high before they lose sales to competitors who recognize the opportunity to undercut and remain profitable.
But this isn't a general rule for other goods and services so they have to devalue the currency to encourage people to not save? Because monetary inflation is basically a tax on savers. Which is why they would adjust the interest rate to take deflation into account. I can see this argument in today's economy since inflation is built into everyone's calculations and borrowers would be hurt if they couldn't rely on inflationary pressure to adjust the interest rate downward but that doesn't prove that deflation is inherently bad, only that people are capable of long-term economic calculation.
Lending dynamics are different in a gold standard economy, with a fixed amount of currency, because banks do not have leverage on lending. The rest is new money. With a fixed money supply, banks can't do that. You divide by 10 the amount of money available to lend.
In a gold standard economy, money supply available for financing is much, much more restricted. The modern economy is a constant bet on future economic growth. Failed bets translate into inflation on a macro-scale, and painful leveraged losses for banks on a micro-scale. With fixed money supply, you cannot bet at all and potential growth is, by definition, much slower. The fact that our work -- moving bits around -- produces so much economic value is an epitome of everything that's wrong with a gold standard.
That comment was a reference to the fact that money itself operates on belief systems and motivations that are distributed and decentralized. Fiat currency is the definition of centralized currency. Please define what you mean by Centralized and Decentralized. I believe you and the OP are talking at cross purposes. I'm realizing now that we need to be much more precise when we talk about centralization of currencies to have meaningful discussion.
I believe the standard definition of centralized vs. Is it centralized in the sense that a single organism can exert more control than anyone else on the real value of the USD by printing more? Kind of, though in some sense the value of a dollar is a matter of consensus, relative to the consensus value of other currencies and assets, as determined by exchanges.
Modifying interest rate and money supply try to change the denominator, but value is technically preserved. It really depends what you mean by that. If you compare it to currency in a game which can be removed with a bug that sets a few bits then USD it's quite decentralized in some respects. I disagree, I think that the federal reserve's artificially low interest rates and essentially unlimited supply of money for the banks to loan out at these interest rates were at the heart of the most recent financial crisis in the US.
A decentralized currency would certainly mitigate that. The heart of the crisis is people believing they can easily make money by investing in a product they don't understand. And they will be even more screwed as nobody will print cash to cover or limit their losses. The rest of us who weren't stupid enough to do that shouldn't be forced to cover their losses. What you are describing is a moral hazard. A situation where people will take risks they wouldn't normally take because they know they will be bailed out if they lose money.
What exactly do you mean by 'artificially low'? All short term rates are just a function of central bank policy. The bank will raise or lower rates in an attempt to control inflation and any other mandate. It's been a long time since short rates were set by market forces. And the financial system wasn't particularly stable then either. DOGE is a pretty good currency to use for moving money between exchanges.
GitHub is where people build software. More than 27 million people use GitHub to discover, fork, and contribute to over 77 million projects. A wearebeachhouse.com DogeCoin Client! DogeCoin. node-dogecoin is a Dogecoin client for wearebeachhouse.com It is a fork of the excellent Kapitalize Bitcoin Client (now removed from GitHub) intended for use with Dogecoin. The purpose of this repository is: Provide a one-stop resource for the wearebeachhouse.com developer to get started with Dogecoin. dogecoin-gatewayd-plugin. Three unix processes designed to automate the integration between a ripple gateway using gatewayd and a dogecoind server. published 3 years ago by stevenzeiler.