...
Only if you pretend it is a flaw and not an opportunity for others to build onto the protocol to create solutions that meet the markets demands
When you buy a house & realize you've been sold an empty lot, look at it as an opportunity--you've been sold a chance to build your own! No one ever pretended Bitcoin would natively scale to handle all of the world's transactions Its not even that good as a payment mechanism. Its useful as an easy store as opposed to, say, gold. It's actually as good as it gets right now as a payment mechanism (other than the obvious scaling issues) But that is only because traditional financial infrastructure has been lagging behind something serious for the last decades. It is likely that centralized platforms will eventually catch up and be more efficient than Bitcoin's base protocol. |
|
|
|
...
Only if you pretend it is a flaw and not an opportunity for others to build onto the protocol to create solutions that meet the markets demands
When you buy a house & realize you've been sold an empty lot, look at it as an opportunity--you've been sold a chance to build your own! No one ever pretended Bitcoin would natively scale to handle all of the world's transactions |
|
|
|
^Didn't make myself clear. I didn't mean to imply that Bitcoin's lack of scalability has prevented anyone from making money on it. I just assumed that such fundamental, conceptual flaws would have been addressed by now. Guess not  One cannot change the laws of nature. There is no 'fixing' this 'fundamental flaw', and I suspect that many many people never really considered it including most of the devs. 'Addressing it' is a different matter. A few of the devs looked toward the mainstream (mega-corporations to provide infrastructure and the state sponsored legal protections) but happily this doesn't seem to be the first option for most of them. For my part I don't consider this 'fundamental flaw' to be a flaw at all. I consider it more a happy accident of fate and a a feature of reality which produces the potential to make native Bitcoin a system actually work in the real world. By 'work', I mean to remain a genuinely autonomous and independent solution which is robust against attack by vested power interests. As I've said before, the idea of sidechains hit me right away as a means of scaling, and I argued to call native Bitcoin 'blockchain zero' back in 2011. As long as this chain can remain uncorrupted and supportable it really doesn't matter what happens on the infinite number of chains which derive their value from it. Not sure I fully understand. You are happy that Bitcoin is not a practical substitute for money after six years of development, in its current state? Useful only as a peg, a standard on top of which further payment systems must be developed? My question still stands: This [happy accident/feature/totally not a problem] was clear at the outset, why was it not addressed until now? Bitcoin "payment network" not being able to scale natively to record, validate & retain every coffee purchase does not make it flawed as a proposition for a sound form of money. The idea of Bitcoin as "a standard on top of which further payment systems must be developed" was, afaik, envisioned by most everyone with a hint of foresight. |
|
|
|
^Didn't make myself clear. I didn't mean to imply that Bitcoin's lack of scalability has prevented anyone from making money on it. Just assumed that such fundamental, conceptual flaws would have been addressed by now. Guess not Only if you pretend it is a flaw and not an opportunity for others to build onto the protocol to create solutions that meet the markets demands |
|
|
|
<nsip>
Mostly agree with the gist of your argument but the kind of change some are suggesting (even you) does not wait for all "people's perceptions of what money is" to change. Ultimately laggards will be forced into BTC by economic reality. Question remains when will this take place and at what point are you at a loss (pain) jumping ship. Bitcoin time waits for no man. That is by no means the certainty that you present it as. This is still an experiment. It may yet fail, or BTC may not be the winner. Some form of cryptographic money will almost certainly play a part in our future IMO. What part, and when, is very much undecided. The market seems pretty decisive as to where "other forms of crypto money" stand : in the trash bin. "This is still an experiment" Lol you sound like Gavin |
|
|
|
Jees ... the level of delusion in thinking that people will rush to the security of BTC in times of crisis. We are soooo not ready for that and neither are the masses. But the story will be spread and people here will buy into it, not realising that it is just another pump, like Coinbase, and that until enough infrastructure is in place BTC is mostly useless to people in these countries in crisis. They have more pressing problems, like how to find work and how to feed their families, and in most cases are not going to find BTC either useful or easy to use at the moment. That will likely change with the level of infrastructure investment, but that takes TIME. Switch from your decimated currency to the worst (or was it 2nd) performer of 2014 ... sounds reaaaally smart  Anyone with decent chunks of cash will likely be switching it to dollars if they have not done so already (and doing very well out of it) And the fact that people hope that the pain of others will be their own saviour is, quite frankly, nauseating to me Buy BTC because you believe in it and believe it has a future, not because you think it will make you rich quickly from somebody's else's pain. And only risk what you can afford to lose. There is no real sign yet that this bear market is over IMO. It may be, but it is definitely not a given that the low is in. Coming here and asking for advice on BTC is like going to a gold forum and asking Gold Bugs if you should buy gold NOW! Hmmm ... what do you think most will say most of the time. Call it 'cult', 'perception bias', 'dogma','vested interest', whatever you like - its no different. I am not bashing BTC or Crypto in general, it is extremely interesting and I think it will almost certainly have some place in the future financial order, but changing people's perceptions of what money is and how to use it does not happen overnight. This is just the beginning. And neither does changing people's perception of BTC as a 'get-rich-quick' scheme - that takes a grinding bear market and some independent thought. Perhaps that is why this is taking so long ... lots of new entrants have to learn to love BTC for what it is or learn the hard way what it is not. /soap box mode Mostly agree with the gist of your argument but the kind of change some are suggesting (even you) does not wait for all "people's perceptions of what money is" to change. Ultimately laggards will be forced into BTC by economic reality. Question remains when will this take place and at what point are you at a loss (pain) jumping ship. Bitcoin time waits for no man. |
|
|
|
There are some genuine bears too which truely belive bitcoin is shit and a good first try at best.
If you are reading a old member here that posts frequently, it's more probable that it is a permabull rather than a an old bull turned permabear, since the latter has probably moved on and he is now interested in other things or projects. Some early adopters simply "get it" and have moved on. You probably won't read a post everyday here from them. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=496365.0Early adopters are actually sitting pretty tight on their stash http://bitcoinrichlist.com/top100 |
|
|
|
tbh, i think the new wave of alt coins wouldnt even want to be pegged to btc.. the new 2.0 ones see btc as an archaic relic in the crypto currency space. why tie a lambo to a horse? just doesnt make sense for the few(very few) that actually have a bright future.
This way of thinking will lead to the end of Alts. BTC is the entry for all new users, then they discover alts, etc.. BTC is attracting 99% of real world investment money. If you pegged an Alt to BTC, you just increased your user base by several million. People looks at Alts as a way to make more BTC, plain and simple. thats how it is now. it may not be like that 5 years from now. its only a matter of time before more people start to see that bitcoin is outdated in terms of cryptocurrency technology. you and many other bitcoiners might not see that yet, but eventually more and more will. of course it wont happen over night but it will happen. Remember that "Bitcoin" is two things: it's a protocol (technology) and it's a ledger (distribution of wealth across a user base). Even if you subscribe to the thesis that "bitcoin is outdated in terms of cryptocurrency technology" and will eventually be replaced (which I don't), you still haven't provided an argument that Bitcoin the ledger will be replaced at the same time. Given the strong lock-in effects associated with networks, I think a stronger argument can be made that bitcoin holders would retain their wealth should a genuinely superior cryptocurrency technology become available. This could be accomplished using sidechains or spinoffs. Exactly. It is my impression that the distribution of bitcoins over the years was such a unique, organic process that it cannot be replicated by whatever new crypto comes along. The "fairness" of the distribution being such a key aspect to the establishement of any currency/money, the only chance for a new protocol to be adopted is if it recognizes Bitcoin's current ledger as the only equitable option and recognizes each owners' share of THE ledger |
|
|
|
tbh, i think the new wave of alt coins wouldnt even want to be pegged to btc.. the new 2.0 ones see btc as an archaic relic in the crypto currency space. why tie a lambo to a horse? just doesnt make sense for the few(very few) that actually have a bright future.
This way of thinking will lead to the end of Alts. BTC is the entry for all new users, then they discover alts, etc.. BTC is attracting 99% of real world investment money. If you pegged an Alt to BTC, you just increased your user base by several million. People looks at Alts as a way to make more BTC, plain and simple. thats how it is now. it may not be like that 5 years from now. its only a matter of time before more people start to see that bitcoin is outdated in terms of cryptocurrency technology. you and many other bitcoiners might not see that yet, but eventually more and more will. of course it wont happen over night but it will happen. outdated how exactly? what crypto out there has proven to be better, not just on paper? |
|
|
|
We shall have to agree to disagree. If you think people will put their blind faith into a system that presents just as much chaos and corruption/if not more than the current fiat system (and thus a haven for hackers and scammers galore)...then I hope it pans out for you. It is pretty much the furthest thing from a safe haven in my eyes. Matter of fact it's pretty much antonymous.
 I do hope someone pays you to post here and you do not actually believe the things you write |
|
|
|
weaker currencies --> perceived stronger currencies (U.S. Dollar) --> bitcoin
I don't see metals as useful a currency as bitcoin but they will, of course, appreciate against a collapsing dollar - just not as much as bitcoin in my opinion. Bitcoin could be the safety valve that preserves some semblance of a global economy and a somewhat civilized society since it will allow the continued trade across distance (metals not so much).
You're complicating what should be a simple issue. Resources are exchanged to benefit both transacting parties. You're assuming people find Bitcoin valuable as opposed to food, shelter, visa cards, beanie babies, whatever. Metals are more useful than Bitcoins in some circumstances. Not so in others. Same applies to credit cards, and so on. Under what realistic circumstances would Bitcoin "preserve some semblance of a global economy"? Bitcoin will likely be the final (or only) medium of exchange left that will enable people to trade for the food, shelter, etc. It will enable the global trade across distance to continue because it will be the only trusted currency that is not subject to the risk of being "backed" by the "full faith and credit" of bankrupt governments. It will allow the market economy to continue while preventing the total collapse into a barter economy. In short, it will save many from a lot of pain and suffering. And what exactly is bitcoin 'backed' by? Coins and fiat are backed by physical governments and militia. People can protest and throw rocks at politicians when shtf. You can't throw rocks online at miners maintaining the blockchains, or rogue exchange owners known only by internet screennames. Are you assuming the masses will just put all their 'faith' into a non-reversible, non transparent system backed by anonymous neckbeards should the world crumble? Sounds legit. You make the same mistake I did before I learned economics. Bitcoin is not backed by anything - just like gold isn't. They are each valued for their individual characteristics and utility. Humans impute value - there is no such thing as "intrinsic" or "inherent" value. Perhaps bad wording on my part, as 'intrinsic value' has such a broad range of interpretation. I'll say 'utilitarian value.' Even if gold's market value crashes to 0, it still won't be completely useless, as it can still be utilized in industrial/economic/decorative situations. Now what usefulness would bitcoin present if its market value goes to nil? But that is not the argument you brought forth. Your original proposition is that money must be backed by something when in fact money is valued only for its characteristics and properties as store-of-value, currency and unit of account. Gold's "industrial" value is irrelevant to this discussion. |
|
|
|
How has the 'trust' factor worked out for bitcoin so far?......... Very well I must say. In little over 5 years Bitcoin has managed to grow a market cap of over 1B$. Not so bad for a concept that is quite unlike anything this world has seen. You "transparency" assertion is quite subjective and mostly disingenuous. I will not entertain an argument where one would propose the current financial system is more transparent than the world's biggest open source ledger. Now please spare us the rest of your depressingly unoriginal idiocy and go back to the troll corner where you came from.  |
|
|
|
weaker currencies --> perceived stronger currencies (U.S. Dollar) --> bitcoin
I don't see metals as useful a currency as bitcoin but they will, of course, appreciate against a collapsing dollar - just not as much as bitcoin in my opinion. Bitcoin could be the safety valve that preserves some semblance of a global economy and a somewhat civilized society since it will allow the continued trade across distance (metals not so much).
You're complicating what should be a simple issue. Resources are exchanged to benefit both transacting parties. You're assuming people find Bitcoin valuable as opposed to food, shelter, visa cards, beanie babies, whatever. Metals are more useful than Bitcoins in some circumstances. Not so in others. Same applies to credit cards, and so on. Under what realistic circumstances would Bitcoin "preserve some semblance of a global economy"? Bitcoin will likely be the final (or only) medium of exchange left that will enable people to trade for the food, shelter, etc. It will enable the global trade across distance to continue because it will be the only trusted currency that is not subject to the risk of being "backed" by the "full faith and credit" of bankrupt governments. It will allow the market economy to continue while preventing the total collapse into a barter economy. In short, it will save many from a lot of pain and suffering. And what exactly is bitcoin 'backed' by? Coins and fiat are backed by physical governments and militia. Are you assuming the masses will just put all their 'faith' into a non-reversible, non transparent system backed by anonymous neckbeards should the world crumble? Sounds legit. Bitcoin, like any sound money, needs no backing but the trust of its users. The "masses" will not be given a choice. Governments should've never had control over the monetary system in the first place. You argument reeks of the charlatan state theory of money. Here's some reading for you : http://www.coindesk.com/volatility-deflation-manipulation-response-bitcoins-critics/How exactly is Bitcoin non transparent? |
|
|
|
Is the news in regards to Coinbase the one that we have been waiting for over a year? Could this be the next push into a record breaking high?  It's definitely a big deal. Unprecedented and historic. I have no idea what the eventual price effect will be, but anything is possible here. This is the first regulated exchange right? At least it is the first one in the US. Also the news is still fresh. I think we will see a lot of price movement once people get their money into the new exchange (will take a few more days). Other US exchanges are complaining that they were first and are regulated too. But Coinbase got 70 million dollars to buy the truth. Let's see if they brought some big pocket market makers for the housewarming |
|
|
|
Well, Coinbase announced their API. It's straightforward REST/JSON. There's a discussion on Hacker News. They're running on Amazon AWS, in the US East zone. They recommend that trading 'bots also run on AWS in that zone for reduced latency. Initially, there will be no fees, but later, fees will be imposed for transactions which "reduce liquidity" (i.e. are executed immediately). Putting up walls is free.
It looks like they're setting themselves up for high frequency trading. They may have huge volume, but it will be the same money going round and round.
They claim to be "licensed" in at least New York and California, but they're not on the money transmitter lists for either state.
Any opinion on this? https://docs.exchange.coinbase.com/#currenciesWill they add alts? Will be nice to have altss on there as well. We need a proper regulated legal exchange for alts too. alts should be traded for btc now and discontinued / 1 international currency is the ultimate goal and btc is where the big money and development is alts are just a distraction to new comers who will take long enough to get a basic understanding of btc without having 600 other shitcoins being pumped at the same time If you have about 3 major coins it gives people a choice. I agree that having hundreds of coins is too much. In the case of Dogecoin it attracts different demographics and has more users than all altcoins combined. If you want to learn more about Dogecoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=800004.0;all A choice of what, exactly? Different brands, different cultures.  Money is not a trend, a brand, a culture or a fad. You cannot slap shiny painting on it, claim it "appeals" to some people and that it makes it relevant or worthy of existing. All of you "shibes" are going to be very sorry when you're left holding this trendy bag of worthless coins. |
|
|
|
Well, Coinbase announced their API. It's straightforward REST/JSON. There's a discussion on Hacker News. They're running on Amazon AWS, in the US East zone. They recommend that trading 'bots also run on AWS in that zone for reduced latency. Initially, there will be no fees, but later, fees will be imposed for transactions which "reduce liquidity" (i.e. are executed immediately). Putting up walls is free.
It looks like they're setting themselves up for high frequency trading. They may have huge volume, but it will be the same money going round and round.
They claim to be "licensed" in at least New York and California, but they're not on the money transmitter lists for either state.
Any opinion on this? https://docs.exchange.coinbase.com/#currenciesWill they add alts? Will be nice to have altss on there as well. We need a proper regulated legal exchange for alts too. alts should be traded for btc now and discontinued / 1 international currency is the ultimate goal and btc is where the big money and development is alts are just a distraction to new comers who will take long enough to get a basic understanding of btc without having 600 other shitcoins being pumped at the same time If you have about 3 major coins it gives people a choice. I agree that having hundreds of coins is too much. In the case of Dogecoin it attracts different demographics and has more users than all altcoins combined. If you want to learn more about Dogecoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=800004.0;all A choice of what, exactly? Different brands, different cultures. |
|
|
|
I miss proudhon  He made trolling a art Yeah, pretty much everything about Bitcoin has been turning to shit lately. All the cool kids bailed a while ago, even the trolls what, you don't like our brand new shiny exchanges |
|
|
|
|
I'm praying it doesn't go much higher than this for at least 1-2 days.
I need way more. If coinbase's exchange comes out with any kind of significant volume we are going to shoot way up there
|
|
|
|
Is anyone feeling dread building up....
dread that you didn't buy enough this last few months.
I feel dread
I am rushing to get more money on exchange, have a localbtc meet set up hopefully tomorrow, I don't care what price I'm paying I want more, NOW |
|
|
|
Now I am so mad I didn't bother setting up with another exchange after Vault of Satoshi's closure.
Try Circle. I have maxed out the stupid weekly limit already  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
