Dude called the lowest price point of 5 days, and now he is all confident and brave in expressing his perverted nature. That's messed up..

I'm surprised to see the lack of discussion on the subject, on how the entire bitcoin market system will get a big hit in confidence, when MtGox turns out insolvent.
The bitcoin market system always had this halo of an open source community around it. That the community consists of idealistic and therefor trustworthy people. Those who have dealt with bitcoin in depth, know better, but to the outsiders, the market system has looked relatively honest. When MtGox turns out to be insolvent, and news will show things like how bitcoin.org linked MtGox as the main recommended exchange, then this halo will disappear. Bitcoin will be linked more as an tool of those "exchange" operators to scam people out of their money. It's funny to see how most seem to miss that threat.

I think that wasteful mining is a fundamental flaw and an expensive mistake to make. I would accept the energy wasted by home cpu's, but when people are building large cloud mining facilities, then this madness has gone out of control. Projects with this magnitude shouldn't be done just to chase your own tail, even if someone pays you money for it.


I agree that the alternatives are young and have to wait till their security is proven. That is why I think that bitcoin still has about 1-2 years of life left in it. That is the period that can be supported by pure hype, while ignoring the fact that the code actually is obsolete.

I think that nxt is interesting but very raw at this stage. What makes it interesting is that it's not been build on bitcoin source, so it won't be affected with all these boundaries and dogmas, that come with "The Cult of Satoshi".
I can't speculate how it will develop, but the start is interesting.

It feels like it's set in stone, because there are no development or even open discussions on important aspects, like the one I brought forward in my previous post. It's ignored and everyone are just enjoying getting rich with abusing the hype. Litecoin and other altcoins also use the "bitcoin protocol", and because of that, they are suffering from the same problems.
If there were some responsible people around, then someone would say: "Hey, stop this wasteful nonsense! let's figure it out how to build a network that actually makes sense!".

"The securing of network" part went away after coming of pools. With pools, the general network hash rate doesn't mean anything in terms of security of bitcoin. Only thing that matters now is the number of pools and the security of pools.
Bitcoin security was created in a way that network isn't concentrated anywhere, and everyone can do their fair part in handling the network. You can tell that bitcoin was never designed to be this big, because it's distribution system only could handle solo mining to a certain level. That was the level to what bitcoin was designed to evolve.
Pools were abominations of the entire system, because the system intended for no centralization whatsoever. The proper crypto for this level of active users should not need any pools and everyone will get paid directly from the network. Only then, the increasing user base will also increase the security of the network. Otherwise it's just a bad joke..
The other problem came with the coming of ASICs, when another wave of useless wasting began. Bitcoin network used to be supported by hardware, that had other use for it. Now people are building hardware that's only purpose is to mine bitcoins. But the increasing hash rate doesn't improve security, or anything for that matter, so the building of ASICs is also actually doing empty work that doesn't actually improve anything. It's all just for trying to crab a bite of this cake of hype.

The future is in new cryptos, because bitcoin code is becoming more and more obsolete...

In the interest of saving forum space, I'll fit all the replies in one post.


I can see that the the level of intelligence of the poster is in perfect correlation with the ability to spell my name..

1) Hyperinflation is as bad as hyperdeflation. Both are unstable forms of financial planning that will mess up the economy. While most of the communism countries suffered from hyperinflation, then hyperdeflation is the inevitable outcome of bitcoin.

2) Where the hell do you get this stuff?
Post-Revolutionary USA had economic growth first because of the success of cotton plantations and slavery, and after that, the industrial war nature of the civil war stimulated urbanization and building of railroads, all of this gave a boost to the economy.
Finance was a big mess in 1800s USA with series of failed banking acts and attempts to create a solid currency.

---

It doesn't work like that. Consumption creates production and not vice versa.
When Jack feels hunger, then Jack has to work before Jack can consume the food to satisfy his hunger.

Need for consumption always dictates the need of production. There is no need of production without the need of consumption.
So one does have more weigh then another.

---

Well, thats life that everyone won't have an equal chance. The same thing is already set by nature, with some born weaker, shorter or with less intellectual potential. Life isn't fair and it sucks.
Communism actually had a goal to make things fair to everyone. It failed because it was unnatural and only created more problems then it solved.

I'm not inventing the wheel here with saying that inflation is more effective in aspect of economic strength. Academics who are a lot smarter on the subject then me and you have disputed the same subject and still the answer has emerged that controlled and stable inflation is the best way to go when considering economic strength.
But remember, with bitcoin we are not talking about controlled and stable deflation. We are talking about uncontrollable hyperdeflation.


When you'll find holes in my scenario then point them out and I'm happy to dispute or to agree with you.
My speculation about what are the "big boys" doing is far fetched I agree. It's solely based on assumption on what I would do if I were in their shoes. Assumptions like this have mostly served me right.

---

Nah, it's not free. Service companies similar to bitpay, who take care of the conversion, have to pay the early adoptors for the privilege to use the "protocol". Everyone who has to hold their value in bitcoin have to pay tribute to the early adopters.
This is the pyramid scheme part that attracts those big herds of people who wish to get rich quick without doing any work. This hyperdeflation part is good for attracting simple minded folks with promises of easy riches, but it makes bitcoin useless as an serious financial tool.
The enthusiasts make it sound like they are all about financial liberty, while actually they are just hoping for wealth redistribution. They don't want to change the world in a way that there won't be a class of wealthy elite people who only enjoy luxury without doing much work. They even want to increase this mentality and only change the people who are at the top, so they themselves can be there.


It's too hard to lie to myself and pretend that all is fine. I'm not very good at comforting myself with false hopes made out of pretty illusions. I would be happy and calm if I would truly see that this will work. But I can't, no matter how much I try, I still see the ugly truth.

---

First mover advantage is the only thing that bitcoin has. The only reason why it's more expensive then the tens of other altcoins that have been created from the same source.
Rest doesn't mean much tho, because the development in bitcoin source is very slow and it's actually crippled by core properties like work-of-proof mining and 10 minute transaction times. You can only better the GUI and fix some bugs while you can't develop the core properties that actually need development the most.

---

And you can freely save up by buying necessary goods that hold value. Inflation doesn't stop you for doing that. Inflation only pushes you towards using your money on something, not just sitting on money.
Production isn't forced, but it's favored because it does increase it's countries economic strength. And economic strength is the thing that decides the survival of the fittest in the modern world.
Controlled and stable deflation system could also be used like the an stable and controlled inflation system. But the first country will always have less production then the last one.
But with bitcoin we are not talking about controlled and stable deflation, we are talking about inevitable uncontrollable hyperdeflation. And hyperdeflation is just as bad as hyperinflation, because the instability creates a lot of problems that will slow down the economy.

---

Broken window fallacy isn't exactly an outcome of an strong and growing economy, but it is caused by the corrupt public sector that I talked about.
When world leaders decide to wage wars to stimulate the economy, then the economy is not to be blamed here. You could also start huge scientific projects with goals to colonize other planets or discover new ways to extract energy. This would stimulate the economy just as well as starting wars.
But people are to blame here who elect weak and corrupt politicians who act on the orders of warmongers, not on recommendations of top scientists. To make it short, broken window fallacy is cased by the lack of proper vision.

---

I hope I didn't miss anyone..

Well, you can brute force your way into innovation in the IT field, and Android is one of the latest examples of it. They took a well known and innovative idea about an efficent and mobile OS and they perfected it on their own platform. Just as iOS took it over after Symbian.
Yes, 1 computer scientist can be more productive then 1000, but it doesn't matter if you can buy that 1 just as well as you could buy the 1000.
Small teams.are more effective in every fields, but some projects are just so work intensive that you cant settle with a small team.


Im logging off for today, will reply tomorrow when needed.

You are contradicting yourself there. Because saving up in cash has been made impossible, as you say, you save less and buy more. The point is that people should save wealth in production, not in money.

I don't have hatred against poor people. I also believe that one can be better off without wealth but with a healthy spirit.
But I do dis-like poor people who blame their situation on others. People who say that rich people are to blame that they didn't decide to get good grades, that they didn't decide to go to college, that they didn't make the right career choices etc.

Bitcoin wouldn't change social dynamics, it would only make everyone poorer, both the rich and the poor. The ratio will be the same and there will still be rich people who have gotten rich by either work or by exploitation of others. Trade will just be more ineffective and people would be motivated to sit on their ass more. Not just blue-collared workers, but also the CEOs and managers.
I think that an country could actually adopt bitcoin if it doesn't care about it's economic strength. There are also countries like that. Not a lot tho..
It would be absurd that major powers couldn't overcome bitcoin though. Take a team of good 100 python coders and give them a year and there would be a coin that would surpass bitcoin in every quality aspect. Right now only students and hobbyists are coding bitcoin source based altcoins, because the big boys are still planning their entrance strategy.

Nah, I will stick around and observe the development of this community as well. Maybe even say some things again to bring people closer to earth.
Like I said, I'm quite intrigued by the idea that bitcoin brought forward. I'll probably also invest some money into it when the price isn't held up only by desperation. I truly believe that bitcoin still has about 1-2 years of life and 1-2 bubbles left in it, before the hype finally settles.

Well, someone will always buy something. Just less people buy something.
When inflation motivates people to consume more, then you can be sure that deflation will motivate people to consume less. Of course there won't be radical outcomes that no money will be spent, but a country that runs on deflationary currency, will fall behind in economic development compared to countries with inflationary currency.

It's like with communism or just plain old socialism, where everyone will work less and work is less important in society in general, but everyone are also poor because the lack of quality production.
I have lived in Soviet Union, so I know how childish economic dreams can create deficit in even the most regular goods.

At first, the network of ASICs, that are built to hash fixed results, is not exactly a supercomputer network. SHA256 bitcoin ASICs can do nothing else then to hash bitcoins or heat your home.

AND the increase in network power doesn't increase the security of the network because most of the network is pooled together. When you only have to compromise 2 pools, then it doesn't matter how powerful of an hashrate they are processing. So, miners aren't actually contributing to the security of the network unless they are solo-mining. That is what makes bitcoin mining a fools game. Future coins needs to have a system where payments are distributed without intermediate services and with more constructive goals in mind.

Please stop comparing bitcoin to html, e-mail or tcp/ip. These protocols didn't have the baggage of unit cost on their back.
If HTML would be like bitcoin, then new HTML adopters would have to pay monetary tribute to the earlier adopters of HTML to start using it.
Then HTML wouldn't have developed very far and people would have been motivated to create alternative options, without the baggage of those early adopters, who just want to earn on your expense, without doing anything themselves.

Yeah, this "Let's just give everyone money and everyone can be rich!" doesn't work in real life. Money doesn't always equal wealth, you know..

Actually it is production that creates wealth and production is stimulated by consumption.
When world currency would be deflationary then consumption will slow because everyone will be motivated to hold onto their money, not to use it on consumption. That in turn means that production will slow down and that actually means less wealth to everyone.

Now, if the globe would be in one peaceful society, then maybe it could fly. Less consumption would mean less destroying our natural enviroment and all. But because evolution dictates the survival of the fittest, this laziness propagating economic way won't work. People who work more and better will always rule over those who just want to sit on their ass.

All those investments into the ecosystem has went to the idea of bitcoin, not bitcoin itself. All the support services can just jump coins and they are ready to do that. Their investments are not tied down to bitcoin, so the "eco-system" doesn't have to keep bitcoin alive. So no point in telling that bitcoin is secured by that ecosystem.
Well, the faults of bitcoin aren't very well hidden, so I know that people have seen the same flaws before. But I haven't found the solutions to those long known problems either. Solutions to those problems are still unanswered and everyone are just trying to ignore the problems.
Before the current development phase, these problems were the problems of the future, but now they are  problems of now, so you can't just ignore the problems any longer.

Fiat structure is supported by modern economics that have been developed by academics throughout hundreds of years.
This "banksterism" that you see, is another animal altogether. This has been caused by the growing corruption of the public sector. This has been the cause why the banking sector is over-privileged, and that is why all the anger towards banks from the working class.
Public sector should control banks and see to it, that they fall under basic capitalism rules like fair competition. But when societies leaders are a pack of unethical and weak spirited "felines", then banking leaders don't have to practice responsibility.

People with little knowledge about finance tend to blame modern economics when thinking of the latest financial problems. But it's not the economics, but it's the rape of economics by certain people who have a lot of power and very little responsibility.
And who is the best supporter of this "banksterism" ?
Probably you.. or your neighbor, or members of your family. By always taking the public sector for granted and voting for someone "because I see him a lot on TV". People don't actually learn in depth the skills, experience, plans and visions of the electee that he/she votes for.
And that is how incompetent and weak spirited politicians come to be the leaders of the public sector, and that is why banking hasn't been balanced.

Apathy is a defect that has affected a large part of the population. I don't know if it's the speed of our environmental changes or hormonal problems, but people seem to be affected by it with increasing rate. For instance, in this forum, I only found couple of people who were willing to act and do something to root out the corruption in the bitcoin market system. Most even got angry at me for trying to do something. Most seemed to hope that if everyone does nothing, then things will get fixed by itself.
This part is not much different between "banksterism" and "bitcoiners". Both want to be rich and powerful without having any responsibility, or if possible, without doing anything other then enjoying luxury.

So, don't blame the modern economics and don't try to act like bitcoin economics would actually be better. The proof-of-work fixed coin creation system is a joke compared to modern finance. We are living in a globalized world and it would be absurd that this world could run trade with this simplistic system.
But there can be a system that is as complex or more as modern finance, and that would be mainly automated and transparent. That system will be the "coin" that I'm really interested in!
I like bitcoin because it brought forward a big step in moving towards this idea. I have always dis-liked religious fanatics though and I tend to fall into conflict with them.

I think this is it for me for today also. The priests of the choo choo cult have arrived to fill your minds with beautiful dreams.
I think that I'll do something easier tomorrow, like go to an Christianity forum and post a question if Jesus was in fact the son of god.

That's a good point!
There are many people here who have the same level of emotional attachment to bitcoin then to an newborn baby.

To them, it seems righteous and just. To me it looks like cult behavior revolving around a materialistic product.

Looking at your posts that were directed at me.. I only have to say that I suppose so.

Edit: Sadly I think that the main faults are in the core of bitcoin and can't be fixed. Faults like deflation and how it promotes increasing use of hardware, while not actually offering practical use for it. If the bitcoin network would be faster or more secure with increased amount of miners, then I would already be more optimistic about bitcoin survival.

Even if the bitcoin code could be considered as an established network protocol, it wouldn't mean that bitcoin units will have any value in the future. It would only mean that the same protocol will be used in the future to create new currencies with new units.
But I hardly believe that future developers will use the bitcoin code. Using bitcoin code to create altcoins will stay in time when only hobbyists and students created new coins for fun. If cryptos will be an serious financial tool, then the bitcoin code will be history.