Re: [Bitcoin-development] Monetary Authority for Bitcoin

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>]

It is simpler than that; simple numbers.  Bitcoin is volatile right
now, not for fundamental architecture reasons, but for reasons why
many other small issues are volatile.  Low liquidity and a small issue
implies that a single big player can easily the move the market.
Further, it is volatile because common financial tools available
elsewhere -- shorting, futures/options, etc. -- are not widely and
easily available.

None of these factors are special or specific to bitcoin.  See
http://garzikrants.blogspot.com/2013/11/solution-to-bitcoin-volatility.html

However, this is getting WAY off-topic for a development mailing list.

Ryan successfully trolled the list.  Let's not further feed the trolls.


On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Baz <bk@thinkloop.com> wrote:
> Bitcoin's volatility is not a symptom of its architecture, but a reflection
> of the collective knowledge of its future acceptance. Currently that
> knowledge is based on very volatile sources: how some senator feels about it
> this morning, which direction departments in the Chinese government are
> leaning. The issue is that proof-of-work is missing from society's end. As
> time goes on, laws, regulations and policies will start to form, people will
> challenge them, they will be reviewed and updated, they will be challenged
> again on different grounds, re-reviewed, and so on. Each of those
> confirmations will make it that much harder to change earlier confirmations.
> It won't matter anymore what some senator thinks this morning because she
> will have months of hard-work ahead of her before she can affect any change.
> It also doesn't matter if the rulings are positive or negative, just having
> them will add stability to Bitcoin at some value between $0.0001 to $100,000
> per coin.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Jorge Timón <jtimon@monetize.io> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/10/13, Ryan Carboni <ryan.jc.pc@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > You're just closed minded.
>>
>> No, at least to persons have explained you why your proposal is not
>> feasible.
>> If you wanted to learn, you would have made questions on why those
>> parts of your proposal are unfeasible.
>> There have been many proposals about "stablecoins" in bitcointalk and
>> other forums (for example, the "initial proposals" freicoin subforum).
>> I have participated in several of them trying to find a solution and
>> I'm now convinced that this is impossible to implement in a secure AND
>> P2P system.
>>
>> This is off-topic for this forum, specially if (as you've shown to us)
>> you are not interested in learning why this proposal is unfeasible.
>>
>> --
>> Jorge Timón
>>
>> http://freico.in/
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Sponsored by Intel(R) XDK
>> Develop, test and display web and hybrid apps with a single code base.
>> Download it for free now!
>>
>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=111408631&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>



-- 
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/