On the other hand, im more interested in making more BTC rather han making more USD, and im mad that im not holding Dash, but then again, of all the altcoins.. who would have known Dash would fly? You have to fight FOMO. You know if you buy now it will drop like a rock ... lol. Hopefully this is the last point I want to make about that. I think it is time for me to stop worrying about the speculator markets. Value can be proven by real adoption. I think that will drive solid investment, not just speculation. Any way, let's attempt it and find out. |
|
|
|
I waiting for the day he is going to go through with his threat and sell his claimed Bitcoin stash, this is someone that Bitcoin made and decided to block the obvious choice to scale Bitcoin because the blockstream team excluded him from the SegWit cake Doesn't Ver also control bitcoin.com? I am guessing that his ego is larger than his brain. He is probably trying to avoid his share of the blockchain networth exponentially diluting, but this is the folly of fools. Being a whale due to fortuitous timing and/or work, must accompany the humbleness to appreciate that your individual role must be diluted in order for the overall system to grow exponentially. Click the quoted link about seniorage below as an analogy. Ver seems to want to be involved with systems which violate that principle and try to have fiat masters who continue to receive seniorage ongoing as follows: How is that different than fluffypony running a Gambling web site that was hacked ? Who was also paid by a millionaire who admitted to buying half a million dollars worth of Monero way back ? (in today's money) What part of Monero's protocol doesn't transfer tokens to anyone except if they burn electricity do you not comprehend? If you can't understand the relevance of that distinction to decentralization, then you are not qualified to tell anyone about crypto. tl;dr is @Spoetnik is more concerned with ego than facts. He seems to be entirely oblivious to the egregious distinction of decentralization between the two coins he is writing about. So he is an example of exactly what he complains about: the ignorance of speculators. And he appears to be collaborating with manipulation experts (Casey Research and pink sheets mining stocks mining the speculators): Re: Roger Ver Send First 100k Payment in Dash
I must remark that the ability to manipulate the FOMO ignorance of speculators with irrelevant hype is the hallmark of a system where the insiders have worked out some "I'll scratch your back, if you scratch mine" deal. Such deals are possible because the system is not decentralized, but in actuality the private fiat system of those who are profiting off the ability to offer special deals because of the insider control over the money supply and ongoing issue of the money supply.
In short, "Evan Inc" in all likelihood made a deal with Roger Ver and Casey Research. Everybody gets paid off with your money. More dumb "greater fools" money is drawn in, rinse, repeat, and everybody is happy.
What they've done is brought the pink sheets mining stocks corruption (which Casey Research is intimately involved with) into our ecosystem.
Speculation markets are ruled top-down. The only way to move away from "mining the speculators" is to trump them in the adoption market.
I think Ethereum is also in this " mine the speculator" business model: @iamnotback but you do realise that, compared to all other projects out there ( except bitcoin since it was first ) ethereum is really undervalued, that if you take under consideration the whole ecosystem it has build around it. I mean, if clones like dash can have 1/4 of ethereum's cap it's really sad.
Also, leaving aside everything that makes ethereum what it is today, it also brought blockchain developing as a job into the mainstream.
I agree unless someone demonstrates that both Dash and Ethereum are not truly viable for adoption and another way is. Then you can see both of them implode, if they can't adopt that other paradigm quickly enough. That is a lot of "ifs". For the near-term, I agree with you that the likely outcome is more interest piled into these (what I think are " mine the speculator") paradigms. |
|
|
|
The fact that bitcoin can be so called "upgraded", which really just means changed, means it's not anti-fragile by default.
Agreed. But don't dismiss the future before it happens. Blockchains are only in the Pong and Pacman stage of maturity. |
|
|
|
You may click this quote to read the entire discussion: @r0ach, @OROBTC, @STT, and @tabnloz, regarding the recent discussion... In short, the value of money is the public CONFIDENCE or expectation of the ability that others find it valuable as a store-of-value and/or unit-of-exchange. Bitcoin's confidence current derives primarily from expectations of its future utility, not its current utility. Although Bitcoin's volume is only 1/30,000th of the SWIFT system, it provides enormous utility as value transfer system of greater degrees-of-freedom in that it is unimpeded by top-down barriers, such as nation-state borders and different legal regimes. But the confidence in Bitcoin is limited to those who are smart enough to understand that utility, which is under appreciated by the masses and Bitcoin doesn't have the ability to scale to something that the masses could experience first hand. Yet I can tell you that I already know how to improve blockchains so they can fulfill their destiny. The necessary design is already sitting in an unpublished whitepaper already stored online for safe keeping. Thus @r0ach's complaints against crypto-currency are historic perspectives not forward looking. Whereas, the confidence of goldbugs in gold is actually a historic perspective which is probably overconfident. The future of gold as a reliable settlement vehicle is dismal. |
|
|
|
just people trying to fool themselves into thinking they can create money when all they're making is currencies
Decentralized unit-of-account and/or unit-of-exchange are essential to decentralized store-of-value. Don't conflate centralized fiat (what you name 'currencies') with those properties of money. |
|
|
|
You may click this quote to read the entire discussion: Whereas, the confidence of goldbugs in gold is actually a historic perspective which is probably overconfident. The future of gold as a reliable settlement vehicle is dismal. If it's so dismal, why can't you name a single counter-example to replace it? I already did. My perspective is future oriented. Gold's dismal future is baked in regardless of whether a replacement is developed. Currency never holds value.
Please distinguish between the corrupt seniorage system of fiat and that of correctly distributed crypto-currency. Corrupt top-down controlled systems rot and decay. Decentralized paradigms are antifragile. Gold is no longer decentralized because it has lost its unit-of-account and unit-of-exchange usage, thus the market makers (for liquidity) are top-down controlled. |
|
|
|
Whereas, the confidence of goldbugs in gold is actually a historic perspective which is probably overconfident. The future of gold as a reliable settlement vehicle is dismal. If it's so dismal, why can't you name a single counter-example to replace it? I already did. My perspective is future oriented. Gold's dismal future is baked in regardless of whether a replacement is developed. Currency never holds value.
Please distinguish between the corrupt seniorage system of fiat and that of correctly distributed crypto-currency. Corrupt top-down controlled systems rot and decay. Decentralized paradigms are antifragile. Gold is no longer decentralized because it has lost its unit-of-account and unit-of-exchange usage, thus the market makers (for liquidity) are top-down controlled. |
|
|
|
@r0ach, @OROBTC, @STT, and @tabnloz, regarding the recent discussion... In short, the value of money is the public CONFIDENCE or expectation of the ability that others find it valuable as a store-of-value and/or unit-of-exchange. Bitcoin's confidence current derives primarily from expectations of its future utility, not its current utility. Although Bitcoin's volume is only 1/30,000th of the SWIFT system, it provides enormous utility as value transfer system of greater degrees-of-freedom in that it is unimpeded by top-down barriers, such as nation-state borders and different legal regimes. But the confidence in Bitcoin is limited to those who are smart enough to understand that utility, which is under appreciated by the masses and Bitcoin doesn't have the ability to scale to something that the masses could experience first hand. Yet I can tell you that I already know how to improve blockchains so they can fulfill their destiny. The necessary design is already sitting in an unpublished whitepaper already stored online for safe keeping. Thus @r0ach's complaints against crypto-currency are historic perspectives not forward looking. Whereas, the confidence of goldbugs in gold is actually a historic perspective which is probably overconfident. The future of gold as a reliable settlement vehicle is dismal. |
|
|
|
I entirely agree. This is always the same law: predictions are difficult if they concern the future. It is the crypto equivalent of Malkiel's thesis, that there's no "smart investor" that *systematically* can outsmart the market, and that in the long run, monkeys playing on the stock market do just as well as hedge fund managers.
But of course, on every time slice, there are lottery winners, who think they have something special.
Well not in the small of uniqueness, but as I presume you know, there are ordered repeating patterns in chaos on the large aggregate perspective, i.e. the Sun rises every day and humans have on the average a consistent lifespan and age of maturation. I believe Martin Armstrong taps into this order to increase his odds of being correct about the future macro environment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractor#Strange_attractor |
|
|
|
I entirely agree. This is always the same law: predictions are difficult if they concern the future. It is the crypto equivalent of Malkiel's thesis, that there's no "smart investor" that *systematically* can outsmart the market, and that in the long run, monkeys playing on the stock market do just as well as hedge fund managers.
But of course, on every time slice, there are lottery winners, who think they have something special.
Well not in the small of uniqueness, but as I presume you know, there are ordered repeating patterns in chaos on the large aggregate perspective, i.e. the Sun rises every day and humans have on the average a consistent lifespan and age of maturation. I believe Martin Armstrong taps into this order to increase his odds of being correct about the future macro environment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractor#Strange_attractor |
|
|
|
Any takes on why in the fuck is freaking Dash skyrocketing?
Roger Ver promoted it on Casey Research. Given the tiny actual float of Dash (i.e. most of the market cap is locked up in masternodes and otherwise controlled by "Evan Inc"), this has been sufficient to create a situation of demand far outstripping supply of liquid tokens. I want to stop writing about Dash, because I don't believe it is a trustless blockchain. I believe (or let's say it is alleged with strong corroborating circumstantial evidence) it is controlled by "Evan Inc". |
|
|
|
...in relation to an "observer", which is entirely well-defined
And provable to no other observer.  for you? You ignored the most damning point. Are you chasing your tail yet? |
|
|
|
the "entropy of the universe" (which is an ill-defined concept)...
That is what I've been trying to tell you. (not ill-defined, rather unbounded) ...in relation to an "observer", which is entirely well-defined
And provable to no other observer. for you? So my cup of hot water has already an entropy of 10^25 bits. No computing system on earth masters a memory capacity (*) of 10^25 bits, not even the whole internet.
As if memory capacity is the entropy of the Internet (and which memory specifically?). Since when was the Internet an isolated system and not entangled with the user's lives? Someone posts something to Facebook shares with a friend who is talking about and hours later posts something back to the Internet. The offline surprises are not included in the entropy of the Internet? How did you decide where to draw this arbitrary border around what is the Internet? Can you define this border unambiguously (be careful!)? |
|
|
|
Most people in crypto now are in it for money, it is only Satoshi that is in this because he has the vision, but most people will ask what about the 1 million Bitcoin stash but who has any proof that he has been spending it.
For example, to say I am in it only for the money and not for my vision is going to be mistake on your part. Creators never do something only for the money. If I mostly wanted money, I would have manipulated with reputation and launched a snazzy ICO already. In my case, I am doing it for: a) expression of my creativity, b) love of the process and challenge of creating (i.e. not boring), and c) because I want to have an impact. Yes I do need money, but I choose my work based on those a - c as my overriding priorities. I trust society to reward money (capital) to those who prove they allocate capital resources efficiently. We don't know how much Satoshi was paid by someone (Hint: Rothschilds). The odds that Satoshi was one person are very slim (one person doesn't produce what he with the organization and foresight he had and disappear without a trace ... only covert agencies or their equivalents can do that). |
|
|
|
but there must be a better solution.
There is. |
|
|
|
whats the point of being an alternative to the greedy bankers system if we ourselves become the greedy bankers  The greedy bankers system we have today concentrates more and more power to the greedy bankers. Ie, because they have money, they can get more money, because they are in charge of the interest rates etc they can affect the economy. In a cryptocurrency greedy banker scenario as the banker "consumes" his wealth (stake in the crypto currency) he becomes less relevent because as a percentage his share is going down. eg: I realease a coin and pre-mine 50% of the coins. People start buying the other 50% and put the price up, so I decide i'm going to dump 50% of my holdings, I make some nice alternate currency (ie, USD) and feel very happy, fat and greedy, but, now I only own 25% of the currency. Thats not really how it goes in the current system of greedy bankers, where they get rich, spend it, the print some more and give it to themselves. i think you really misunderstand what i meant by crypto's greedy bankers. your example is comparing apples with oranges; ie comparing fiat bankers with the premine scam coin pump and dumpers (which are far removed from the new breed of greedy bankers forming in crypto). I made a point which preceded your posts: Thus there is nothing wrong with the creator obtaining some exponentially diminishing seigniorage.
Any premine becomes an ever diminishing portion of the total supply if the emission of new money supply is perpetual. Whereas the greedy banksters and their fiat system continues to extract seigniorage ongoing and doesn't diminish. Any blockchain which continues to extract tokens to pay to the developers is akin to a greedy banksters, fiat system. They may employ a democratic governance to obscure the fact that they are really in control of voting to pay themselves from the blockchain. Notice I have not named the blockchains which do this, but you can figure it out. Edit: more about this. |
|
|
|
go buy a laptop loser.
again, look in the mirror and say out loud...
eye wee todd did
The powerful logic of those who like ICOs and centralization. |
|
|
|
tl;dr is @Spoetnik is more concerned with ego than facts. He seems to be entirely oblivious to the egregious distinction of decentralization between the two coins he is writing about. So he is an example of exactly what he complains about: the ignorance of speculators. |
|
|
|
Nothing in crypto is a scam, because crypto is based upon trustlessness.
Anything that is not truly decentralized is not going to have the trustlessness property so as to be adopted by the world. Would you prefer the word 'inadequate' or 'permissioned' (i.e. not trustless) to 'scam'? |
|
|
|
Also are transaction fees burned? If not, then it can be surely gamed.
explain.. Because of the opportunity to find a way to game it or collude on it to have the fees paid to yourself, because you aren't burning any resource. Then you can conduct as many transactions as you need to structure the transaction graph of PoI to your asymmetrical benefit. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
