This should change the whole game soon

cells

antrobus wrote: »

Yes.

M4 (unadjusted) was £566,463m in 1994 and £2,103,500m in 2014. However it was £2,155,575m in 2010; the money supply has been shrinking over the past few years.

(Other measures of the money supply are available.:))

money in the banking system is not the only money. government and corporate paper for all intents is the same thing.

If BP has £10 billion in bank loans and decides to issue £10 billion of paper then it may like the banking system has contracted and the banking system has but the overall debt/credit system hasnt

mwpt

CLAPTON wrote: »

nwpt had already said he understood fractional banking and how it can 'create' money.

I was just adding that in the UK the BoE can create (unlimited) money.

Yes, I think you've understood what I'm asking. I've moved the conversation to a new thread btw.

antrobus

CLAPTON wrote: »

nwpt had already said he understood fractional banking and how it can 'create' money....

Fractional reserve banking is largely a misunderstanding.

CLAPTON wrote: »

...I was just adding that in the UK the BoE can create (unlimited) money.

My point would be that banks are quite capable of creating unlimited money without any help from a central bank. As a general rule, central banks are created to stop them from doing so.

antrobus

cells wrote: »

money in the banking system is not the only money. government and corporate paper for all intents is the same thing.....

No it isn't.

cells wrote: »

...If BP has £10 billion in bank loans and decides to issue £10 billion of paper then it may like the banking system has contracted and the banking system has but the overall debt/credit system hasnt

But the banking system would have contracted. It's commonly known as disintermediation. The overall debit/credit system is one thing. The banking system is something different. Pork bellies don't qualify as money.

AG47

cells wrote: »

I dont understand what he is on about, is he saying this tech will reduce the cost of sending and receiving money?

Its already free if you are a little MSE about it.

If you want to sell things, then you have to pay charges.

It's free as a buyer, because the vendors pay the transaction costs.

I like open bazar the new eBay. It will use crypto not fiat and no charges to sell.

So whatever you see on feebay will be cheaper on openbazaar

mwpt

paddyrg wrote: »

That's really just a state-sanctioned implementation of a blockchain technology, and it's a very good idea. Bitcoin's main limitation is that it's still Wild West frontierland, plus some small technical details. The lack of a central authority (attractive to some) is a limitation when the community are divided - you either fork the currency or don't, so you end up with a bit of mess. A central authority acting for the interests of the long term stability of the cryptocurrency and to dampen speculation is a good thing.

Hmmm. To get back to the topic.

Why blockchain if we want a centralised digital currency? The entire point about blockchain is that it is a distributed, decentralised ledger with the idea that no one specific entity owns or controls it.

I don't understand what problem they're trying to solve here. Anything that can be achieved by blockchain, apart from the decentralised and non state owned side, can already be achieved by current technology.

Are they trying to look into a way of eliminating cash? And doing so to eliminate tax evasion, black market jobs, etc? Ok, sure, but still, why do they need a decentralised ledger to do this?

padington

mwpt wrote: »

Hmmm. To get back to the topic.

Why blockchain if we want a centralised digital currency? The entire point about blockchain is that it is a distributed, decentralised ledger with the idea that no one specific entity owns or controls it.

I don't understand what problem they're trying to solve here. Anything that can be achieved by blockchain, apart from the decentralised and non state owned side, can already be achieved by current technology.

Are they trying to look into a way of eliminating cash? And doing so to eliminate tax evasion, black market jobs, etc? Ok, sure, but still, why do they need a decentralised ledger to do this?

http://betanews.com/2015/12/28/the-benefits-of-blockchain-for-financial-services/

mwpt

padington wrote: »

http://betanews.com/2015/12/28/the-benefits-of-blockchain-for-financial-services/

That isn't an answer to my question. Why are they looking at a distributed ledger technology to achieve centralised control?

That article is also has several inaccuracies. "could speed up trading systems". No. blockchain is slow, precisely because of the cryptographic nature. Mature trading systems these days operate in the microseconds (lmax for e.g. under 5 microseconds per transaction) whereas blockchain transactions will take orders of magnitude longer.

Garethgrew

If government is behind it, then benefits can be paid out in this new crypto

paddyrg

I guess a federated ledger is visible, so rather than /relying/ on a centralised ledger which requires a trusted authority to manage, the transaction has a life in its own right.

A state-sanctioned blockchain can also be used for digital identity and signing, so this has interest in itself.