 Is AAPL competing with fiat as money? Sorry but that's such a stupid thing to say. I'm sure you can do better than this... Let me ask you. Did the current 1B$ ecosystem investment, equivalent billion dollar mining infrastructure, incremental userbase and increasing transactions come before or after the price increase? Of course I'm being silly and hyperbolic, but only to illustrate that market cap isn't some "build it and they will come" metric. There is a feedback loop between price and user growth, but it can only be sustained with growing utility. "Yikes" You still don't get it. Stop thinking in terms of users. Think in terms of capital. This is not Facebook. market cap isn't some "build it and they will come" metric.
On the contrary, when it comes to money (or networks for that matter) it seemingly works this way. Let me borrow from the Facebook example again : create a huge network of people and they will come. Create a huge network of money and you will attract wealth. Look I'm not neglecting the positive added effect of these other feedback loops you are referring too. Merely downplaying their importance for the time being as some people have seemingly lost their eyes from the prize. "When the wise man points at the moon, the fool looks at the finger." I'm not sure where your cumming from 444, but reading your comments elsewhere you seem to be bullish on bitcoin but reading your contributions here you seem oblivious to where that value comes from. there is a nice correlation to Metacafe Law when it comes to Bitcoins value, its the best we have. I dont think your humble enough to learn, and you defiantly overconfident enough in your ignorance to depart any wisdom. Is that so? I do remember Raystonn used to project the value of the network using Unique Addresses^2. Peter R had his own transactions version. That seemed like it could work back in 2014. In both cases I believe we've seen at least 100% increases while the market cap has not quite followed. I'm curious what both charts would look right about now but I'm afraid it would invalidate both theories. The reason might be that no one knows exactly how to quantify the amount of users in the network. |
|
|
|
Not at all. It's not hard to understand really..
The thing holding other crypto back is the amount of capital people are willing to trust to them. Not necessarily the amount of users. The increasing ecosystem size is a result of capital, speculative or not, being stored into Bitcoin. As far as the nature of the speculation this is beside the point which is that Bitcoin is not used, as we speak, as a medium of exchange to purchase goods or services.
People are not buying Bitcoin because the number of transactions or users is seemingly increasing. They are buying because it attracts wealth unlike what most other coins can claim.
I've stated this repeatedly but I honestly believe it to be true: we are talking about a money protocol, a money network effect. the unit concerned is not number of users but amount of capital.
Think of it like this : if the 1% of the world's population who apparently controls around 40% of the world's wealth moved that money into Bitcoin it would do more to strengthen & grow the ecosystem than if 25% of the other people on earth invested all of their savings.
Capital flowing into Bitcoin is absolutely about expected future growth, in users, transactions, market cap, and in usefulness. Hard for me to comprehend how you can even divorce these metrics. Remaining the domain of 10,000 geeks sitting on hordes of coins in paper wallets, occasionally trading some back and forth with each other... means failure to me. Not that it would fail to work, but that it would fail to reach its potential. This is not to say that user/transaction growth is some kind of panacea to be pursued at all costs, just that it shouldn't be ignored. Yes. And much like the others your mischaracterize the only growth we are really concerned about : market cap, or how much of the fiat economy we have absorbed. As I've said previously I couldn't care less if it comes from the pockets of the 1% or the 99%. More fiat capital trusting Bitcoin as money is exactly how it grows until it consumes all of wealth in the world. Users, transactions are secondary. They will follow the money because like any thing worth a lot in this world people will want a piece of it. Velocity of transactions will pickup once an actual Bitcoin economy develops. Meanwhile people will hoard Bitcoin and get rid of fiat. Some might not agree but this is pretty much Gresham's law in action. While you may not consider them "panacea to be pursued at all costs", others have outright stated this is the ONLY goal to be pursuing and that it should be done as quickly as possible. They would like to run Bitcoin like a startup. This is IMO the wrong way to go about it. You say I mischaracterize the importance of market cap growth, I say I simply try to describe some of the forces behind market cap. Do you see a scenario where market cap goes up while the number of users, transactions, applications, and merchants... goes down? I did not say anything about your characterization of market cap but of growth. Or more precisely, the driver of growth. No I don't see a scenario where that happens. What I am observing though is market cap going up and users, transactions and merchants following. So AAPL's market cap growth is a feedback loop in which it ultimately consumes the entirety of global wealth... before bitcoin! Yikes! Is AAPL competing with fiat as money? Sorry but that's such a stupid thing to say. I'm sure you can do better than this... Let me ask you. Did the current 1B$ ecosystem investment, equivalent billion dollar mining infrastructure, incremental userbase and increasing transactions come about before or after the price increase? You wouldn't argue the other way around would you? Just so you know brg444 the market cap is not a valid metric, its a shortcut to understanding the value stored in bitcoin, its not a leading metric but a wagging tail, here oda.krell illustrates the point nicely. unfortunately the real insight was only intended for those who pay attention it's been deleted on porous :-( . While that is a perfectly valid observation. Market cap is at least the most precise indicator of historic growth in the value of network we have at hand. Not users, not nodes, not transactions. |
|
|
|
Think of it like this : if the 1% of the world's population who apparently controls around 40% of the world's wealth moved that money into Bitcoin it would do more to strengthen & grow the ecosystem than if 25% of the other people on earth invested all of their savings. Chew on this one for a bit and see what comes out of it when you're done. It's not exactly a viewpoint but pretty much matter of fact.  I did, seems idealistic, imitating people that divide the market cap of gold by the number of bitcoins. The few top 1% wealth owners I've met seem highly unlikely to convert their entire net worth to private keys, storing m of n in various places, subject to destruction, theft, and system collapse with zero recourse. "Large streams from little fountains flow, Tall oaks from little acorns grow."  You seem to make the mistake of thinking I'm proposing it as a realistic scenario. That's not what this is about. This is a thought experiment. How exactly do you propose this work, will they have more incentives or motives to enter the system when the 80% of humanity that lives on less than $10 a day are included? Of course in reality the scenario is orders of magnitudes smaller but the idea is the same process I describe is unfolding incrementally on a lesser scale. Users, anyway, are not a quantifiable metric in this network, are they? |
|
|
|
Is AAPL competing with fiat as money? Sorry but that's such a stupid thing to say. I'm sure you can do better than this... Let me ask you. Did the current 1B$ ecosystem investment, equivalent billion dollar mining infrastructure, incremental userbase and increasing transactions come before or after the price increase? Of course I'm being silly and hyperbolic, but only to illustrate that market cap isn't some "build it and they will come" metric. There is a feedback loop between price and user growth, but it can only be sustained with growing utility. "Yikes" You still don't get it. Stop thinking in terms of users. Think in terms of capital. This is not Facebook. market cap isn't some "build it and they will come" metric.
On the contrary, when it comes to money (or networks for that matter) it seemingly works this way. Let me borrow from the Facebook example again : create a huge network of people and they will come. Create a huge network of money and you will attract wealth. Look I'm not neglecting the positive added effect of these other feedback loops you are referring too. Merely downplaying their importance for the time being as some people have seemingly lost their eyes from the prize. "When the wise man points at the moon, the fool looks at the finger." Who plows capital into the ecosystem other than users? More of them = more available capital. More utility = more users. You still don't get it and I'm done trying... for today. I respect your viewpoint, I just don't completely share it.  Think of it like this : if the 1% of the world's population who apparently controls around 40% of the world's wealth moved that money into Bitcoin it would do more to strengthen & grow the ecosystem than if 25% of the other people on earth invested all of their savings.
Chew on this one for a bit and see what comes out of it when you're done. It's not exactly a viewpoint as it's pretty much a matter of fact. |
|
|
|
Is AAPL competing with fiat as money? Sorry but that's such a stupid thing to say. I'm sure you can do better than this... Let me ask you. Did the current 1B$ ecosystem investment, equivalent billion dollar mining infrastructure, incremental userbase and increasing transactions come before or after the price increase? Of course I'm being silly and hyperbolic, but only to illustrate that market cap isn't some "build it and they will come" metric. There is a feedback loop between price and user growth, but it can only be sustained with growing utility. "Yikes" You still don't get it. Stop thinking in terms of users. Think in terms of capital. This is not Facebook. market cap isn't some "build it and they will come" metric.
On the contrary, when it comes to money (or networks for that matter) it seemingly works this way. Let me borrow from the Facebook example again : create a huge network of people and they will come. Create a huge network of money and you will attract wealth. Look I'm not neglecting the positive added effect of these other feedback loops you are referring too. Merely downplaying their importance for the time being as some people have seemingly lost their eyes from the prize. "When the wise man points at the moon, the fool looks at the finger." |
|
|
|
Not at all. It's not hard to understand really..
The thing holding other crypto back is the amount of capital people are willing to trust to them. Not necessarily the amount of users. The increasing ecosystem size is a result of capital, speculative or not, being stored into Bitcoin. As far as the nature of the speculation this is beside the point which is that Bitcoin is not used, as we speak, as a medium of exchange to purchase goods or services.
People are not buying Bitcoin because the number of transactions or users is seemingly increasing. They are buying because it attracts wealth unlike what most other coins can claim.
I've stated this repeatedly but I honestly believe it to be true: we are talking about a money protocol, a money network effect. the unit concerned is not number of users but amount of capital.
Think of it like this : if the 1% of the world's population who apparently controls around 40% of the world's wealth moved that money into Bitcoin it would do more to strengthen & grow the ecosystem than if 25% of the other people on earth invested all of their savings.
Capital flowing into Bitcoin is absolutely about expected future growth, in users, transactions, market cap, and in usefulness. Hard for me to comprehend how you can even divorce these metrics. Remaining the domain of 10,000 geeks sitting on hordes of coins in paper wallets, occasionally trading some back and forth with each other... means failure to me. Not that it would fail to work, but that it would fail to reach its potential. This is not to say that user/transaction growth is some kind of panacea to be pursued at all costs, just that it shouldn't be ignored. Yes. And much like the others your mischaracterize the only growth we are really concerned about : market cap, or how much of the fiat economy we have absorbed. As I've said previously I couldn't care less if it comes from the pockets of the 1% or the 99%. More fiat capital trusting Bitcoin as money is exactly how it grows until it consumes all of wealth in the world. Users, transactions are secondary. They will follow the money because like any thing worth a lot in this world people will want a piece of it. Velocity of transactions will pickup once an actual Bitcoin economy develops. Meanwhile people will hoard Bitcoin and get rid of fiat. Some might not agree but this is pretty much Gresham's law in action. While you may not consider them "panacea to be pursued at all costs", others have outright stated this is the ONLY goal to be pursuing and that it should be done as quickly as possible. They would like to run Bitcoin like a startup. This is IMO the wrong way to go about it. You say I mischaracterize the importance of market cap growth, I say I simply try to describe some of the forces behind market cap. Do you see a scenario where market cap goes up while the number of users, transactions, applications, and merchants... goes down? I did not say anything about your characterization of market cap but of growth. Or more precisely, the driver of growth. No I don't see a scenario where that happens. What I am observing though is market cap going up and users, transactions and merchants following. So AAPL's market cap growth is a feedback loop in which it ultimately consumes the entirety of global wealth... before bitcoin! Yikes! Is AAPL competing with fiat as money? Sorry but that's such a stupid thing to say. I'm sure you can do better than this... Let me ask you. Did the current 1B$ ecosystem investment, equivalent billion dollar mining infrastructure, incremental userbase and increasing transactions come about before or after the price increase? You wouldn't argue the other way around would you? |
|
|
|
Not at all. It's not hard to understand really..
The thing holding other crypto back is the amount of capital people are willing to trust to them. Not necessarily the amount of users. The increasing ecosystem size is a result of capital, speculative or not, being stored into Bitcoin. As far as the nature of the speculation this is beside the point which is that Bitcoin is not used, as we speak, as a medium of exchange to purchase goods or services.
People are not buying Bitcoin because the number of transactions or users is seemingly increasing. They are buying because it attracts wealth unlike what most other coins can claim.
I've stated this repeatedly but I honestly believe it to be true: we are talking about a money protocol, a money network effect. the unit concerned is not number of users but amount of capital.
Think of it like this : if the 1% of the world's population who apparently controls around 40% of the world's wealth moved that money into Bitcoin it would do more to strengthen & grow the ecosystem than if 25% of the other people on earth invested all of their savings.
Capital flowing into Bitcoin is absolutely about expected future growth, in users, transactions, market cap, and in usefulness. Hard for me to comprehend how you can even divorce these metrics. Remaining the domain of 10,000 geeks sitting on hordes of coins in paper wallets, occasionally trading some back and forth with each other... means failure to me. Not that it would fail to work, but that it would fail to reach its potential. This is not to say that user/transaction growth is some kind of panacea to be pursued at all costs, just that it shouldn't be ignored. Yes. And much like the others your mischaracterize the only growth we are really concerned about : market cap, or how much of the fiat economy we have absorbed. As I've said previously I couldn't care less if it comes from the pockets of the 1% or the 99%. More fiat capital trusting Bitcoin as money is exactly how it grows until it consumes all of wealth in the world. Users, transactions are secondary. They will follow the money because like any thing worth a lot in this world people will want a piece of it. Velocity of transactions will pickup once an actual Bitcoin economy develops. Meanwhile people will hoard Bitcoin and get rid of fiat. Some might not agree but this is pretty much Gresham's law in action. While you may not consider them "panacea to be pursued at all costs", others have outright stated this is the ONLY goal to be pursuing and that it should be done as quickly as possible. They would like to run Bitcoin like a startup. This is IMO the wrong way to go about it. You say I mischaracterize the importance of market cap growth, I say I simply try to describe some of the forces behind market cap. Do you see a scenario where market cap goes up while the number of users, transactions, applications, and merchants... goes down? I did not say anything about your characterization of market cap but of growth. Or more precisely, the driver of growth. No I don't see a scenario where that happens. What I am observing though is market cap going up and users, transactions and merchants following. |
|
|
|
The exchange sideshow is on schedule, when can we expect the main attraction to come? ETF is what everyone is longing for! Yet we still have no updates for more than 6 months. It's mid August now, I think it won't be traded in 2015, have to wait until Q2 2016 the earliest, round about time of the next halving. I hope the synergy of these 2 events could take bitcoin to new highs.
I also expect this is what is going to happen. I do think we are going to see a corrected submission of the S-1A that should include a very much needed update on the ecosystem especially in regards to the exchanges cited. Gemini, Coinbase, itBit, Bitstamp should replace Mt.Gox, btc-e, and the other suspects. Unfortunately this might indeed delay things until 2016 but the potential for the halving and a subsequent launch of the ETF to coincide is very interesting. |
|
|
|
Not at all. It's not hard to understand really..
The thing holding other crypto back is the amount of capital people are willing to trust to them. Not necessarily the amount of users. The increasing ecosystem size is a result of capital, speculative or not, being stored into Bitcoin. As far as the nature of the speculation this is beside the point which is that Bitcoin is not used, as we speak, as a medium of exchange to purchase goods or services.
People are not buying Bitcoin because the number of transactions or users is seemingly increasing. They are buying because it attracts wealth unlike what most other coins can claim.
I've stated this repeatedly but I honestly believe it to be true: we are talking about a money protocol, a money network effect. the unit concerned is not number of users but amount of capital.
Think of it like this : if the 1% of the world's population who apparently controls around 40% of the world's wealth moved that money into Bitcoin it would do more to strengthen & grow the ecosystem than if 25% of the other people on earth invested all of their savings.
Capital flowing into Bitcoin is absolutely about expected future growth, in users, transactions, market cap, and in usefulness. Hard for me to comprehend how you can even divorce these metrics. Remaining the domain of 10,000 geeks sitting on hordes of coins in paper wallets, occasionally trading some back and forth with each other... means failure to me. Not that it would fail to work, but that it would fail to reach its potential. This is not to say that user/transaction growth is some kind of panacea to be pursued at all costs, just that it shouldn't be ignored. Yes. And much like the others your mischaracterize the only growth we are really concerned about : market cap, or how much of the fiat economy we have absorbed. As I've said previously I couldn't care less if it comes from the pockets of the 1% or the 99%. More fiat capital trusting Bitcoin as money is exactly how it grows until it consumes all of wealth in the world. Users, transactions are secondary. They will follow the money because like any thing worth a lot in this world people will want a piece of it. Velocity of transactions will pickup once an actual Bitcoin economy develops. Meanwhile people will hoard Bitcoin and get rid of fiat. Some might not agree but this is pretty much Gresham's law in action. While you may not consider them "panacea to be pursued at all costs", others have outright stated this is the ONLY goal to be pursuing and that it should be done as quickly as possible. They would like to run Bitcoin like a startup. This is IMO the wrong way to go about it. |
|
|
|
Are you serious?  What is the reason for this expectation? in my wildest fantasies i would only expect a price around $500. I expect $5k-$10k/btc after halving.
I expect just a 40% - 50% at most price rise if you would ask me. That is already a realistic estimate by me. Do you find it realistic that magic internet money issued from a lottery of computers burning energy has risen from exactly 0$ to a 3B$ market cap in the span of 5 years? This tendency to expect realistic scenarios and conservative outcomes in the world of Bitcoin is one of the most fascinating thing I will ever come across. I wasn't here from the start, but since I've jumped in there has been no doubt to me that this baby is gonna eventually turn into a monster that will surpass EVERYONE's expectations. Bitcoin is one of humanity's black swan event, possibly the most important of our time (and I speak for everyone alive reading this). It has the potential to quite literally turn the world upside down and might do so with a merciless swiftness. Hang on to your hats gentlemen because if you hold on to this one and don't lose any coin on the way you are in for a treat and maybe a story that will last for a couple generations (as should your bitcoins, if you play it smart) |
|
|
|
ZB had brought up this point before and while it does sort of makes sense from an "antifragile" standpoint, I have a problem accepting it as a viable or desirable outcome. On that point I believe this post from Alex Morcos is relevant: What gives Bitcoin value aren't its technical merits but the fact that people believe in it. The biggest risk here isn't that 20MB blocks will
be bad or that 1MB blocks will be bad, but that by forcing a hard fork that isn't nearly universally agreed upon, we will be damaging that belief. If I strongly believed some hard fork would be better for Bitcoin, say permanent inflation of 1% a year to fund mining, and I managed to convince 80% of users, miners, businesses and developers to go along with me, I would still vote against doing it. Because that's not nearly universal agreement, and it changes what people chose to believe in without their consent. Forks should be hard, very hard. And both sides should recognize that belief in the value of Bitcoin might be a fragile thing. http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34092527/While I do understand your point about improving on the ability of the users to come to consensus, it seems a stretch to me to suggest that regular changes to the way Bitcoin operate can strengthen the trust people have in it. Rather we should strive to come to a point where the consensus critical code in Bitcoin is set in stone for eternity as it becomes harder and harder for an ever-growing ecosystem to come to consensus on a proposed change. For that reason, I am wary and quite frankly curious of recent attempts by Hearn in particular to lessen the impact and the dangers of hard forks. You can't force a fork. You can't, but by constantly challenging consensus you risk bleeding out some users/trust along the way don't you think? |
|
|
|
So, is a monero a unique collectible unlike anything the world has seen since gold? Yes or No!
I think you mean to suggest no, but the answer might be yes. Satoshi proposed viewing Bitcoin as a new and unusual kind of metal with the property that it can be sent instantly over long distances. Monero is similar except that it has the ability to be sent over long distances without leaving a public record of having done so. Bitcoin and Monero are different in kind, but both new and usual kinds of "metals" I mean yes, and I see that brg444 agrees too. This just serves to prove my rebuttal to his "capital growth priority over user growth" theory.
It is the increasing ecosystem size (including user-base and mining power) which gives a crypto-coin an increasing market price (capital value), and any of the 600 alts could potentially be "unique collectables", and many already are. The only thing holding them back is their rate of ecosystem growth and network effect. The other important point is that markets always contain a speculative element about the future. Some percentage of the BTC price is purely a premium that the coin will scale to handle volumes of global significance. We will never know exactly, but 50% of the price may be an investor play on Bitcoin reaching MasterCard volumes. That is why many coins lie unmoving in cold wallets. The other 50% of the price is the current utility value of the payment network, free of capital controls, be-your-own-bank, escape from the fiat hegemony. Not at all. It's not hard to understand really.. The thing holding other crypto back is the amount of capital people are willing to trust to them. Not necessarily the amount of users. The increasing ecosystem size is a result of capital, speculative or not, being stored into Bitcoin. As far as the nature of the speculation this is beside the point which is that Bitcoin is not used, as we speak, as a medium of exchange to purchase goods or services. People are not buying Bitcoin because the number of transactions or users is seemingly increasing. They are buying because it attracts wealth unlike what most other coins can claim. I've stated this repeatedly but I honestly believe it to be true: we are talking about a money protocol, a money network effect. the unit concerned is not number of users but amount of capital. Think of it like this : if the 1% of the world's population who apparently controls around 40% of the world's wealth moved that money into Bitcoin it would do more to strengthen & grow the ecosystem than if 25% of the other people on earth invested all of their savings. |
|
|
|
I'm actually quite excited about this idea. It has a sort of inevitable feel to it.
Yes. Since anyone can run any software they want to interact with the Bitcoin network, this idea does seem like a logical development. It also seems like one of those counter-intuitive anti-fragility things, where the seeming chaos and instability at a micro level will actually lead to a more predictable and stable behaviour at the macro level. If it became more common for individual nodes to be able to tweak consensus parameters, then I think that would actually lead to more predictable and stable consensus behaviour in the long run. The worst thing that can happen to a node operator is to fall out of consensus with the rest of the network, so individual node operators would be strongly incentivised to develop methods to ensure they can track the status of the network, and deal with any potential consensus forks. As it stands now, consensus behaviour is based on the specific implementation details of Bitcoin Core. The software is not designed with the assumption that hard consensus forks are a likely event, and when they do happen nodes are not designed to handle it gracefully. The accidental hard form of March 2013 happened because of an obscure implementation detail in the Core software, and was only possible because the software monoculture created a "single point of failure". A more diverse implementation of consensus rules might result in more frequent consensus divergences and orphaned blocks, but each one would be non-catastrophic, and would lead toward a more stable and resilient network in the long run. Great insight! You bring up an interesting point: rather than viewing forks as something that must be avoided, let's view them as something inevitable and necessary for the evolution of Bitcoin, and then work to find ways to make convergence of consensus in the presence of forks as robust as possible. I think you're right that this "seeming chaos and instability at a micro level will actually lead to a more predictable and stable behaviour at the macro level." ZB had brought up this point before and while it does sort of makes sense from an "antifragile" standpoint, I have a problem accepting it as a viable or desirable outcome. On that point I believe this post from Alex Morcos is relevant: What gives Bitcoin value aren't its technical merits but the fact that people believe in it. The biggest risk here isn't that 20MB blocks will
be bad or that 1MB blocks will be bad, but that by forcing a hard fork that isn't nearly universally agreed upon, we will be damaging that belief. If I strongly believed some hard fork would be better for Bitcoin, say permanent inflation of 1% a year to fund mining, and I managed to convince 80% of users, miners, businesses and developers to go along with me, I would still vote against doing it. Because that's not nearly universal agreement, and it changes what people chose to believe in without their consent. Forks should be hard, very hard. And both sides should recognize that belief in the value of Bitcoin might be a fragile thing. http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34092527/While I do understand your point about improving on the ability of the users to come to consensus, it seems a stretch to me to suggest that regular changes to the way Bitcoin operate can strengthen the trust people have in it. Rather we should strive to come to a point where the consensus critical code in Bitcoin is set in stone for eternity as it becomes harder and harder for an ever-growing ecosystem to come to consensus on a proposed change. For that reason, I am wary and quite frankly curious of recent attempts by Hearn in particular to lessen the impact and the dangers of hard forks. |
|
|
|
Yesterday you were complaining about mod "censorship" and today you are demanding the same mods censor posts you don't like. it's a repetitive spam attack; over a dozen times the exact same slanderous post attempt at character assassination. have you forgotten the case seems to be going nowhere and that i deny the allegations? everybody gets it already. i am a BitcoinXT proponent and i am a threat to you Cripplecoiners. the HF dispute has nothing to do with it as much as you'd like to tie the two together. but of course, i wouldn't expect you to see the difference. Hmm, "character assassination" doesn't mind you when you are using it against Blockstream and especially against gmax. *ding ding ding* we have a winner! |
|
|
|
I still don't understand how anyone interested in Bitcoin can support anything associated with Hearn after hearing anything the guy has to say If everybody adopts a "do the opposite of anything Mike Hearn suggests" policy, then they've just shut their brain off and given complete control over their decision making to Mike Hearn. It's a great way to achieve the opposite of the stated goal. Even if that would make any sense at all that's quite an interpretation of what the guy said... |
|
|
|
well now i am just insulted. i thought they spent all their time here?! I think I can speak for the majority of the Alt section when I say "we wish they did"  And I think I speak for the majority when I say keep this in the alt section, please. |
|
|
|
it seems the avg Bitcoiner can't bear to hear or even discuss "possible" messy scenarios as Mike is quite rightfully willing to do.
It's pretty clear that Mike doesn't understand what an economic majority means. If you have the economic majority, you don't need to enforce a "technical mess" to fix anything. I still don't understand how anyone interested in Bitcoin can support anything associated with Hearn after hearing anything the guy has to say, unless they actually want to turn Bitcoin into something completely unrecognizable. I'm not completely opposed to bigger blocks, but I am completely opposed to BitcoinXT and anything Hearn. +1 |
|
|
|
The reason is that I don't find your answers convincing, nor rigorously analyzed or presented, for the most part. That even applies to Peter R, in terms of many of his answers on this. His paper was good but it only addressed a small part of the larger set of questions.
what a wasted opportunity we had a month ago during the Greek peak crisis. oh please... |
|
|
|
this why a fixed supply of Bugati's or even cowry shells will never function as money in a real world.
Not sure what you mean by that? Cowry shells were used as money in the real world. |
|
|
|
That is because bitcoins are a unique collectible unlike anything the world has seen since gold. Unfortunately much like gold some characteristics limit its direct use as a mean of exchange. Gold's shortcoming is in its physicality, Bitcoin's own is the decentralization tradeoff.
I think Bitcoins are absolutely a unique collectible. I hate to "call up" authority but its own creator was well aware of that: Maybe it could get an initial value circularly as you’ve suggested, by people foreseeing its potential usefulness for exchange. (I would definitely want some) Maybe collectors, any random reason could spark it. - Satoshi Nakamoto It might make sense just to get some in case it catches on. If enough people think the same way, that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. -Satoshi Nakamoto
Aug. 27, 2010: Bitcoins have no dividend or potential future dividend, therefore not like a stock. (They’re) more like a collectible or commodity. - Satoshi Nakamoto
Satoshi quotes which are correct, but also relate to when BTC was the only cryptocurrency. Today http://coinmarketcap.com has about 600 listed, including - if I choose one at random - Monero. So, is a monero a unique collectible unlike anything the world has seen since gold? Yes or No! YES! Now are they as "rare" by my definition than Bitcoin? No. But by all account they have obtained a significant amount of "collectors" because of its own rather unique property, as smooth pointed out. Hang on a sec whilst I just nip down and photocopy an thousand copies of the Mona lisa. This is money were talking about network effect and userbase are all that is important. Hmm... I'm aware of that. Maybe you'd like to return to my original post to understand the point I was trying to make which is basically that as far as Bitcoin is concerned we are still very much in the "collector" stage where users, in majority, will use it to store wealth and not necessarily to trade for goods and services. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
