166
Technical Support / Re: Balance missing because of old wallet file
« on: October 04, 2014, 11:11:38 am »
Hi Vikram, just an update - no change yet with wallet_regenerate_keys within 0.4.20
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
168
General Discussion / What defines our lives today
« on: September 30, 2014, 11:14:01 pm »
Just a reminder to ourselves of which technologies are so self evident nowdays which didn't exist or weren't widespread a while ago... Please feel free to add stuff and precision - sorry this post is just a rough sketch as I am traveling... Most of these became $100bn+ worth businesses at some point.
Time since major breakthrough adoption
~10 years: social networking, navigation systems, 3D printers, LEDs, flat screen TV, ETF, drones
~20 years: laser surgery, internet/email, mobile phones, asset-backed securities, credit cards
~30 years: MRI, PC, CD recordings, microwave
~40 years: stock options, washing machines
~50 years: space travel, rock'n'roll
~60 years: atomic weapons, television, arthroscopic surgery, containerization
~70 years: telephone, tanks
~80 years: aircraft, automatic weapons, motorways
~90 years: radio
~100 years: car, electricity, subway, x-ray
~150 years: railway
Time since major breakthrough adoption
~10 years: social networking, navigation systems, 3D printers, LEDs, flat screen TV, ETF, drones
~20 years: laser surgery, internet/email, mobile phones, asset-backed securities, credit cards
~30 years: MRI, PC, CD recordings, microwave
~40 years: stock options, washing machines
~50 years: space travel, rock'n'roll
~60 years: atomic weapons, television, arthroscopic surgery, containerization
~70 years: telephone, tanks
~80 years: aircraft, automatic weapons, motorways
~90 years: radio
~100 years: car, electricity, subway, x-ray
~150 years: railway
169
General Discussion / Re: BTSX vs. bitAssets market cap
« on: September 30, 2014, 07:20:39 pm »
At what P/E are Google, Apple and the likes, are running nowadays? ... I will not ask about Facebook...?
Why do some companies have higher P/E than others? Perhaps because of expected EPS growth? I am not talking of 200 P/E of a startup, but of a somewhat matured DAC at $3trn market cap. So are you saying BTSX would potentially /theoretically generate $150bn of profits p.a. with 150bn bitUSD and $150bn worth of bitCNY outstanding? Or that at 3trn market cap it should be expected that BTSX market cap becomes $30trn to enable $150bn profits?
Or, perhaps, that profits don't really matter at such stage as bitAssets would be replacing current financial system anyway...
170
General Discussion / Re: BTSX vs. bitAssets market cap
« on: September 30, 2014, 07:04:46 pm »
Since you have started the research... the whole Fed balance sheet covers how many of the S&P 500 (top down) ?
Okay, around top 10... How much profit do these top 10 then generate? at 20 P/E roughly $150bn p.a....
~ as much profit as the entire bitUSD stock in circulation is then worth?
171
General Discussion / Re: BTSX vs. bitAssets market cap
« on: September 30, 2014, 06:46:00 pm »Demand for BitAssets will drive demand for BTSX and the market cap of the BTSX held in collateral will equal 2x or more the value of all bitAssets at all times. However, I suspect that only 30% of BTSX holders will want to risk leveraging up, and they will only tie up 2/3's of their BTSX as collateral (requiring 1/3 of their stake to cover their position). So this means that the value of all BitAssets will be backed by just 20% of all BTSX.
If there is demand for 300 Billion bitUSD then BTSX will be worth 1.5 trillion and only 20% of the capital will be "tied up" as collateral.
Unreasonable you say... I don't see why.
- at $1.5trn market cap, assuming 30% of BTSX holders issue bitUSD collateralised by 2/3 of their stakes, means $300bn worth of BTSX collateral, backing $150bn bitUSD... or am I mistaking?
- how much could $150bn bitUSD generate in trading fees? If it was a very actively traded stock like apple, then annual turnover ~ 10xmarket cap magnitude. at retail 0.1% trading fee this would give 1.5bn annual profit...
- how much could $150bn bitUSD generate in txs fees? E.g. VISA proccesses ~$4trn txs volume p.a., resulting in gross profit of ~ $10bn and supporting the market cap of $130bn. Well, perhaps it is quite possible to achieve 4trn bitUSD txs volume p.a. with a stock of 150bn. Perhaps 50bn of them will sit idle as investment, but the other 100bn could easily get turned over 40 times per year... Okay, let it be 100 times x 100bn = 10trn txs volume. But how much is then income from processing fees? It should be a tiny fraction of credit and debit cards? (the velocity of money supply for remittance transactions aka Western Union will be much smaller, so 150bn bitUSD stock would be able to support much lesser txs volume even at higher fees). So I would roughly guess some $6bn profit is perhaps an order of magnitude for BTSX then.
- Thus at my very rough assumptios trading + payment fees for 150bn stock of bitUSD would be around $7.5bn p.a. => BTSX P/E ~ 400 / edit: 200 /at market cap of $3trn / edit: $1.5trn / required for that... well, then a profitable DAC should perhaps have a reasonable P/E of 400 /edit: 200/?
Another question is BM says that demand for bitUSD will drive BTSX market value - agree with that. Still, BTSX market cap has to be paid for with USD. For producing 150bn bitUSD, the entire /edit: 50% of/ FED balance sheet would be required to be paid for BTSX market cap. In a similar fashion, (-> OldMan) for issuing $150bn worth of bitCNY, all / edit: 50% of/ FX reserves of People's Republic of China would be required for an extra BTSX capitalization. Ultimately, for issuing $750bn worth of bitAssets (incl. BitEUR, bit GLD, ..., etc), the entire / edit: 50% of / market capitalization of S&P 500 ~ /edit: 50% of / annual US GDP would have to be invested into capitalization of BTSX... Well so should it be, why not?
172
General Discussion / BTSX vs. bitAssets market cap
« on: September 30, 2014, 08:16:47 am »
Guys did you sometimes think of BTSX along the following (simplified) lines -
We take 300 bn USD which can be used for payments, consumption, investments, decoration... And we tie them up into BTSX market cap in order to create max. 100 bn bitUSD (incl. other bitAssets) which more efficiently serve similar purposes, apart from decoration.
- Is the gain in efficiency worth removing 2/3 of capital out of circulation?
- Would 1/3 generate trading and transfer fees sufficient for supporting BTSX market cap based on reasonable P/E?
- Is there any plan to become flexible on 200% reserve towards fractional?
I just realised that comparing BTSX to stock exchanges etc. could be misleading because of the limit on bitAssets market cap imposed by BTSX market cap combined with 200% reserve requirement. And I can't honestly imagine BTSX market value into trillions even at ultimate saturation. Imho innovation shouldn't defy common sense.
Thanks.
We take 300 bn USD which can be used for payments, consumption, investments, decoration... And we tie them up into BTSX market cap in order to create max. 100 bn bitUSD (incl. other bitAssets) which more efficiently serve similar purposes, apart from decoration.
- Is the gain in efficiency worth removing 2/3 of capital out of circulation?
- Would 1/3 generate trading and transfer fees sufficient for supporting BTSX market cap based on reasonable P/E?
- Is there any plan to become flexible on 200% reserve towards fractional?
I just realised that comparing BTSX to stock exchanges etc. could be misleading because of the limit on bitAssets market cap imposed by BTSX market cap combined with 200% reserve requirement. And I can't honestly imagine BTSX market value into trillions even at ultimate saturation. Imho innovation shouldn't defy common sense.
Thanks.
173
Technical Support / Re: Balance missing because of old wallet file
« on: September 30, 2014, 07:00:21 am »
Sounds promising! Appreciate Vikram fixing that, and Xeroc staying on the case. hoping for the resolution of market transactions to uknown and missing BTSX and bitUSD balances with the next release. ☺
174
Technical Support / Re: !!! Stupid Questions Thread !!!
« on: September 28, 2014, 07:57:28 pm »
BitsharesFashion for fashion designers in a similar way as BitsharesMusic for artists...
175
General Discussion / Re: Aren't BitAssets sort of like naked short selling?
« on: September 27, 2014, 09:30:43 pm »velocity of money is the result of low demand to hold.... it does not create a low demand to hold.
agree with that -> velocity is symptomatic of low demand to hold - my original statement was inconclusive
inflation is a supply driven event.
hyperinflation is a demand driven event... ie demand to hold goes to 0.
High velocity is the result of hyperinflation loss of demand while the currency is still a unit of account and used in trade. You must buy/sell with it so you get "in and out" as quickly as you can to avoid losses from holding.
You can have high velocity of trades with increasing demand in an economy that is very dynamic with low transaction cost overhead
-> is this our best hope for the role of bitUSD in the crypto economy?
Thanks date peg doe for your providing detailed reference, very informative!
Thanks BM!
Perhaps somewhat clearer what I mean is simply that the act of issuing bitUSD is not impacting on money supply/velocity one-way. That depends on how much BTSX is being used for payments as a currency itself (who knows it might become payments means), and on whether bitUSD is being issued for transaction or for investment purpose in that particular case...
176
General Discussion / Re: Aren't BitAssets sort of like naked short selling?
« on: September 27, 2014, 09:10:53 pm »
Not sure I even recall what was taught at school ^lol^
I am just watching massively blown 4trn FED balance sheet with almost no inflationary pressures. As printed money is not being spent, just sitting at banks and contributing to asset bubbling... I am definitely not an expert on deflationary money, apologies.
I am just watching massively blown 4trn FED balance sheet with almost no inflationary pressures. As printed money is not being spent, just sitting at banks and contributing to asset bubbling... I am definitely not an expert on deflationary money, apologies.
177
General Discussion / Re: Aren't BitAssets sort of like naked short selling?
« on: September 27, 2014, 08:37:12 pm »
Interesting theoretical thread, but let's get closer to real. Assuming rather optimistic $100bn market cap for BTSX within next 5-10 years, under 200% reserve policy there is unlikely to be more than 20bn bitUSD flying around. That's like money supply created by rather small regional bank by lending $200k each to 100k local homebuyers. Systematically not as relevant for the FED to get worried. Ultimately later on, FED would integrate bitUSD into measuring money supply, but in that case all of you would be so rich that you might not care... ^^
With regards to whether bitUSD creates downward pressure on USD, I sense Xeldal's and fussyhands' arguments need synthesis. The more often existing USD or bitUSD changing hands, the higher inflationary pressure...
If by tying up 2xBTSX a bitUSD is created that is turning over more often than 2×BTSX, then it's increasing money supply and its velocity. If bitUSD is then sitting in your wallet for yield purposes, that shouldn't count as money supply increase. The downward pressure on USD depends both on USD amount in circulation and its turnover velocity. If all existing paper USD are hidden under matresses, demand is great. If all USD are spent immediately by all actors, then demand for paper USD can be easily satisfied...
With regards to whether bitUSD creates downward pressure on USD, I sense Xeldal's and fussyhands' arguments need synthesis. The more often existing USD or bitUSD changing hands, the higher inflationary pressure...
If by tying up 2xBTSX a bitUSD is created that is turning over more often than 2×BTSX, then it's increasing money supply and its velocity. If bitUSD is then sitting in your wallet for yield purposes, that shouldn't count as money supply increase. The downward pressure on USD depends both on USD amount in circulation and its turnover velocity. If all existing paper USD are hidden under matresses, demand is great. If all USD are spent immediately by all actors, then demand for paper USD can be easily satisfied...
178
General Discussion / Re: Legality of Prediction Markets and Dacs
« on: September 27, 2014, 08:11:53 am »here is some interesting thinking from the bitcointalk forum:
Re: Why Bitcoin is doomed to fail, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Today at 06:12:19 PM
If you are interested about how to bypass government, consider this. The constitution, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 has a statement in it that says: "No State shall ... make any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts ..." The Federal Government has been adjudicated to be a state. See: Enright v. U.S., D.C.N.Y., 437 F.Supp. 580, 581.
Here's what to get pushed through the courts. Form contracts for any business that you do with other people. Let the contracts invoke the above Article 1 wording along with wording stating that it is the intent of the contract and the parties to the contract that no state laws apply except upon an explicit allowance by the parties to the contract that they are accepting certain stated laws. Throw in the wording that the Federal Government is a state. Say, also, that not answering a challenge by some some state authority in no way waives any part of the contract.
Apply the above with enumerations of specific laws that you do not want to apply to the contract or the parties thereof - IRS taxation, and business licensing, for example.
Doing this will make your Bitcoin transacting to match your terms and not government terms.
Smiley
This is a wonderful strategy and mirrors what I have been talking about at the conference: the post-contract society. Eliminate contracts from every interaction you engage in and the government loses all jurisdiction over the agreement. It no longer becomes a security, etc.
This I think is wishful thinking. It might not be a security but it's still going to be seen as barter or something else. They will find a way to tax and regulate our activities. If we do a good job regulating ourselves and discouraging activities which require or attract government interest then that is a better strategy.
I don't think playing lawyer is a very effective strategy but I think if you design Bitshares to be self regulating, and if it's designed to be safer than the real world counterparts in many ways, then when its time for the government to come up with crypto specific regulations they will have less excuses to regulate.
Mt Gox gives them an excuse to try and protect customers. The Bitcoin community allowed Mt Gox to become so centralized and didn't take fraud or scams seriously. This is because programmers simply don't seem to care about those issues. Taxes are another issue most programmers don't seem to care about, but it doesn't change the fact that users will have to pay taxes in some form and if its made easier to report taxes then the community is at least encouraging compliance.
There will certainly be regulations and taxes, we just want the least disruptive regulations and lowest tax rates.
time to create self-regulation task force?
179
General Discussion / Re: An open letter to Tonyk
« on: September 27, 2014, 07:26:13 am »
. I will try to be more teaching then insulting
Tonyk, would you also consider first insulting, just to get over it, and thEn more teaching?
I really did not get that.
Come on, I was just hoping to make you laugh at yourself for mixing up thEn and thAn at thEt particular point...
Actually - I am learning to appreciate your unique sense of humor and intelligent comments throughout the whole forum more and more by now, please keep going, very delightful!
180
General Discussion / Re: An open letter to Tonyk
« on: September 27, 2014, 07:03:53 am »
. I will try to be more teaching then insulting
Tonyk, would you also consider first insulting, just to get over it, and thEn more teaching?
