Jetrpg22

The "Negative Outcomes: Poverty" links are broken.

Here is a pretty large analysis of the topic of bad and good fats http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1846638#tab10Div I believe other links may have referenced this work but this is study itself.

Because as of currently most bitcoins are not used as a commodity/currency (for its own use or for the exchange of goods) but as a investment on speculated future value. Thus baked in to their current value is the possibility of future retail use. But that is despite the point, if "I also think the value of bitcoin would go up tremendously if it was adopted by retailers" is true then a ban would make bitcoins worth less then they would be. Stefan's position was the opposite in the call. "So it certainly limits the potential value to people, but that's not what Jetrpg is arguing." PS that is what i am arguing with the caveat that current bitcoin prices reflect, to a degree, speculated future value. Thanks for all the input.

In the same way that i cannot go to my local supermarket and buy a lb of cocaine, the same way that the feds inhibit the ease of trading pedophilia based porn, the same way in that i can no longer go to a retail store and buy a three wheeler, and etc. The same way in which a store will not accept say British lb.s thus inside the us its useless as a currency (save the black market) but can still hold value. I believe i have outlined much of this already, if a bitcoin is high efficient because of the low cost of exchange, this cost is greatly increased by the threat of arrest, having to conduct oneself secretly, etc. Thats a direct impact to the cost effectiveness of a bitcoin (opportunity cost)... You can read above why this would impact speculated value (which is the major value of a bitcoin now). So without a ban i would be able to exchange in the above ways, go to walmart trade a fraction of a bitcoin for a shopping cart full of food. A ban would stop that interaction and i would require intermediaries and the like making it far more difficult to use bitcoin as a currency (and far less efficient). Well if i still didn't make it clear this is my failing. I'll end with saying it doesn't matter if bitcoins maintain their value better than another currency (that is not the argument), this issue addressed here is would a ban decrease the value of a bitcoin. I believe that i have argued well how it would (not that it would have no value, just less). If you disagree could you tell me why, because i don't understand the counterargument.

I wasn't going to go into this but i figured in the spirit of accuracy i will. They can; if a man points a gun at you and asks for your wallet you give it to them. If the gov. imprisons you and tells you to give them your account info you will. Its that simple, and exchanges well they can capture those also. If they take or delete the coins is up to them. One the supply is finite (we have not reached that limit yet but it is known). This is great for current holders as the value will greatly increase if usage become popular. However, you guys are still ignoring the point/function/value of a bitcoin. Its an intermediary for the use of the exchange of goods, anything that impedes that function, which a gov. ban 100% necessarily does, will decrease its utility and value to the consumer. As a result, a gov. ban HAS to decrease its value, its literally a tautology and formulaic. Listen to people talk of the positives of bitcoin, they are highly efficient to trade, dividable, etc and as soon as a ban is in place you impact bitcoins ease of trade and utility ... its inherent value (its value as a commodity). Now that doesn't mean that another currency will be so shit that the value of a bitcoin would suffer less loss of value in comparison, but nevertheless it would have been worth more had the ban not occurred. I seriously encourage some thought on this... i am not attempting to attack or besmirch bitcoins or anyone; i care about accuracy. I agree that banning it would again show the weakness of the dollar.. but it has never stopped the government. They have been banning gold based currencies for awhile now with no major issue, as well as, a plethora of other things.... no large amount of the population cares. The best thing we could do is get government officials invested in bitcoins they will protect our wealth is their wealth is right long side it

Thanks Cynicist for your reply. "It's not like bitcoin is exactly mainstream at the moment. For the vast majority of people it is useless today (as they have no idea how it works or how to use it) so I don't see how banning it would make the situation worse. Now if it were banned, that would increase its value for those currently using it. The utility of transferring money electronically with minimal transaction fees is huge. I think the only reason it's not bigger is that many people see it as a scam or a bubble. If the government were to ban it (like Russia did) that would be an affirmation that it is a disruptive technology and criminals would be even more into it than they already are. " You're correct in assessing that the users who currently hold bitcoin would not greatly be effect by a ban directly. And that is because the majority of current bitcoin holders hold them as a commodity investment. But anything that directly effects their future usefulness as a currency would make possible future value far lower thus lowering the current value (speculated future wealth) now. The issue is most people using bitcoin do not use it as a currency (to obtain and exchange goods) they use it to store wealth (as a commodity with future value). Because a ban would inhibit bitcoins actual ability to be used as a method of free exchange, people will react appropriately and value it correctly as less valuable (And it would because you have the threat of legal action, no local stores are going to take it, etc.). "All things being equal, but they never are. You should be comparing a banned bitcoin to the dollar. A ban won't stop individual transactions, currency transfer, value store, etc. As people watch the price of things in dollars going up and the price of things in a bitcoin black market going down, which do you think they will gravitate towards?" In the case of bitcoin, a ban would make the the possibility of the use of bitcoin to freely be used in exchange far less likely, easy, and safe while increasing the opportunity cost of its use with legal threats and less convenience Lets look at the example of a dollar, while the dollars value is being debased (inflation) it still maintains the same utility as a currency, the ability to use it to exchange goods has not been greatly altered (until you need wheelbarrows of it to buy stuff; so some lack of ability to store wealth). Now say china takes the US over and states, 'now you use the Won', the value of the dollar will plummet. This is because its not backed by any physical commodity (just as bitcoin is not) and assumptions of future value would be low indeed (the government supporting its value is now gone). The key for currencies is the question, "will i be able to exchange this thing for another thing"? Acting as if a government ban on bitcoins wouldn't decrease its value is not economically or logically sound. It doesn't function as say beds, medicine, or a drugs that all have uses other than for the purpose of exchange that people would demand them for; in which if these were banned, the prices would increase because the demand for the actual function of the good remains. Your stating that if bitcoins were made illegal, that no one would stop using them? Otherwise, it would inhibit individual transactions,becuase most people follow rules. I have read that 0.5% of bitcoins are used in the illicit drug trade, so i will assume that most bitcoins are not held by thugs, gangs, and black marketers. As for your second question, if they were allowed to freely exchange the bitcoin then people would be liekly to place their wealth in bitcoins to preserve their wealth. But in the case of a ban, future pleading aside, its not very useful when you cannot buy food with them, cannot go to the local car dealership, etc. Furthermore, if the gov. is seizing or destroying bitcoins when it can find them that is a threat of loss of wealth. "I haven't heard the call yet so I'll come back after I hear the arguments in more detail but they seem pretty weak at first glance." Well what do you think, am i still far off base? Also thanks to RagnarDanneskjold for your comments, i believe in my orginal and more in this post, I have argued why a currency's value maybe effected by bans differently whan other comodities and how that would interact with the current uses of it and its speculation of future value. I mean i don't know what would happen this is assumption based off of my economic understanding.

Hi Stefan and anyone who might be reading this, I am posting this regarding the The Art of Penis Negotiation show, and the Banning Bitcoin caller. I am not going to defend or reexamine all the points in the call but a basic reality of economics that Stefan might have missed. Stefan makes claims that a government ban would not decrease bitcoin value/price for a multitude of reasons but i feel they might miss the mark to a degree. The commodity of currency would be worth far less when its ability to freely be used as currency is hampered. Is this logical? If yes, then the caller is correct and not Stefan. Let me expound. Lets start with this analogy: if weed no longer got you high or it would take an entire 8-ball to feel a high, this would decrease the value of those drugs to consumers (thus decrease their value as a commodity). A result being, these drugs' profitability would plummet and divert interest to other alternatives (even if supply remained the same, its value or usefulness is lowered). If the drug is still useful (can still get you high MAnnnn), then when its price increases, its value doesn't. It cost more time/wealth to produce and procure and thus may divert interest to other drugs, but the drug would maintain the innate value of its use. Ex. I have $200 1 oz of weed it gets me this high, but then government makes it illegal. Prices increase the same 1oz of weed still gets me the same high but now costs $250. The vlaue of the drug to the consumer doesn't change the cost does So now lets do the same with bitcoin. The value of bitcoin is its stable supply, uses of currency in trade and exchange, easy of transfer, security of wealth, amongst other uses of similar nature. So if government makes it harder to use bitcoin by destroys wealth related to it (stealing/destroying some of it), banning its use at local and reputable stores, creating legal threat associated with usage, etc then that would destroy the value of a currency; this is its function. Unlike drugs whose function is a high etc. which restrictions of availability do not largely effect, Bit coins innate value as a medium of exchange would actually be decreased (it harder to use it to exchange wealth/value). In this it differs from most commodities, but is similar to any currency. Do to this Bitcoin would most definitely lose value unless a large percentage of a population chose to ignore government force... which is not a likely reality, currently. Ex. I have $900 in 1 bitcoin that i can freely exchange, but then the government bans it. Now i still have 1 bitcoin but far less people who will take it becuase i can no longer as freely exchange it and its value was debased by government stealing it. This would make that 1 bitcoin worth less than $900 dollars as the actuall usefulness (or possible future usefullness) to the consumer has been greatly decreased. This is my perspective from my understanding of human interaction, let me know what you guys think.

Its reads more like letting people take the land from undernearth you is a bad idea. Or maybe more to the point they were not anarchist but a minimalist form of goverbnment, in fact the article states as much. And then as the government / lord grew more powerful they just said all the land is ours and you may use it ... for a fee. Its fedulism based piramarly on tribe/ or selection group not region. Sorry if i find it hard to buy that this fedual system was an example of anarachy. "a central legislature and uniform, country-wide judicial and legal systems," - did we miss this part? "Through copoperation among their members, hreppar organised and controlled summer grazing lands, organised communal labour, and provided an immediate local forum for settling disputes. " - or this part? I mean come on could i just be like no i don't wanna listen to that dude and i am going to keep working the land i have been? I bet no, thus the land was owned. They didn't it was already control by a small governing body.

Wow, I hope stefan doesn't do the debate, not worth it.