Why so much agro and upset about Jorge's posts? He's not threatening you (or perhaps he is somehow?). He has a view and he expresses and articulates that view pretty well. I don't agree with much of what he says either but I appreciate that his posts are coherent, quite well written and free from personal attacks or vitriol. In fact, he's very gracious in his responses to many of you that get all so incensed that he's expressing the views that he is; and this is indicative that some of what he's saying has seriously hooked your innards and is tearing at you in some manner. That you're responding in such an affronted way says to me you're not 100% sure and his line of thought on this stuff causes internal conflict.
If you don't agree with his take on Bitcoin (and crypto in general), just point out calmly and unemotionally where his logic, assumptions or beliefs are flawed. I think it's very good to have someone like him putting the ideas up he does as it makes for interesting consideration of his views versus alternatives.
Isn't this what a thread like this is about?
Your gracious friend has been trolling this forum for years now. I agree that there is no need to get all fired up about it, but to "point out calmly and unemotionally where his logic, assumptions or beliefs are flawed" is even more of a waste. He has some ideas that (I think) are the very antithesis of what crypto is all about. Suggesting that there'll inevitably have to be a rethink on the 21 million cap and that an increase will eventually happen is the slippery slope to Bitcoin being just another manipulated disaster like we're seeing with almost all fiat currencies (and, obviously to get it to be manipulatable like that, will require some dramatic action and reallocation of mining resources away from the current Bitcoin community). In fact he basically seems to have a line of thought that takes the current monetary system's "features" and attributes and retrospectively applies them to Bitcoin like "it's just how money works and if Bitcoin doesn't hold these properties it will fail". That I find to be backward thinking as it's failing to see the paradigm of how central bankers and Wall Street "run" the monetary system is THE problem and to use it as a framework of sorts for how crypto needs to operate is everything crypto isn't and should never be (but any conversation about 'money' is by nature controversial and complex). My point though is he appears to have many people quite riled up and that's unfortunate. His points simply need to be deconstructed and the flaws pointed out. But if it's a waste of time doing that (and I haven't been in this thread for more than a few months) then probably best to just let him post and not respond. Either way I don't find his posts to be trollish in their nature (but maybe his "graciousness" is hiding a whole other agenda I'm not aware of) and I appreciate he's expressing his view and that's perfectly okay. People are riled up, somewhat, with Stofl because his posts are generally deceptive and misleading and accordingly disingenuous... Many times, he has actually admitted to being a troll of these forms... In other words, trolls deal in disingenuous arguments and distractions and really attempt to incite others with their ridiculous points... surely from time to time Stofli makes decent points, but that generally is the exception rather than the rule... most of the time he is misleading and spinning... .. surely we can ignore him or communicate rationally with him, but sometimes he needs to be called out because otherwise some people, including what appears to be yourself, will begin to believe some of his several stupid ass misleading posts. Okay. Perhaps I haven't experienced enough of him yet to see the dis-ingenuity in full flight. As always with people on these forums, there's their face-value appearance and then their deeper hidden agenda which may take longer to pick up on. But one always has to ask what the driver for someone's modus operandi is. If he's so down on Bitcoin and thinks it's so likely to fail, why is he here? I think this is the same question we all need to ask ourselves. I'd expect that he has doubts about his views too, hence can't stay away because he's inevitably drawn to a debate like this to challenge the parts of his thinking that don't quite believe the outward position he's stated. I'm here because I'm fascinated by Bitcoin (and crypto in general) and I believe my investment in it may bring a good return. The "fascinated" part extends out from my awareness that this technology just might be the one thing that saves humanity from the greed and stupefying madness of a world population that, not only has no real understanding of money, doesn't even know that it's completely lacking that understanding and consequently is being seriously worked over by some very dark forces. The average person from a westernised nation today walks this planet completely and utterly clueless as to what the fundamental attributes of money are and why the manipulation via the Fed's QE and ZIRP is just putting off for another day the inevitable financial reckoning that's going to catch the masses out. I think Greenspan, Bernanke and Yellen and their Wall Street banking cronies will one day be recast as criminals that led us all on this merry dance into disaster. And just maybe, the existence of Bitcoin (and it's potential to travel through this coming mess relatively unscathed....and I said "potential"; many trials and tribulations for it yet) will alter the course of history and create a surging discourse amongst the public as to what the true nature of 'money' is. But there are soooo many differing views on this subject. I for one pretty much listen to them all as the potential to be caught by confirmation bias within groups like this and not even realise you're on a pathway with other lemmings on the way to the cliff's edge is ever present. For that reason I welcome the Stolfis and others with extreme views adverse to what the bulk of us in cryptoland hold (even if they are "trolling"....take what's useful; leave the rest) because they help me check my reasoning and assumptions, and I believe that's a good thing. |
|
|
|
Why so much agro and upset about Jorge's posts? He's not threatening you (or perhaps he is somehow?). He has a view and he expresses and articulates that view pretty well. I don't agree with much of what he says either but I appreciate that his posts are coherent, quite well written and free from personal attacks or vitriol. In fact, he's very gracious in his responses to many of you that get all so incensed that he's expressing the views that he is; and this is indicative that some of what he's saying has seriously hooked your innards and is tearing at you in some manner. That you're responding in such an affronted way says to me you're not 100% sure and his line of thought on this stuff causes internal conflict.
If you don't agree with his take on Bitcoin (and crypto in general), just point out calmly and unemotionally where his logic, assumptions or beliefs are flawed. I think it's very good to have someone like him putting the ideas up he does as it makes for interesting consideration of his views versus alternatives.
Isn't this what a thread like this is about?
Your gracious friend has been trolling this forum for years now. I agree that there is no need to get all fired up about it, but to "point out calmly and unemotionally where his logic, assumptions or beliefs are flawed" is even more of a waste. He has some ideas that (I think) are the very antithesis of what crypto is all about. Suggesting that there'll inevitably have to be a rethink on the 21 million cap and that an increase will eventually happen is the slippery slope to Bitcoin being just another manipulated disaster like we're seeing with almost all fiat currencies (and, obviously to get it to be manipulatable like that, will require some dramatic action and reallocation of mining resources away from the current Bitcoin community). In fact he basically seems to have a line of thought that takes the current monetary system's "features" and attributes and retrospectively applies them to Bitcoin like "it's just how money works and if Bitcoin doesn't hold these properties it will fail". That I find to be backward thinking as it's failing to see the paradigm of how central bankers and Wall Street "run" the monetary system is THE problem and to use it as a framework of sorts for how crypto needs to operate is everything crypto isn't and should never be (but any conversation about 'money' is by nature controversial and complex). My point though is he appears to have many people quite riled up and that's unfortunate. His points simply need to be deconstructed and the flaws pointed out. But if it's a waste of time doing that (and I haven't been in this thread for more than a few months) then probably best to just let him post and not respond. Either way I don't find his posts to be trollish in their nature (but maybe his "graciousness" is hiding a whole other agenda I'm not aware of) and I appreciate he's expressing his view and that's perfectly okay. |
|
|
|
The dumper returns... Damn it, I thought he was done!  do you mean Bitcoin ? i dont see any heavy dumping on Dash.. No it's on Cryptsy  |
|
|
|
In fact, many of the problems that he describes are in fact features and NOT bugs
Since you are a holder and speculator, of course we disagree on that. In my view, you are one of bitcoin's problems.  Little bit disingenuous of you to participate in a thread to judge others who are investing into something and to call them "problems" because they are investing. What are you investing in? naysaying the activities of others? a claim that there needs to be a built in approximate 2% inflation (or devaluation) is preposterous because it supposedly addresses a non-existing problem, at least at this time. so make it a bad investment?
Bitcoin was created to be a currency, not another speculative asset- and dividend-free investment fund (or pyramid scheme, its more honest name). There is no shortage of the latter, and (as I wrote earlier) that use of bitcoin will not make the world better, create new wealth, or render some useful service; it will just move wealth from some people to other people. You are full of shit!!!! Bitcoin was created for a variety of purposes, including the currency aspect. You seem to be oversimplifying matters in order to create strawmen arguments. and mislead others by oversimplification.
Economists have know for 500 years that a currency must have some inflation, otherwise people will hoard it and it will not be available for use as a currency.
Yeah.. appeal to authority... 500 years OMG... you really are saying something here........ NOT. You are just making up facts out of your ass.
The use of bitcoin for investment and speculation had two other bad consequences. First, it lifted the price to 100 times what it should have been, given its current level of usage. The price is floating in the air, high up, anchored to itself through the hopes of traders and holders. It could crash from there at any moment. No company in its right mind would want to hold it, even temporarily. Imagine a manager accepting a payment of 1000 BTC today, and the price crashing tomorrow, before he can spend or sell those coins. How could he explain that to the company owners? (You can find out there an audio of Overstock's CEO trying to explain something like that to the other shareholders; but AFAIK he is the majority holder, so he won't get fired for that...)
YES.... what if, what if... You know better than that. if you are using bitcoin as a payment system, then you have the option to cash out right away or to hold them for a specific cash out time. With anything new, there may be a learning curve concerning decisions regarding when to cash out, if cashing out is part of the plan.
Second, but tied to the first: bitcoin's use as instrument of speculative trade made its price extremely volatile. Even in times of "stability", like the past 7 months, the price has changed by ±10% in a few hours, several times. Volatility is bad for a currency: the user who buys BTC to pay for something will lose money if the BTC price drops between the two actions, and will not really win if it goes up -- because he will be left with a small amount of BTC that he may not find a good use for.
That is why a good cryptocurrency must be designed to NOT be a good investment.
Yes, if an asset is volatile, then that needs to be taken into account, but that volatility does NOT mean that it is a bad thing because, as I already mentioned, BTC is much more than a currency. You again are attempting to frame facts in an incomplete way in order to engage in scare tactics.... All of these months in bitcoin, and you still have NOT learned how to be more comprehensive in your analysis rather than simplified and selective extrapolations? From what I have read, I am satisfied that Satoshi intended bitcoin to be what he wrote in the whitepaper: a system for peer to peer payments through the internet that did not require a trusted third party. He believed that the world needed such a thing, but no one knew how to build it, and thought that he had found a way. That seems to have been his motivation to design the bitcoin protocol; and he then implemented it to see whether the idea worked out in practice. But Satoshi was a computer scientist, not an economist. He thought that it would be nice if the currency had no inflation. For "everybody" knows that inflation is bad, right? I thought so too. His he pleased about what bitcoin turned out to be? Well, on one hand it is always satisfying to do something big, even if it is a big nuclear accident or the sinking of the Titanic. But I doubt that he is happy about what his creature has become... Your further explanation supports that you are engaged in a BIG ASS guessing game regarding what Satoshi thought or what he would think. It does little to no good for you to engage in this kind of speculation to go back to "original intent" or to attempt to attribute the direction of bitcoin to the "founder," because in fact, Satoshi either removed himself or fell out of the bitcoin scene.... Accordingly, bitcoin became a dynamic phenomenon that is influenced by a variety of players (rather than by any one player). in other words, bitcoin has become a sort of community asset, and there is some freedom for anyone to buy into it or to refrain from such. Even though you are fairly informed about bitcoin, you seem to be someone who has knowingly chosen NOT to financially invest into bitcoin, but instead chosen to invest into denigrating bitcoin.... I'm fairly certain that some anti-bitcoin entities would be willing to pay you to continue in such supposedly voluntary and unpaid conduct. So, are you being paid for all of the time that you spend in the various bitcoin forums? You must be receiving some payments for your work and/or your publications and/or your attempts to build your reputation as some kind of anti-bitcoin "expert." Sorry to some of you for using the term "expert" in the same sentence in which I am referring to Stolfi.....  Why so much agro and upset about Jorge's posts? He's not threatening you (or perhaps he is somehow?). He has a view and he expresses and articulates that view pretty well. I don't agree with much of what he says either but I appreciate that his posts are coherent, quite well written and free from personal attacks or vitriol. In fact, he's very gracious in his responses to many of you that get all so incensed that he's expressing the views that he is; and this is indicative that some of what he's saying has seriously hooked your innards and is tearing at you in some manner. That you're responding in such an affronted way says to me you're not 100% sure and his line of thought on this stuff causes internal conflict. If you don't agree with his take on Bitcoin (and crypto in general), just point out calmly and unemotionally where his logic, assumptions or beliefs are flawed. I think it's very good to have someone like him putting the ideas up he does as it makes for interesting consideration of his views versus alternatives. Isn't this what a thread like this is about? |
|
|
|
|
Regardless of what you say Adam, your posts are boringly predictable and uninteresting whereas Toknormal's are thought provoking and of infinitely greater worth and use.
|
|
|
|
Someone many pages back linked the Gavin interview, https://youtu.be/B8l11q9hsJMPay special attention at roughly 1:14:40 , the first and maybe only interesting question, let me paraphrase: Brian: "so, if this fork succeeds, how will decisions be made in the future?" Gavin: "Mike Hearn will be the benevolent dictator, he will be the ultimate decision maker." ... He goes on to explain how he does not want to be in complete control, nor do any of the devs that currently have commit ability, but he is completely happy and ok with Mike as the sole controller and decider. He even goes in to mention that future changes will be much easier and will happen much more quickly once this change is made. I know XT is already dead, but I just wanted to point out to anyone that was still unconvinced that Gavin has been compromised... He is either completely brain dead, or he is deliberately trying to end bitcoin's function as a permissionless, censorship-proof means of storing and transmitting value. Hearn would only be the dictator of XT development, not the protocol. XT is only one implementation of BIP101. Other implementations would be compatible, as XT is currently compatible with core. ANY change in the code that would make XT incompatible would orphan XT, not the other implementations. Anyone can write code using core or BIP101 components and run it on test net to see if it works and then release it into the wild. This is open source. XT will only succeed if people use it. A certain amount of skepticism is healthy, but I think we all need to take off our tin foil hats. We just end up talking past each other and getting nowhere. I read the BITfury white paper in support of BIP100. There are some good points in it, but it doesn't address the big problems that are holding up infrastructure development and mainstream adoption. Entrepreneurs can't build business models around how miners may or may not vote. Issues such as node centralization are secondary. A fully validating node is and likely will always be many orders of magnitude cheaper and easier to setup and run than a profitable mining operation. It seems that a major concern for BIP100 supporters is that miners with slow internet connections are disadvantaged by larger blocks. Assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, why should the rest of us subsidize these slow miners? They are mostly in China which means that if they have less of a competitive advantage then mining will likely become LESS centralized with large blocks rather than more. Miners are producers. They are essential to the network but we know what happens when producers are in control of the economy. We saw it in the Soviet Union, North Korea, East Germany, Cuba, Venezuela, and Red China. Rent-seeking behavior kills growth. In the free market, the consumer is king which is actually more fair because we are all consumers. If we want bitcoin to survive, it has to grow. If we want it to grow, it has to scale. If we want it to scale, then we have to make some trade-offs that will benefit various people and groups differently. This is unavoidable. What is also unavoidable is technology proliferation. If we don't fix this scaling problem, banksters are going to jack our tech, make their own coin(s), and wave at us as they leave us in the dust. Scale or die. Well said! Yes I agree. You're slowly growing on me billyjoeallen. Well written post. |
|
|
|
I'm as dubious as the next person as to people's intentions with this stuff. I've already challenged billyjoelallen for what I think is rhetoric each time he signs off a post with "scale or die". I think there's an inordinate amount of black and white thinking going on with these changes to Bitcoin. And responses like yours are also unhelpful as they're overly dismissive and just add to the dissension. Did you listen to this podcast? There's genuine concern and care being expressed by Gavin. There may be some over-reach too. And maybe he's gone too far....or maybe not. And I reject your assertion that I'm impressionable and am going to "blindly follow some dude". You know nothing about me, my life experience, skills and knowledge so it's completely and utterly banal of you in the extreme, to make such an assessment. Either way to just write him off with "fork you Gavin!" summation is hardly fair, decent or helpful. Perhaps you could consider debating key parts of what you consider to be wrong with his ideas rather than just putting up a blanket "I just don't like it...." wall. |
|
|
|
Okay thanks for your replies Fatman and BJA. Good responses. Even if I don't agree with your individual takes on the situation there's always more to the story than appears at face value. I'm coming to the conclusion that to save us we need a combo of  and  |
|
|
|
... so you felt the need to go ad hominem on him?
No, but I'm feeling the potential need to go ad hominem on you! I mostly enjoy reading your and BJA's posts but some of the ways you're expressing yourselves are not helpful. When are people going to wake up and realise that all this infighting and characterisation of people within bitcoin as "pussies" and "spineless people" is the internal bickering that just makes serious money on the outside of crypto look in (for 5 seconds tops) and shake their heads at the immaturity and self-defeating culture. Honestly, we need unity and leadership to present a unified face. This stuff you're going on with is disastrous. Who exactly doesn't want Bitcoin to scale? Who? I honestly don't know who these people are. Of course there are a multitude of discussions around new developments like sidechains and the Lightning Network which may change some aspects of how the blockchain is used and what direction it takes, but I don't see any of these people arguing for a Bitcoin that doesn't scale. This is just more of the "you're either with us or against us" black and white rhetoric I highlighted above. It's absolutely not helpful to the cause. |
|
|
|
It's bizzarre to me that anyone can claim that Bitcoin's PRIMARY utility is as a store of value. A store of value does not lose over 80% of it's market cap in less than 2 years.
Bitcoin needs to scale in order to survive. The people who sell bitcoin don't seem to think so. The people who buy Bitcoin absolutely do. Ever heard the saying "the customer is always right?"
I think eventually it will be seen as a store of value. Your "A store of value does not lose over 80% of it's market cap in less than 2 years" statement is taking a selective window of Bitcoin's total lifespan and highlighting its devaluation from the ATH. A similar selective view could be applied to many 'store of value' assets that went through booms and busts in their early days. Of course it needs to scale and I don't think anyone is arguing it doesn't. You make some good points in many of your posts but I find your constant "scale or die" rhetoric to be a simplistic dumbing down of what is a relatively complex debate (you're displaying similar lines of 'intelligence' to President Bush's "You're either with us or against us" and "the axis of evil" chest beating after 911 and we all know how poorly much of that turned out). Rather than just painting anyone that doesn't think XT has the right combination of attributes and backing as someone that's against Bitcoin moving forward, perhaps you could bring a little more clarity around the issues at hand to the discussion and dispense with such black and white judgement. |
|
|
|
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Free market means that people are free to trade with each other, if they choose to, or equally free not to trade. No-one is forced to do anything. If there is force involved, it is not a free market, by definition.
There are always market forces. You are a naive idealist taking a simplistic childlike view of the world. Children grow up, and you will too  And for the record I don't dislike your idealism. Just like little children are cute, and represent the best in us - a certain purity, so too is your idealism. And it serves a purpose to always remind the adults where we came from, and to try harder. But at the end of the day - reality always wins out in decisions - in the adult world. How's that for a backhanded compliment I sometimes think I'm going to go completely mad reading the banal responses on BCT that involve vast jump-to conclusions and assessments that can't possibly be arrived at with any base level of logic. MadAlpha was simply making the point that Wary's use of the term "forced" was failing to comprehend one of the basic fundamentals of a free market. But, as Wary has since pointed out, he's talking about the economic incentives, not coercion. In essence though Wary's way of describing the phenomenon didn't read terribly well (maybe English as a second language?) and IMO conveyed the wrong idea. For you to then take MadAlpha's sentence and portray an entire mindset of "simplistic childlike" views and that "Children grow up, and you will too" and "Just like little children are cute, and represent the best in us - a certain purity, so too is your idealism".....good grief! Just how exactly do you arrive at this as a result of these two sentences from MadAlpha? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Free market means that people are free to trade with each other, if they choose to, or equally free not to trade. No-one is forced to do anything. If there is force involved, it is not a free market, by definition.
It's this sort of wild assumptive judgement that makes these threads so frustrating and hard to read. Do us all a favour and take a chill-pill on jumping to such outlandish and baseless conclusions about someone. |
|
|
|
I've used their service twice just to test it. Deposits clear in a few days, but month-long delays and endless excuses/hollow promises from support staff for withdrawal of fiat $ or even small amounts of BTC (under $50). Note. I did get my funds out of them in the end. Avoid. I was using them up until around 6 months ago when I couldn't stand their incompetence and bumbling stuff-ups any longer. Fortunately though I've never had the appalling experiences of direct loss people are now experiencing. Here's a BCT thread detailing what's been happening over the past few months. It's a disaster for people who have fiat or BTC there. Don't even think of using them. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1065373.0 |
|
|
|
Yeah he is old school retail for sure.
Looking past the retail his business, i think his business is really selling finance to customers punters to buy his goods at high market prices.
Isn't that what they say about General Motors and Co in the Sates? It's really about selling finance and not veeee-hicles?
Yes, to a degree. He's a clever guy within the realm he knows well; traditional retail. And he's built a lucrative franchising model and (by association) commercial real-estate development business. He gets dramatic pricing and rebates from his suppliers (sort of like Walmart's buying power/dominance but on a smaller scale) so likely experiences the best margins of the big retailers. But, he's gradually losing more and more to the on-line world and retailers that are doing a better job of combining the two. Can't argue his success though (owns more race horses than I do...ha!) |
|
|
|
In cryptocurrencies, adherence to published emission rates is not something which qualifies an electronic token as 'money'.
Miners complain if a crypto doesn't follow the emission rate but in the case of Dash, a couple of them only started doing so when Dash began acquiring value and that was for reasons of genuine monetary quality, nothing to do with 'emission rates'.
Gold did not follow any particular emission rate either, but it still acquired value. People just wanted to get their hands on it no matter how much anyone else had and that qualified it as 'money'.
It's important for a cryptocurrency to follow a published emission rate so that coin supply is predictable and Dash is doing that, the same as most other crypto's. The fact that it didn't do it in the first few hours is already priced into the market (by virtue of that event having occurred a year and a half ago).
Markets therefore determine what has value and 'emission rates' do not.
A true "sh*tcoin" is not one which deviates from its published emmision rate, rather it's one which claims to be 'money' and isn't according to all historical precedent.
Dash has prioritised its development effort to optimise the monetary properties of an electronic token. i.e. to create a monetary medium which is optimal by historical standards but which functions on an electronic platform without a counterparty.
Thats why it has value.
Hey Tok, Welcome back (yes?) We've missed your regular reminders of the key properties of 'money'. It's not something most crypto-nerds even think about let alone discuss. In fact it's not something even considered to be relevant or important. But that's part-and-parcel of realms full of people that are obsessed with bleeding edge tech; fundamentals of how humans have interacted for millenniums are thrown out (with the bath water) because the overarching ethos is "oh, it's all completely different now..." I'm reminded of the madness of the dot-com bubble leading up to April 2000. Weren't those heady days! I remember reading lots of articles in tech magazines where writers who'd become HTML and e-commerce "experts" ventured their narrow-knowledge-base understanding of the world into forecasting how the stock market was being driven by phenomena never seen before in human history and measurements like P/E ratios were becoming obsolete. It facilitated a madness that to this day is still hard to fathom. Basically anyone with a publicly listed company simply had to change their name to have 'web' or anybloodynameaslongasithasadotcominit.com and their stock would soar. I remember down here in Australia one of our oldest retailing industry stalwarts was just incredulous that on-line retailers were buying up stock of merchandise they thought was hot-to-trot over the counter at regular large chains and then reselling them online for higher prices. And mad it was. And even madder was the way people threw money at it like it didn't matter what price they were buying these stocks for, they "couldn't lose!" But of course, like EVERYTHING that's ever been and ever will be in this human realm, there are certain rules around liquidity and 'money' and the manner in which mobs of buyers and sellers behave. And as rapidly as the Dow and particularly the Nasdaq went up, they went down even faster when people got a whiff of things not being quite as rosy as they'd been led to believe. This sort of one-eyed besottedness and investing OCD is clearly playing out in crypto too. And, years from now when the winners and losers of "Coin Wars" are written up in the history books I think there'll be a substantial awareness of the phenomena of techno boffins building amazing things but missing fundamental aspects of human behaviour and how it relates to what's been developed. Cryptos with invisible or hidden block chains will surely be just such an example. And when the full awareness of why an open and clearly visible public ledger is fundamental to a unit of account being accepted as 'money', there'll also be much amazement and incredulity that there were groups of peopple that actually failed to comprehend this and understand how important it is. Interesting times... Gerry Harvey has a hate for on-line retail competition. Was it Harvey Norman? Yep. Obviously the guy is a dinosaur and has missed the boat on building an on-line business (but he's still winning because of Sydney's insane real-estate boom and all those store sites he owns outright) but he did make sense about how ridiculous things got during the dot-com bubble. |
|
|
|
In cryptocurrencies, adherence to published emission rates is not something which qualifies an electronic token as 'money'.
Miners complain if a crypto doesn't follow the emission rate but in the case of Dash, a couple of them only started doing so when Dash began acquiring value and that was for reasons of genuine monetary quality, nothing to do with 'emission rates'.
Gold did not follow any particular emission rate either, but it still acquired value. People just wanted to get their hands on it no matter how much anyone else had and that qualified it as 'money'.
It's important for a cryptocurrency to follow a published emission rate so that coin supply is predictable and Dash is doing that, the same as most other crypto's. The fact that it didn't do it in the first few hours is already priced into the market (by virtue of that event having occurred a year and a half ago).
Markets therefore determine what has value and 'emission rates' do not.
A true "sh*tcoin" is not one which deviates from its published emmision rate, rather it's one which claims to be 'money' and isn't according to all historical precedent.
Dash has prioritised its development effort to optimise the monetary properties of an electronic token. i.e. to create a monetary medium which is optimal by historical standards but which functions on an electronic platform without a counterparty.
Thats why it has value.
Hey Tok, Welcome back (yes?) We've missed your regular reminders of the key properties of 'money'. It's not something most crypto-nerds even think about let alone discuss. In fact it's not something even considered to be relevant or important. But that's part-and-parcel of realms full of people that are obsessed with bleeding edge tech; fundamentals of how humans have interacted for millenniums are thrown out (with the bath water) because the overarching ethos is "oh, it's all completely different now..." I'm reminded of the madness of the dot-com bubble leading up to April 2000. Weren't those heady days! I remember reading lots of articles in tech magazines where writers who'd become HTML and e-commerce "experts" ventured their narrow-knowledge-base understanding of the world into forecasting how the stock market was being driven by phenomena never seen before in human history and measurements like P/E ratios were becoming obsolete. It facilitated a madness that to this day is still hard to fathom. Basically anyone with a publicly listed company simply had to change their name to have 'web' or anybloodynameaslongasithasadotcominit.com and their stock would soar. I remember down here in Australia one of our oldest retailing industry stalwarts was just incredulous that on-line retailers were buying up stock of merchandise they thought was hot-to-trot over the counter at regular large chains and then reselling them online for higher prices. And mad it was. And even madder was the way people threw money at it like it didn't matter what price they were buying these stocks for, they "couldn't lose!" But of course, like EVERYTHING that's ever been and ever will be in this human realm, there are certain rules around liquidity and 'money' and the manner in which mobs of buyers and sellers behave. And as rapidly as the Dow and particularly the Nasdaq went up, they went down even faster when people got a whiff of things not being quite as rosy as they'd been led to believe. This sort of one-eyed besottedness and investing OCD is clearly playing out in crypto too. And, years from now when the winners and losers of "Coin Wars" are written up in the history books I think there'll be a substantial awareness of the phenomena of techno boffins building amazing things but missing fundamental aspects of human behaviour and how it relates to what's been developed. Cryptos with invisible or hidden block chains will surely be just such an example. And when the full awareness of why an open and clearly visible public ledger is fundamental to a unit of account being accepted as 'money', there'll also be much amazement and incredulity that there were groups of peopple that actually failed to comprehend this and understand how important it is. Interesting times... |
|
|
|
The latest Lets Talk Bitcoin program is out. Stephanie, Adam and Andreas engage in a very very interesting conversation on the nature of what has been created in Bitcoin and whether other crypto projects are truly looking to bring additional innovation or whether their purpose for existing is simply to copy/replicate what's already in Bitcoin (purely for devs' financial gain). Some extremely important concepts discussed and they mention Darkcoin/Dash several times (positively). https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-237-the-stars-that-shine |
|
|
|
will iGot actually pay out?
Apparently not! I'm still owed close to USD16K. It has been almost 90 days. Given it's about a week since igot_user_03773356 posted this, it's likely he's now been waiting over 90 days for payment. That says to me that iGot is insolvent. There are serious consequences under Australian law for company directors if they allow their entities to continue trading while insolvent and if iGot are still taking deposits they're effectively still entering into debt whilst insolvent which is a criminal offence. From the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (equivalent to the US' SEC) Regulatory Guide on Directors' duties around insolvency:     I'd suggest that it's on the verge of collapse. If people are having this many problems just withdrawing funds, imagine how far behind financiers/suppliers are getting their invoices paid. One of those suppliers could force the issue at any moment and instigate liquidation/wind-up proceedings at which point it's all over and I'd say 'depositors' just become unsecured creditors (i.e. you're at the bottom of the list behind the banks and any creditors that have their debt secured against some other asset (like directors' real estate property for instance). It's a terrible situation and I feel for anyone that's caught in it. As per a previous post I made, I've had terrible difficulties with iGot in the past and their incompetence at handling very basic fundamental transactions (like 'buying or selling bitcoin'!) became a red flag for me about six months ago and I stopped using them. (The document, portions of which are displayed above, can be found at http://download.asic.gov.au/media/1241384/rg217-29july2010.pdf) |
|
|
|
Gee, you might be a complete math retard Macrochip I'm taking a brief (welcome) break from camping in force-8 gales to tell you to save your energy. Cryptonote is a non-player in the crypto-currency market as I've articulated many times on here. From a technology point of view, hidden blockchains are quite interesting because they involve lots of challenging programming. From a monetary point of view however they are a gimmick and of speculative value only. You are having your buttons pressed. Best to focus on practical tasks at hand  I second this. I've spent some time over the past couple of days reading through the most recent 10 pages on the main Monero thread to try and comprehend where they're coming from. It's quite an eye opener. My impression is that they're classic propeller-head techno-boffins as so much of what they're talking about revolves around very detailed technical discussions involving complex config and setup options. There's virtually no discussion on economics or the fundamentals of money, nor how in goodness' name they'll ever get their stuff to be understandable by anyone outside of crypto. Furthermore it's no surprise that g4q34g4qg47ww never had the decency to come back onto the Dash thread and explain in detail why Toknormal is a "charlatan" for pointing out these fundamental aspects that constitute 'money' and that the Monero people clearly fail to comprehend. I think 'the game' in the Monero community is the classic (and oh-so-tedious) "who is the 'smartest' techo in the room". In reading the posts and responses, I'm reminded of many corporate IT environments from the 90s where value was supposedly seen in people that could talk-up all this techno stuff and be given kudos for knowing things and understanding how to configure stuff and knowing all the latest buzzwords, etc. When IT became far more important, things like the CMM (the Capability Maturity Model) provided an assessment score from 0 to 5 that took into account sustainability of operations, ability to manage risk, execution via more formal project management processes, achievement of business objectives and measurable customer satisfaction meeting a set criteria. That then transformed many IT environments and elevated CIOs up into a new realm of importance with the other C level execs. But the "CMM score of less than 1" hero-worship IT-culture is still around and you can see it on full display in the Monero thread with people like fluffypony exuding it in all it's banal ugliness (after sitting through his awful Monero Youtube presentation; classic perception that 'value' is in the technobabble and classic indifference to 'newbs' and people that don't know how things work and my previous pointing out of his "we want Monero to be grandparent proof" being so condescending - typical profile stuff for the techno-arrogant - I can see just how lacking in substance the whole thing is). Anyhow, I expect there are many good ideas within the Monero code and there's probably people that have put a lot of good effort into where it's at today, but that doesn't make for a well-rounded crypto-currency that will perform the 'currency' part of its namesake. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
