...
I am not claiming that a potato will not be worth as much as the highest bidder is willing to pay for it. I am instead claiming that the price of a potato will always return to value determined by its utility.
Just like the gold's value returned to the utility-only value? Just like Chateau d'Yquem ($50k/bottle) is now worth same as any other wine sold at supermarket? Just like you can now buy white truffles at $1/kg? Price is determined by supply and demand. Scarcity is a factor that drives the price up - whether you want to accept it or not. Utility itself won't automatically create monetary value, for the same reason you won't pay for air, even know it has huge utility - it keeps you alive. The prices of the goods you mentioned didn't rise 200,000,000 percent from their utility value, while the Bitcoin's prices did. Regarding scarcity, it is true that scarcity is a factor that drives the price up, but the utility provided by bitcoin is not scarce, since people can create an infinite number of digital currencies that will serve as means of exchange. If 21 million grains of sand are put into a box and a limitation is set that this is the maximum number of grains that can be put into the box, this artificial constraint won't make these grains scarce or valuable. This is because people can create their own boxes, fill them with sand and set their own quantitative limitations. Why would people pay 10,000 dollars for a grain of sand in your box if they can make their own boxes with sand in them? Likewise, why would people pay 10,000 dollars for numerical values in your digital box if they can design their own digital boxes with numerical values in them? You people live in a fantasy world. When you wake up, it will be too late. I've been on this forum long enough to know not to engage in incoherent rants. Clarify your position. Are you arguing that scarcity doesn't affect the price or that Bitcoin is not really scarce? |
|
|
|
...
I am not claiming that a potato will not be worth as much as the highest bidder is willing to pay for it. I am instead claiming that the price of a potato will always return to value determined by its utility.
Just like the gold's value returned to the utility-only value? Just like Chateau d'Yquem ($50k/bottle) is now worth same as any other wine sold at supermarket? Just like you can now buy white truffles at $1/kg? Price is determined by supply and demand. Scarcity is a factor that drives the price up - whether you want to accept it or not. Utility itself won't automatically create monetary value, for the same reason you won't pay for air, even know it has huge utility - it keeps you alive. |
|
|
|
Met a girl who has been working on a restaurant for mere 200$ a month with some tips in hand. On a conversation she started to elaborate about her life and in between the conversation turned towards cryptocurrency. By the time, she stated she has got 300 bitcoin in her wallet. While the price was around $10 she has given it to her Sister to keep hold of it and keep it secure. Her sister has made use of it and invested into lot of properties. Now when asked about the bitcoin, she shows bare hands. Now she was unable to do anything, and surviving with the $200+ salary per month. Don't you feel pity, it really hurts on hearing the tearful words coming out from her.
"Stories that never happened" 11 year old girl spends time on obscure cryptographic nerd forums, despite not having bank account, somehow manages to buy in and then just hands it all over to her evil sister. Sounds legit. When they were gone, Cinderella, whose heart was very sad, sat down and cried bitterly; but as she sat sorrowful, thinking of the unkindness of her sisters, a voice called to her from the garden, and she went out to see who was there. It was her godmother, a good old Fairy. |
|
|
|
Let's suppose that for some reason the supply of potato drastically decreases all around the world. Does that mean that people will pay 10.000 dollars for a potato or give up their cars just to get a potato? Of course not.
Potato will be worth as much as the highest bidder is willing to pay for it. Google 'most expensive food' or wine and you'll be surprised how much people are willing to pay. [Trinidad_James-All_Potato_Everything.jpg] Your 'argument' doesn't even require debunking, the reality proves it false everyday. |
|
|
|
When memes become reality, fresh press hit: In an interview with CNBC earlier this year, Pietro Grigerio, a dealer principal at a Lamborghini dealership in California, said his dealership has witnessed the trend firsthand. In December, when Bitcoin was hovering at $19,000, cryptocurrency-related purchases for Lamborghinis at his dealership soared from one or two a month between 2013 and 2016 to more than 10 deals in December. http://fortune.com/2018/04/03/bitcoin-millionaire-lamborghini-when-lambo/When's your lambo due? https://when-lambo.com/ |
|
|
|
And again. This time using domain gram-token-ico.com
Just got email advertising this site. Smelled scammy as I haven't used that email for telegram. They must've got hold of some old data leak. Very well crafted scam, site looks really professional + shows 89% funded and has high min purchase, to force people to make rushed decision without due diligence. Thanks for making this thread OP. |
|
|
|
Rozumiem jednak, że jako początkujący trader nie mam nawet co mysleć o graniu na dziwgni, tak?
Czemu? Mozesz potestowac malymi kwotami i zobaczyc jak to dziala. Jesli nigdy nie handlowales z dzwignia to nie masz prawa nazywac sie "traderem"  |
|
|
|
|
Podany uproszczony przyklad nie do konca jest "shortowaniem" i w tym przypadku nie zarabiasz, co najwyzej ratujesz sie przed strata. Zarobisz dopiero jak BTC odbije sie od $800. Shortowanie to sprzedaz pozyczonego aktywa.
|
|
|
|
WARNING. This looks like an obvious scam attempt. ...
This is a scam attempt. Low quality one, aimed at newbies. Very disrespectful. Reported to mods. |
|
|
|
|
^^^ Thanks Dean. Received my prizes.
|
|
|
|
Hi. In the ICO details I see this info: Further, by participating in the Pantos referral program, users will receive five per cent of the value of Pantos tokens (PAN) purchased by your referees. Is there a separate referral programme for ICO, or does it work with the usual 'refer a friend' link from Bitpanda account? |
|
|
|
...Regardless of that, it's at the core of blockchain technology that it can't do many transactions per second. It's not only bitcoin, it's blockchain in general that's unsuitable for payment systems.
That's pretty flawed statement. Cryptos are alredy proven to work as a payment system, because you can pay with them. What you're saying is one blockchain/crypto is unsuitable to become a one, global currency. But, even assuming it's true, I seriously fail to see how does that makes cryptos worthless. Where did you get the idea "it's all or nothing"? Explain why Bitcoin, or any other crypto, is only worth something when it has the capacity to service every person in the world? Why would it have no value if stays forever in a niche? |
|
|
|
...
Napisali półtora miesiąca temu, że mogą to zrobić za opłatą 50 usd.
Ja im odpisałem, że się zgadzam i od tego momentu cisza, nie odpisują.
Podejrzewam, że taki zabieg to kwestia godziny pracy ? Czy dobrze myślę? Pewnie chodzi tylko o to, żeby ktoś sie ruszył i zmotywował do tej pracy ?
Kwota to 12500 zł, więc myślę, że nie taka mała.
Tak wrzucałem ten adres BTX na blockchain.info i "wisi" tam ta moja kwota, którą przelałem. Jest balans BTC.
Dobrze ze ci tak odpisali. Masz jakas podstawe prawna zeby ubiegac sie od nich zwrotu w razie czego. Przypominaj im o sobie regularnie, zaczepiaj na mediach spolecznosciowych, napisz w ich oficjalnym watku: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1691388.0 az do skutku. ...
Bo jak podejrzewam, to jest ich dobra wola a nie obowiązek, żeby taką akcję wykonać ?
...
Tu jest troche szara strefa jesli chodzi o to czy maja obowiazek czy nie. Z jednej strony obowiazku moga nie miec ale wtedy nie maja prawa ruszyc tych BTC (mimo ze maja dostep), bo wiedza do kogo naleza i ze zostaly przeslane przez pomylke. |
|
|
|
Ok wake me up when bitcoin can do more than 14 transactions per second. Something like the 65.000 per second that VISA currently processes. And don't start about LN, because that's just the dumbest system ever that won't work, like I explaind before: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2792933.0WTF Bitcoin has to do with Swift's private blockchain again? |
|
|
|
You did read my previous post? SWIFT actually agrees with the author that blockchain in its current state is NOT suitable for payment systems (which is no surprise given the current 14 tx/sec limit for bitcoin for example). Maybe some day someone will invent a new algo and it will work. But who knows if that's even possible. Until that day bitcoins is worthless as a payment system.
Author of the original article was almost certainly clueless about Swift's project and probably moreso about the hacks they suffered. As for FT piece - There's a difference between 'not ready yet' and 'inherently useless or inferior to current systems'. There's a difference between 'not suitable for payment systems' and 'not yet ready to support all 11,000 banks'. According to Swift, test went 'extremely well' and are 'convinced that these obstacles will be overcome'. Change the title and you have pretty bullish piece. |
|
|
|
You don't need to have a numeric way to measure two things against each other to say one is greater than the other. You don't need quantitative data to back every statement you make in your life. I can say that Mozart was more talented at writing and performing music than Kirk Cousins is at playing quarterback in the NFL and there is no way to measure this, but everyone would agree that it is true. It's not an unreasonable statement to make at all.
But what you said is more in line with: You- Kirk Cousins is not worth $20m/year contract! Me- How much do you think he's worth then? You- Hurr durr what kind of question is that? You can't put a figure on skills! Me- wtf?? You really don't believe me? Transactions were costing insane amounts of money in November/December last year and taking weeks to process. They were stuck sitting in mem pools forever. Here is the ID, although I don't think there is any way you can see when I submitted it: 7345a9bc63c1532082414d1849ff908a18f4dbdc0859959197fa022c66a2dd3e
Yes you can. Your tx took less than 5 days, not 8. You paid $20.43 worth of fees (at that time) not $40. You exaggerated by a factor of x3.2. With $40 fee, standard sized tx would likely get included in the next block (even during peak congestion time), that's why I called you out on that. I never claimed they were settled, that is irrelevant. It just has to be confirmed for a credit card transaction... you can't just accept that a bitcoin transaction will be all set when it enters the mem pool... in the case of bitcoin, you NEED to wait for it to settle.
You could before RBF was implemented and blocks weren't full. The risk was there but it was far lower than the risk of fraudulent credit card chargeback (btw, merchant can consider cc payment fully settled when chargeback time limit expires), so perfectly fine for small/mid transactions. You can still do that with BCH, you have other coins with near-instant confirmations (or instant non-blockchain coins) and you have other solutions like LN in a making. Wait, why am I feeling like I'm repeating myself... If you build a payment system on top of bitcoin then you are taking something decentralized and improving it by centralizing it. Coinbase can do instant transfers because they control all of the bitcoin and know all of their private keys are valid. You can't transfer into or out of Coinbase instantly. If you want all bitcoin payments to be controlled by a sytem like Coinbase then why even use bitcoin at all? What is the benefit of that over credit cards?
There is always a tradeoff between decentralization/trustlessness and speed/scalability. Nobody is SOLVING the pitfalls of crypto without sacrificing decentralization and trustlessness.
Relying on 3rd parties on top of blockchain is hypothetical dark scenario when everything else fails. Even then you have benefit of having control over majority of your funds and only depositing smaller amounts to the 3rd parties. Having to trust someone with your $200 is not the same as having to trust someone with all your money, all the time, isn't it? I'm sure even you put at least a tiny value in having an option in life (to use crypto if you ever feel like it), it's better than not having such option. The difference between bitcoin and mcdonalds is that mcdonalds has a book value. They have stores, inventory, etc. They also have sales, and earnings... income... bitcoin has none of that. It has no intrinsic value, which is why it cannot exist in this limbo state you described forever.
Bitcoins also have book value. You didn't address the point. Can you explain, precisely at what tx/sec capacity rate BTC moves from being completely worthless to being worth something. What's the magic number? No, you are saying that Swift and others investing in private non-trustless blockchains means they have value.
It's a strong indicator that they find the technology useful. I don't expect Swift is spending shitloads on blockchain solutions just to bump their stock price, because they are a Society and don't even have a listed stock + probably they would be the first to debunk the blockchain tech if it was indeed useless (as it's a direct competition to their service). Just as I find it hard to believe that Blockstream would manage to sell their private blockchain solutions to any business if it was indeed inferior to the existing tech etc. Yes, I find it more credible than word of an anonymous forum "expert", with no history, saying "they're all wrong/they're a fraud". Second of all, I don't see any real connection between BTC's worth and usefulness of private chains, so couldn't care less. Creating a new crypto and automatically assigning it value is exactly what is happening every day! Look at all the IPOs everywhere. This is literally what bitcoin is... creating value out of nothing. If it worked for bitcoin, eth, bch, ltc, iota, xrp, doge, etc... why would we think this will stop?
So if I create my own premined shitcoin and assign its value at $1m/coin, I'd be instantly the richest man in the world? Or, could it be, I actually need someone to buy from me at that price? USD has intrinsic value because every person and organization in the US is required by law to accept it as payment for debt. It is legally guaranteed value by the US government. I would argue that this is intrinsic value. This differs from bitcoin, which nobody is required to accept anywhere.
What's guaranteed is USD acceptance, not its value. Zimbabwean Dollars were also a legal tender and how did that work in terms of retaining the value? There's no intrinsic value in USD. What's funny, it can get worse than that, in some cases being legal tender can prevent you from extracting intrinsic value from physical notes/coins, i.e. scrap metal value of 1 cent coin exceeds 1 cent, but scrapping/destroying official money is a criminal offence. |
|
|
|
...
What are you talking about? That concept doesn't make any sense. Decentralization is a concept, not an asset. It doesn't have a quantitative value. If that is really what you are asking then your question has no answer.
I agree (with the bold part). But yet you gave decentralisation some value by saying: "The benefit of decentralization is not nearly large enough to outweigh the massive costs". Costs are measurable and you valued decentralisation below that. What if costs were 50% lower, or 75%, would decentralisation outweigh the costs then? Is there any deeper logic behind your statement, or is it just "I don't like it - not worth it"? I had never even heard of Aliexpress but the problem you are describing is most likely not an issue with the credit card. Either way, your evidence is completely anecdotal. The last bitcoin transaction I made took 8 days and cost $40.
Aliexpress is a sub-brand of Alibaba, only the biggest e-commerce platform in the world. Not quite an anecdotal evidence if there are plenty of others with similar problems and when they have dedicated FAQ section for that. What's anecdotal (purposely?) is your BTC transaction, if really happened at all (care to share tx id?). Speed/cost may be performing better for crypto recently, but 10 minutes is still WAY too slow. If I go into a store to buy something, I'm not going to wait 10 minutes for the payment to process. Furthermore, the costs for bitcoin transactions are higher than credit card costs to vendors for reasonably small transactions. This problem will only become larger as mining becomes more difficult and fees rise. For bitcoin to be worth anything, it needs to be able to scale to thousands of times its current size, and it is running into major hurdles way before even coming remotely close to that point.
Are you of impression that fiat transaction are settled instantly? You can build any 3rd party payment services on top on Bitcoin, with instant transactions (ie transfers between Coinbase accounts, pre-RBF BitPay purchases), you could accept BTC zero-conf for smaller purchases before RBF was implemented (you can still do it with BCH), you have BTC powered debit cards, you have Lightning Network, you have coins that scales on-chain, you have non-blockchain coins that claim to have unlimited capacity (IOTA) etc. Bitcoin was created primarily as a response to the flawed global financial system, not as competition to payment processors. Even if it can compete with the latter - comparing them is bit missed. Saying BTC is only worth something if it has capacity to replace fiat entirely is simply retarded and no different than saying McDonalds is worthless until they have capacity to feed entire world. There's nothing stopping BTC from existing forever as a niche-alternative to fiat. What gives it value is the free market - not the way how you feel about it. Your argument is that private blockchains must be valuable otherwise people wouldn't be spending money and looking into it. That argument is horribly flawed. Go read the last few Snapchat earnings reports and tell me that Snapchat Spectacles are valuable. They spent a ton of money on it and then gave up when it fell flat on its face.
No. My argument was that: "Furthermore, blockchain technology necessarily requires cryptocurrency" and "A centralized and non-trustless blockchain ... is completely pointless" are false, as evidenced by Swift (among others). Private blockchains are just a form of distributed database and some find this tech very useful. I have impression that you got stuck in some weird "something-is-overhyped-therefore-completely-useless" kind of logic. One reason I can give you for many companies to be looking into blockchain is that simply saying the word "blockchain" in public will cause a company's stock price to go flying to stupidly high levels. Look at Long Island Blockchain, formerly Long Island Iced Tea. They are an iced tea distributer based on long island and their business has NOTHING to do with blockchain. They announced that they would look into blockchain technology and changed their name, and all of a sudden their stock price surges to wildly irrational levels.
Agree. What are you arguing here? Yes, 'blockchain' is overhyped and mis-used to screw investors. How does this affect cryptocurrencies? And just to add, the bottom line really is that more and more crypto can be created infinitely, and none of them ever have any intrinsic value (yes, the USD DOES have intrinsic value). The crypto space is infinitely inflationary for this reason, and IMO will eventually fail. It is only getting so much attention because it is new and people made a lot of money. This is not anything remotely like the internet.
No, USD DOESN'T have intrinsic value. Cryptos are infinitely inflationary only if you assume that every newly created crypto is somehow automatically valuable and gets its share of crypto market cap (at expense of other coins). If that's what you believe, then put all your money in, go margin-short on BTC and create new coins at rate of thousands per day. Instant billionaire. What's stopping you? |
|
|
|
...
Nie ma nad czym się tu zastanawiać, bo trzymanie tych punktów nic Ci nie daje, a jak nie rozdasz to mogą zniknąć i tak. Rozdaj te 6 i tyle.
...
Problem w tym ze nikt (kto nie jest 'source') nie chce sie "wystrzelac" z punktow. Rozdasz szybko wszystkie na jako-takie posty, to nie bedziesz mogl nagrodzic tych naprawde dobrych i pomocnych. Nawet jesli otrzymujesz tyle samo punktow co rozdajesz to rez szybko zostaniesz z zerem (0.5 sMerit za 1 Merit). Nie dziwie sie tym ktorzy chca miec zawsze jakas mala rezerwe. |
|
|
|
|
Hi, where can I find details on Pantos Bitpanda airdrop? Are you going to distribute to every account equally, proportionally to balance held or value of orders?
Will it only be possible to participate in ICO via BitPanda? And will you add it to supported currencies after successful ICO?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
