The problem is that bitcoin-related commercial ventures are left up to small-scale entrepreneurs.
That's because nobody is sure of the legal ramifications. There is big money watching Bitcoin, but it's waiting on the sidelines until legal precedents are set. In the meantime, a significant infrastructure is being assembled by a small number of ideologically motivated hobbyists - and ironically this infrastructure will subsidize the larger players when they're ready to enter. But the law needs to figure out in which ways it shall or shall not tyrannize Bitcoin before serious money is thrown at the experiment. Neither of us has any idea what 'big money' plans to do. It is idle to speculate. Of course, I'm very skeptical of that large corporations have any plans involving bitcoin at all. If you have some specific information to divulge, then don't let me stop you. |
|
|
|
I tend to agree with that assessment. Bitcoin needs strong leadership backed by some cash on both the development and business fronts.
While success or failure might not be foregone conclusions it's easy to see how easily Bitcoin could wither away.
But let me ask this. Is P2P digital currency a cash cow in any sense? Where is the money to be had for big players to come in and push Bitcoin? I don't see it.
Somehow I only see it surviving in grass roots mode and, of course, that's super questionable.
You are still missing much of the point. 'big money' interest comes from concentrated ownership of the currency. Gains come from currency appreciation not direct business profits. The business activities are likely loss-making, but still in the interest of the concentrated owner to pursue. The problem is that without any concentrated ownership there is no incentive for anyone to undertake anything. This is one reason why I was hoping that Vlad performed the 51% attack. He might become the central owner. I propose a solution that doesn't require a central owner here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75029.0 Essentially, the solution is to create something like a cryptocorporation to run the cryptocurrency. Coming from an idealist P2P perspective it takes a moment to readjust focus to the points you make. What I was saying was describing the same problem, but from a different perspective and without attempting to describe a solution. I said in a purist P2P sense, one without any central ownership, there really isn't enough profit to support single entities in big pushes to develop the Bitcoin market. I agree with the points you make and that is why I worry about Bitcoin even though I find the idealist points of P2P currency attractive and worthy of survival. If profit is the biggest motivator maybe the solution you describe is desirable. Ideally, and accepting the faults of idealism, I'd like to see a coalition or some association that could work to accomplish the big pushes Bitcoin needs that would be funded collectively in a P2P fashion. It's true what they say that money and leadership is needed to focus progress. It is unusual for people to be able to screw on another head and use it to think for a moment. I appreciate that. Check the link? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75029.0 It suggests using a P2P system in order to run a corporate-like entity. Is that against P2P principles? Is it bad for the p2p network to elect a leader to represent its interests? Is it bad for the p2p network to vote to tax itself in order to raise revenue to fund projects? |
|
|
|
|
Perhaps an example would help. Consider online gambling.
One of the biggest potential markets for bitcoin is US online gambling. This market is largely unrealized because say 99.99% of US online gamblers are unaware of bitcoin and are not motivated to learn how to use it. If these gamblers knew how to acquire and use bitcoin, then they could easily become addicted to bitcoin-denominated gambling. However, they are not willing to learn because the intial learning costs are significant. In addition, the existing gambling community is small, so there are hardly enough people to play with even after you have learned the ropes.
To persuade gamblers to learn about bitcoin and become addicted to bitcoin gambling, you need to lure them with subsidized tournaments. These subsidized tournaments lose money for the online gambling site, but bring in future customers. The customers gamble in subsidized tournaments because they have positive expected value. To make bitcoin gambling big, you need to do the following.
1) Design a professional site that is competitive with the sites of other leading players in terms of visual appeal and functionality (this is expensive)
2) Provide massive subsidized poker tournaments which reward people who learn how to acquire bitcoin and use it to gamble on the site. (this is very expensive)
Small-scale private entrepreneurs are trying to do (1) and (2) already, but are failing to attract a large audience due to lack of resources. If 50% of all mined bitcoin were invested in site development and subsidized tournaments for 2 years, it is almost certain that a very large number of gamblers would be motivated to learn how to use bitcoin and bitcoin gambling sites. Once these subsidies were withdrawn, the gamblers would almost certainly continue purchasing bitcoin en masse and gambling with it.
If the investment of mined currency was centrally managed, then substantial funds could be made available for projects like this.
Without central management and major funding, it is quite likely that projects like bitcoin gambling will never take off. Bitcoin is simply too complicated for members of the general public to learn about unless a substantial reward is offered to incentivize their learning. It is not worthwhile for a private entrepreneur to throw money at the general public in order to promote bitcoin gambling. It would be worthwhile for a collective organization devoted to promoting bitcoin to throw money at bitcoin gamblers.
|
|
|
|
so for example, suppose some other group repeated the experiment and refutes the OPERA result, but OPERA does not release any statement. Based on what you are saying, the statement would be false in this case. This isn't at all clear from the statement text. It could be read either way. You should cancel the bet in my opinion.
ICARUS collaboration recently measured neutrino speeds in their own experiment and found no excess speed. There are also astrophysical observations of neutrino speeds from many years ago which are cited in the original OPERA paper. These do not mean that an "error is discovered" in the OPERA experiment. Also the description we posted is quite clear that we require an official statement from the collaboration. It can't be clear or there wouldn't be this much misunderstanding of it. I'm not even betting on it. You can check. |
|
|
|
That announcement has to come from OPERA only or could it come from someone else? [To bad I don't have funds left to bet on this then, the yes side now looks way overvalued]
Statement description says "if there is an official statement from the OPERA collaboration", so yes it has to come from OPERA. so for example, suppose some other group repeated the experiment and refutes the OPERA result, but OPERA does not release any statement. Based on what you are saying, the statement would be false in this case. This isn't at all clear from the statement text. It could be read either way. You should cancel the bet in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Here is what we said in the statement description: This statement will be true if there is an official statement from the OPERA collaboration stating that there was an error in the previous analysis or the results are refuted by more data before the end of April. Here is the only official statement from the OPERA collaboration: The OPERA collaboration has informed its funding agencies and host laboratories that it has identified two possible effects that could have an influence on its neutrino timing measurement. These both require further tests with a short pulsed beam. If confirmed, one would increase the size of the measured effect, the other would diminish it. Emphasis is mine. We haven't closed the bets because the collaboration haven't confirmed these possible errors and there is large chance that the conclusion will not be reached until the end of April. To be more clear, if no more development happens until the end of April, the statement will be ruled false. If there is a positive announcement we will close the bets and rule the statement true. That announcement has to come from OPERA only or could it come from someone else? [To bad I don't have funds left to bet on this then, the yes side now looks way overvalued] |
|
|
|
I tend to agree with that assessment. Bitcoin needs strong leadership backed by some cash on both the development and business fronts.
While success or failure might not be foregone conclusions it's easy to see how easily Bitcoin could wither away.
But let me ask this. Is P2P digital currency a cash cow in any sense? Where is the money to be had for big players to come in and push Bitcoin? I don't see it.
Somehow I only see it surviving in grass roots mode and, of course, that's super questionable.
You are still missing much of the point. 'big money' interest comes from concentrated ownership of the currency. Gains come from currency appreciation not direct business profits. The business activities are likely loss-making, but still in the interest of the concentrated owner to pursue. The problem is that without any concentrated ownership there is no incentive for anyone to undertake anything. This is one reason why I was hoping that Vlad performed the 51% attack. He might become the central owner. I propose a solution that doesn't require a central owner here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75029.0 Essentially, the solution is to create something like a cryptocorporation to run the cryptocurrency. |
|
|
|
professional trolls
Smart trolls inspire useful change in society. Cheerleading idiots, not so much. |
|
|
|
Bet #139, currently the bet with the largest amount wagered on the entire set, is just a few weeks away from a decision. The wagers favor at nearly a 3:1 ratio that "An error will be discovered in the faster-than-light-neutrinos experiment by the end of April 2012". Physicist Dr. Amber L. Stuver states: it was found that a loose fiber optic cable and an error in their timing produced the superluminal observations. - http://stuver.blogspot.com/2012/04/no-faster-than-light-neutrinos.htmlThe bet included the instructions: This statement will be true if there is an official statement from the OPERA collaboration stating that there was an error in the previous analysis or the results are refuted by more data before the end of April. - http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=139That's almost a slam dunk then for those betting "True" but there are still three weeks left where additional wagers can be placed, causing that ratio to widen even as the latecomers wager on True as well So even though the return isn't that great, it might seem like this would be a sure thing that the result will be True. There is just a hint of suspense yet though. There was no "official statement" about there being an error yet, as far as I saw. It is widely known that the data can "refute the results" but as-of-yet new data confirming the error hasn't been published. The instructions don't specify that the data has to be made official though so this has probably already been decided. I just wanted to ask then if any alteration to the bet occurs when the decision is already known before the end date. No affect? I suppose that's a risk those betting early should take into account. I don't have any holding in this bet, but in my opinion it is extremely ambiguous and should be cancelled. In very many cases, "the results are refuted by more data before the end of April" is hard to interpret. The fact that the bet hasn't been closed already suggests that the site's interpretation is that there is still no additional data available yet. However, it is not clear if that is true. |
|
|
|
My operations are 100% open source linux. I dig open source deep and heavy, man, it's produces state of the art software of high quality better than any other process I've ever seen  I even released a little freeware app in the early 1990s. I recall having a firm enthusiastically pick it up and start using it ( it was a disk optimizer for the old OS/2 HPFS file system ) and they had the hardest time accepting that I wasn't in a position to maintain and enhance it but I was more than happy to give away the source code. The fact that the core software development follows the open source model is not the big problem. The problem is that bitcoin-related commercial ventures are left up to small-scale entrepreneurs. Any small-scale entrepreneur thinking about a commercial venture can see that a) the current market is miniscule. No profit worth speaking about is available. b) the future market may be big and profitable. However, there is no reason to expect that getting involved now will be that helpful in accessing this potential future market (which probably won't exist in any case). The logical response to this is to buy some bitcoin and wait for someone else to make bitcoin succeed. If everyone waits simultaneously, then bitcoin fails. That is what is happening. To get the ball rolling, you need to have an agency which is heavily invested in bitcoin (say to the tune of ten million USD) to spearhead and fund projects. They would have an incentive to do something professional because they could gain from currency appreciation. This needs to happen in order to get to the future where bitcoin can be big and profitable. If an agency like this isn't created, bitcoin will continue to consist of hobby businesses. The profits from these businesses are so slim that even when they attract a reasonable amount of interest, the business owners often fail to maintain them. You certainly don't see them upgrading and becoming professional. That makes sense. There is no reason to invest money right now when there is no money to be made right now. |
|
|
|
I think you're missing the **entire** point of why we split from ggbtc... I know this is all very exciting, and we appreciate the support and encouragement, but I really want you to take a step back and look at our subreddit. look at our comments, look at our forum posts. if leaders in the btc community like you never grasp why we women want to get involved, and to what degree, you will be forever limiting our skills, knowledge, and power. so thanks, but no thanks.
Many of the people here are not too bright. Stripcoin targets a more cretin-like demographic and this may be more appropriate given characteristics of the bitcoin user base. Best of luck with your venture though. Based on your pictures, I am guessing you are located near Santa Cruz. If so, you will likely find the people here disagreeable. Bitcoin is very popular among radical right wingers. |
|
|
|
Square is a company with a professional development team... |
|
|
|
I love the lack of focus I see here.
1) Nicely put and accurate. Can I subscribe to your posts somehow? 2) It is a volunteer project with no central source of funding or leadership. Monetary incentive to develop useful applications is extremely limited. Charitable incentives are supposed to substitute for this. I made a suggestion about how to fix these problems by the way. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75029.0 However, I don't think that the lack of funding, professionalism, and central direction is widely perceived to be a problem around here. |
|
|
|
confirmed predictions of real science
What is the number for the Ministry of Eugenics? |
|
|
|
This is run by the government... thus the discussion of regulated monopoly. It wouldn't be good gov't policy to have high fees like paypal. The gov't can just tax people if they want money. Why would they choose to get revenue in an inefficient way?
Most services provided by the govt ARE inefficient. They have no profit motive, no need for lower costs. Like any govt agency it will become fat, bloated, and inefficient. That's likely true, but it would need to be pretty fucking inefficient to need paypal like fees to support itself. I don't see that level of inefficiency as likely. Bitcoin itself is already extremely fat, bloated, and inefficient by design. |
|
|
|
Yes, but you are a libertarian asshat. Most regular people just want an easy way to send money with low fees.
Which is why Paypal already existed and it has low fees. So problem solved? er wait. There are only two outcomes with a centralized issuer: Network remains small and utility is low. Network becomes large and monopolistic, prices continually increase as the monopoly entity exploits this fact. This is run by the government... thus the discussion of regulated monopoly. It wouldn't be good gov't policy to have high fees like paypal. The gov't can just tax people if they want money. Why would they choose to get revenue in an inefficient way? |
|
|
|
There were two features of Bitcoin which first made me so wild about it:
1) Decentralized - no party could prevent a transaction or freeze an account in any way.
2) New currency - was an entirely new currency, without perpetual debasement, not just a way to transfer USD, etc.
Without these two features, Bitcoin would be nothing. I think any "competitor" to Bitcoin without these two features will be feeble and irrelevant.
With that said, MintChip is somewhat exciting, and I hope it's successful as it will dovetail nicely with Bitcoin. Perhaps it will be one more bridge to Bitcoin that the peons can trample across as the global fiats fall apart.
Yes, but you are a libertarian asshat. Most regular people just want an easy way to send money with low fees. |
|
|
|
Isn't bitcoin a competitor? Honestly not really. It is like saying Paypal will drop their fees 90% because Bitcoin exists. By your logic Paypal with their near monopoly position should have very low fees right? No. Paypal is a natural monopoly. Network effects. It is not due to gov't sanction. Only paypal can exist, dwolla is illegal. No. It is a natural monopoly. |
|
|
|
There is only one issuer of MintChip. Maybe you forget we are TALKING ABOUT MINTCHIP. I know it may be confusing that the topic is MintChip in the fraking mint chip thread. My point before you went off on one of your asinine derails is that ... What MintChip & Bitcoin seem to have in common benefit to the users are:
1) Digital
2) Irreversible
3) Low / Non-Existent transaction fees There is no proof #3 is true. MintChip hasn't released any fee schedule and based on the fact they are a monopoly it is very unlikely that it will be true. What does forbidding competition by law have to do with this? Who said that was a good idea? Where did you go strawman? come back!!!! MintChip is issued by the Royal Mint of Canda. There is a single issuer and single issuer only. Good idea or not the reality is there is no competition. Period. Isn't bitcoin a competitor? Anyways. I don't disagree with what you are saying. We don't know much about it at all right now, but that cuts both ways. It is too soon to say anything negative or positive. |
|
|
|
No rational miner will ever reject all other blocks when he has 51% because this will lower the value of the BTC he is mining. Irrational miners however ...
No rational user will stop using bitcoin because of the identity of the person processing their txns. Therefore, there is no rational reason to believe that a monopoly would negatively affect price. In fact, the rational argument points in the opposite direction. Monopolized Control -> Stronger incentives for monopolist to develop uses for bitcoin -> More new uses developed -> Higher price Your argument goes Monopolized Control  Less Useful -> Lower Price I'm not understanding the part. Seems illogical. Could you explain without introducing irrational behavior? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
