HN user
So interesting how your conclusion (which I strongly agree) is a bit of knowledge that can be obtained with diligence and research, however, it's a limitation of Bitcoin that it requires that level of diligence and research to understand.
What are your thoughts on requiring payment to participate as a way to reduce spam? I realize that in this particular context payment could prevent participation for some, however, are there other reasons why payment would be ineffective?
I'm guessing emotional pre-prompts are difficult. The current offerings like ElevenLabs and WellSaidLabs provide amazing voices for narration but lack any way to change the emotions (e.g. happy, angry, excited, etc.). I wonder what are the technical hurdles to adding this variability?
The interface is great. Did you create the front-end/back-end from scratch?
I was struck by how close a Bugs Life and Ants movie flying scenes was to this video.
His reference to David Graeber led me to 5 Types of BS Jobs https://youtu.be/utdDB10usZg which seems spectacularly on point.
If the "Dev Team" upped the number of coins it would be a fork, none of the existing nodes would accept it.
What does a fraudulent bank have to do with the fact that the FR is the ultimate backstop to loans (IOUs) created by a bank...a "power" you claim is the same as a non-bank created IOU or a an individual IOU? Further not sure how your example refutes my previous reply's accuracy, regardless, if a bank makes a bunch of fraudulent loans adding up to a Trillion dollars and it isn't discovered until those loans are cross-collateralized sufficiently to cause systemic risk, you can bet the FR will back those loans. Finally, given a bit of time a single Trillion dollar loan may not seem as large as it does now. :)
Deposit insurance is a fundamental difference between bank IOUs and non-bank IOUs.
Deposit insurance is a fundamental difference but it's not the main difference. Individuals and most non-banks don't have access to Federal Reserve accounts and therefore access to reserves. The main distinction between a bank and a non-bank is the ability to create IOUs ultimately backed by reserves (whether they have sufficient amounts or not) which can only be created by the FR (and in this context) to back a bad IOU. Whether the new reserves go directly to backing up the IOU or indirectly via added liquidity is irrelevant. A bank can create a misguided IOU that defaults, which if too big to fail, is a liability that the FR and thus all holders of the IOUs, cash, and reserves must bear.
"and buying assets at market rates."
Without sarcasm, given the latest purchases of assets beyond Treasuries and MBS, why do you think the Federal Reserve has purchased assets at market rates?
Even, even better that "central bank" could choose winners and losers providing credit to certain participants eliminating the need for petty "price discovery" and creating a system where 20.5 million people can lose their job on the same day something called "the stock market" goes up 400 points...a pure "stable" utopia!
Not challenging your assertion, however, what doesn't he understand about how the Federal Reserve works?
Completely agree, most texts concentrate on teaching outdated fractional reserve based monetary systems. Fractional reserves are no longer the major constraint on an expanding/contracting money supply. This course builds up an understanding of the push/pull factors of modern finance and banking.
I'm reminded of this thread The FCC Has Fined Robocallers $208M, Collected $6,790 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21492782.
Enforce collection of the fines in the first place would be a good start.
Clearly you could read the headline as sensational. However, if you look at the fed balance sheet, it has increased significantly recently. [1] The increase in the balance sheet has been in overnight or short term repos. The question remains whether this will result in a longer term FR policy. That is, even though the maturity of the loans are overnight, if the policy remains for years than the cumulative effect is that the the longer term balance sheet has increased.
The content is amazing. Concentration, insomnia, etc.
Is it difficult to build systems?
Three data points:
Fed Balance Sheet https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WALCL Fed Balance Sheet hasn't been reduced in any meaningful way.
Bank credit: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TOTBKCR Bank's have themselves continued increasing the money supply.
Worldwide debt: https://www.iif.com/publication/global-debt-monitor/global-d... Random snippet from Q32017
The Future of Film? I love Netflix, however, isn't the jury still out if their pricing model is sustainable given their debt issuance?
You raise an interesting argument, however, doesn't the good outweigh the potential negatives (e.g. the kids that will be inspired to learn science from seeing this)?
The booster landings were incredible, however, the initial shot of it clearing the pad looked like a scifi movie intro.
Do you mean that it's not "a real thing" because some banks are not limited to loans amounts within reserve requirements?
Isn't it a central bank-centric issue?
Think of currencies as placeholders of value. When you work you create value and unless you want to trade that value directly for an asset that isn't a currency (think barter) you exchange the value for a currency. The currency acts as a placeholder for the value you created. One of currency's attributes is it's easy to divide into equal units. These units then become the "price" of your work. The currency makes it easy to compare units are prices of any other asset. So you can compare how much you want to charge for your work by comparing the units of currency across other stuff (e.g. cars, rent, food, etc.). Not all assets make good potential currency. Think of comparing televisions priced in houses. The Sony is 1/10000 of Alice’s house, the Visio is 1/100000 of Bill’s house, etc.
Currencies are just another asset with some additional properties. The most important additional property is that people are willing to exchange it for any other asset. The point at which an asset crosses over to the currency or medium of exchange is elusive.
The paradox is, a modern society needs currency in order to function (barter doesn’t work because of the double coincidence of wants), however, determining when to add/subtract currency (i.e. the money supply) from the world is imperfect. So the question is, how do you do this where all participants are treated the same?
The US dollar’s money supply is managed via lending. That is, currency is lent into existence. This methodology is extremely flexible through the use of inflation and generally depends upon prices going up, however, it’s not a panacea. If loans are not collateralized “fairly” then a bank's special ability to create loans in this closed system can harm everyone that holds dollars.
Currently, the Bitcoin money supply is managed through mining up to a finite number of Bitcoins. This is considered deflationary and has the potential downside of everyone holding Bitcoins and prices going down.
Bitcoin, imho, is not a currency because it isn’t used as a medium of exchange, yet or maybe never. However, it is a store of value (not saying it’s a good or bad store of value) with a limited supply. In time, we’ll learn whether that in and of itself is useful and therefore justifies the price or just a speculative bubble.
Not advocating for or against the fed or advocating for or against crypto currency but instead attempting to answer your three main questions.
What do you think the Fed was attempting to do? The Fed was attempting to save a system from complete collapse.
it sounds like you are advocating there be no way for an agency of a democratic government to dynamically adjust money supply (or interest rates)
This is the crux of the problem. Modern societies need currency and yet the management of the supply of that currency that is equitable to all participants remains illusive.
Say north korea suddenly waged total was on US, or a massive natural disaster happens, but the government didnt have huge reserves of money to pay for defense or aid?
The government would use its existing resources, any reserves they put aside for this type of contingency or they could borrow (e.g. bonds) the necessary funds.
Simultaneously they are banning all non-autonomous cars.
A medium of exchange is usually an asset that can be exchanged for any other asset. It's not that bitcoin can't be a medium of exchange, it just isn't one yet.
Seems like terminology is what causes a bunch of the confusion.
Bitcoin is used synonymously with ICOs. Bitcoin vs. Ethereum and the ICOs that spawn from it are not the same.
Bitcoin is continually referred to as a currency...and it might be or become one but what it seems to be now is just another financial asset. That is, a thing that acts as a storehouse of value like any other tangible or intangible asset. Whether Bitcoin is a good or bad storehouse of value remains to be seen. But mixing terminology confuses the issue.
[1] Federal Reserve Economic Data (charting) - Treasure trove of data.
[2] Balance sheet of the fed
[3] Access to all the flows of the US Money System
[4] Monthly Treasury Statement (MTS) - The Bank money flows of all accounts of the US Government
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/
[2] https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/
[3] https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/
[4] https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/mthTreasStmt/b...
I recommend Perry G Mehrling [Columbia], (free) course on coursera [1] called Economics of Money and Banking. It provides a great context for how the current monetary system works. This context helps a bunch when comparing it to crypto.
[1] https://www.coursera.org/learn/money-banking/home/welcome
Not saying this is true, however, I believe the fear of deflation on the "non-shrinking money supply" is that if the money supply doesn't expand beyond a certain point (e.g. bitcoin 21M limit), folks will horde the medium of exchange instead of spending it. With less demand for goods because no medium of exchange to purchase it, prices drop.
Caveat: this presupposes that Bitcoin will become a medium of exchange.