What incentive do I have to hold appcoinx to store value when BTC promises better return & better liquidity
Diversification. Why investors have a portfolio of stocks instead of just having the stock that has the better risk/reward? This is not diversification. These are all eggs of the same basket (cryptoSOV). Network effect dictates only one egg can survive. There is no comparison with stocks. |
|
|
|
Daniel says that an asset's value comes from either a future expected payments, or, in the case of cash, from the future random opportunities it allows to enjoy. But that's not a broad enough view: an asset's value comes from a demand which meets a limited supply. He says that Bitcoin is an appcoin. That's true. It offers no expected future payments, and is far from being the equivalent of cash, still, it has value. Why? Daniel says it, because it's the required token to use the Bitcoin network. It follows that an appcoin can have value if it is the only required token to use a network. If there is demand to use a peculiar network, and if the appcoin is the only way to use that network, then there is no reason to think the appcoin will not have value. Concerning his argument that the appcoin will be dumped by the users as soon as they have finish to use the network: then how does he explain that bitcoins have value? Of course bitcoins have value because people use the token of the BTC network as both a store of value and a vehicle to speculate on the fact that the demand for the use of the network will skyrocket. Why do they do that? Because of the limited supply of the BTC tokens, not because bitcoins are the equivalent of cash and people want to have them to enjoy future random opportunities. It follows that it is definitly possible that users will choose to store their wealth in an appcoin and use it to speculate on the adoption of the relevant network (assuming the said appcoin has a limited supply) even is the appcoin has not a cash-equivalent dominance position over the liquidity market. i didn't like that he referred to Bitcoin as an appcoin. when i think of an appcoin, i think of an associated asset or function that requires usage of appcoin, like SCJX for Storj, MSC for Maidsafe, ether, XCP, etc. to me, Bitcoin is digital cash; it functions independently and only gets traded for goods and services unrelated to Bitcoin itself and which exist totally off the blockchain. Bitcoin is its own self contained financial system which transfers BTC from address to address and owner to owner. i foresee a day when goods and services will be priced or denominated in BTC, ie, Bitcoin will become a unit of account and a new form of sound money unto itself. to achieve this would be to achieve Bitcoins greatest potential as a form of digital gold. this is why i am so against any proposal which might detract or distract from this outcome or turn Bitcoin into a multi-asset trading platform. imo, ppl who advocate for this expansion of Bitcoins function either don't understand Bitcoin or are the "entrepreneurs" that Daniel refer to who were late to the party and wish to mold/change Bitcoin into their new "opportunity" at the expense of the rest of us who got in early. the funny thing is, if they just bought BTC now, they would still be early adopters who should experience incredible wealth expansion over time. aaand, it would be a lot easier. b/c it is essentially "perfect" money due to its fixed supply and global payment network, all other altcoins or appcoins pale in comparison and lack the network effect which Bitcoin grabbed early on. this is b/c they usually tweek a parameter that distorts Bitcoin's sound money function or try to add a feature which is useless. eventually, these alternatives will be snuffed out according to Austrian Theory as society will function better and more efficiently with a single global monetary unit. we're slowly seeing it happen. the other reason ppl need or wish to hold digital cash, other than to capitalize on crashed assets, is that there are times when emergencies occur and one needs liquidity to buy or pay off essentials. no one usually goes "all in", even in Bitcoin  . but hodling has an additional benefit. as a result of the fact that it has a fixed supply means that in an ever expanding and chaotic fiat currency world, Bitcoins value has no other choice but to go up as fiat "leaks" into the Bitcoin system. It's digital cash because people aren't afraid of hoarding it. And why are they hoarding it when instead they can just use the payment system and dump the BTC as fast as they can once they have buy the goods and services they needed? Because they don't see the BTC tokens only as a means to use the network/payment system but also as a store of value and a speculation vehicle. The store of value function exists when there is a limited supply. The speculation vehicle function exists when the user-base of the network has a growth potentiel. These two conditions aren't specific to Bitcoin. If Storj tokens exist in limited supply and the Storj network has a big growth potentiel, then people will hoard them like they are hoarding BTC. That doesn't threaten the digital cash position of BTC at all (the superior network effect in payments cannot be overturned), it's just something that will happen outside the scope of BTC. Today they are plenty of assets which allow people to store their value besides gold, and people use a great variety of vehicles to speculate. The Austrian theory is probably right to conclude that the cash function is a natural monopoly, but the SOV and speculation functions aren't natural monopoly. That's why appcoins will have value, not because they will be use as a means of payments or as a unit of account, but because they will allow to store value and speculate. BTC will not capture all the value created by the economy. Some value will exist outside of its scope, and if other networks than the BTC network create value for the consumers, then there is no question that the tokens that allow people to use those networks will have value too. What incentive do I have to hold appcoinx to store value when BTC promises better return & better liquidity. The Austrian theory relates to natural MONEY monopoly, not "cash". SOV is a function of money. There absolutely is a network effect for store of values of the same nature (cryptocoins). Moreover, I don't believe that coins the likes of Storj would have limited supply. |
|
|
|
...It would be considerably less efficient to use cryptography in a centralized model.
Why? Remember, it doesn't need to be a proof-of-work coin, so doesn't need to rely on burning tons of electricity on high-speed thumb twiddling. No reason for V2.0 distributed ledger to be wasteful  Why bother with crypto in a centralized model? There's no risk of double spending or option for pseudonymous transactions with a central issuer. Transparency, improved security, ease of maintenance, ease of KYC/AML enforcement, etc., etc. Governments can get behind it Remember, open ledger! Transparency & openness are not features of proprietary, centralized ledgers. Also, crypto has nothing good to offer in terms of security or "ease of maintenance" for a centralized network. It's like you're suggesting Paypal integrates cryptography, do you realize how stupid the idea is  Sounds like Ripple scam. Edit: In fact NLC is a brilliant critic and 'troll'. If he is not employed by Ripple Labs, maybe he should be 
I can't wait for him to come around during the next rally. He'll be a fantastic Bitcoin evangelist  |
|
|
|
It's certainly straightforward enough, but it's starting to show some ...drawbacks? My point is pretty trivial--it's nice to have the ability to adjust the money supply in response to changing conditions. Clockwork inflation guidance can't do that, and that's why V1s were so wildly inaccurate  Your laboured point is exceedingly trivial. Last time i checked, bitcoin isn't a rocket, though it's exchange price has risen like one. In principle having the ability to regulate inflation is an excellent idea. However in the real world we all inhabit it does not work for centrally planned fiat currencies in practice. Other than comparing bitcoin with an ancient nazi missile, do you have any meaningful objection to bitcoin having a programatically enforced exponentially falling inflation rate? How come? (Just curious...) Because humans + magic money printing = disaster |
|
|
|
...It would be considerably less efficient to use cryptography in a centralized model.
Why? Remember, it doesn't need to be a proof-of-work coin, so doesn't need to rely on burning tons of electricity on high-speed thumb twiddling. No reason for V2.0 distributed ledger to be wasteful Why bother with crypto in a centralized model? There's no risk of double spending or option for pseudonymous transactions with a central issuer. Transparency, improved security, ease of maintenance, ease of KYC/AML enforcement, etc., etc. Governments can get behind it Remember, open ledger! Transparency & openness are not features of proprietary, centralized ledgers. Also, crypto has nothing good to offer in terms of security or "ease of maintenance" for a centralized network. It's like you're suggesting Paypal integrates cryptography, do you realize how stupid the idea is |
|
|
|
I know you have daddy issues with the FED, but I simply used it to illustrate why mining more BTC makes the BTC you hold worth less. We can also infer from this that lowering the total of BTC mined (printed) would reduce the supply of BTC on exchanges, thus twerking the supply/demand equation just right & making the coin you hold be worth more. But you can't do that, because predefined, like clockwork, like a V1 rocket. Nothing can be done Or maybe we can just wait a bit for market demand to pick up, waddayathink Yeah, "Wildly fluctuating & tanking price? It's actually a good thing, we meant to do that."  Come on Speculation, the only way to bootstrap a decentralized, global form of money. |
|
|
|
I know you have daddy issues with the FED, but I simply used it to illustrate why mining more BTC makes the BTC you hold worth less. We can also infer from this that lowering the total of BTC mined (printed) would reduce the supply of BTC on exchanges, thus twerking the supply/demand equation just right & making the coin you hold be worth more. But you can't do that, because predefined, like clockwork, like a V1 rocket. Nothing can be done Or maybe we can just wait a bit for market demand to pick up, waddayathink |
|
|
|
... And you still haven't answered my question. The question remains the same: Why doesn't the FED print money faster? Printing presses worn out & need a rebuild? Regardless of how you feel about the FED (Satan's pad), who controls it (the Jews!), the US deficit (BRB, moving to Somalia!), or any of those fun topics, answer the question. Or no more XBox for you, young man  Theoretically if the Fed prints more money, it will devalue the US dollar ... There! Finally! There's hope for you yet. Do you still need me to answer your question, or have you spotted some similarities & actually learned something today? ...
But what would the number of coins mined per day have to do with the declining price?
... The fed already devalues the dollar whether it prints money or not:  I don't want to side with Lambtroll here but you seem kind of confused... the dollar is being devalued BECAUSE the FED is printing money |
|
|
|
...It would be considerably less efficient to use cryptography in a centralized model.
Why? Remember, it doesn't need to be a proof-of-work coin, so doesn't need to rely on burning tons of electricity on high-speed thumb twiddling. No reason for V2.0 distributed ledger to be wasteful Why bother with crypto in a centralized model? There's no risk of double spending or option for pseudonymous transactions with a central issuer. |
|
|
|
If you're not thinking about Bitcoin for the long term, you're in the wrong place.
Is ever-growing blockchain problem solved? Yes, see Factom, invertible bloom tableIs ever-increasing electricity consumption problem solved? Absolutely not an issue. Energy consumption is the tradeoff for trust and securityIs ever-concentrating mining power problem solved? Solved? By what metric? You realize mining is more decentralized than it's probably ever been right? Look belowJune 13 2014 December 26th 2014 Sorry, but you seem to forgot <troll> tag. |
|
|
|
As a difficult, but early year in the emergence of bitcoin comes to a close - it continues to prosper into a more and more powerful network. The units themselves being described as worthless at only $320 by people apparently unaware of what $320 can buy.
If a blockchain can become healthy it will represent a huge amount of power - belonging to a necessarily huge number of people whose interests are simple yet predictably consistent.
Absolute domination becomes inevitable for the world's first and most sought after real change to the old, creaking, bloated, largely inaccessible, reckless and ultimately unnecessary banking paradigm. Not because it replaces it, but because it isn't constrained by limiting factors that have been overcome thanks to the internet and the solving of the Byzantine General's problem.
The anti-fragility of simplicity cannot be questioned.
+1 |
|
|
|
^ A tangent? Sure, hard forks are possible, but not the ones which are needed. Addresses the red boldface text. Which tangent? Block rewards wouldn't change for the miners, just transaction fees. A hard fork would address many so called issues with scale and transactions per second limited by the current 1mb size per block. Let's take this one step at a time. 1. The block rewards are too high--too much coin is being produced, Bitcoin is unable to maintain price @ 14-15% monetary base inflation. 2. A real currency like USD, with IRL people at the helm, would limit issuance in such times to counter the falling price. 3. BTC can't do it with a hard fork--miners wouldn't mine the fork in which the block rewards are lower--see red text. 4. You posted a fork which does not change the block reward & does nothing to address this issue. How much was the block reward 2 years ago? How high was bitcoin inflation 2 years ago? Did bitcoin manage to maintain the exchange price? Which part of "BTC can't [drop block rewards] with a hard fork--miners wouldn't mine the fork in which the block rewards are lower" do you find difficult to grasp? I'm trying to explain the basics of contemporary economics to you Bitcoiners, as if you were five. I've got plenty of patience, but you must be willing to learn. Fantastic attempt to deviate from the obvious fallacy in your argument. The block reward was twice as high 2 years ago yet Bitcoin managed to survive. Can you explain |
|
|
|
...If bitcoin fails then it shows that they all will fail...
That... That's so inane it borders on brilliance. What in the world made you say that? 1. Bob made a coin that didn't work well. 2. ? ? ? 3. Therefore, all coins made consequently aren't going to work well either. Bitcoiner logic. Bitcoin is trust. The only relevant trust that exist in crypto atm is in Bitcoin. If Bitcoin fails than 95% of the trust in crypto fails. When that happen good luck picking up the scraps and piece back together patchworks of trust. No, if Bitcoin fails then Bitcoin fails. The math behind the code doesn't fail, and other crypto can be built on the ruins of Bitcoin. Like a new plant taking nourishment from the rotting remnants of the ones that came before it. Things will work out, brg444, the day's yet young I see you didn't address the trust issue. You know.. "that confidence thing" is much more important than the math or the code If Bitcoin fails the whole ecosystem suffers enormously. The mainstream doesn't give a shit or make a difference between your shitcoin and Bitcoin. If Bitcoin fails then in the eyes of the public all cryptocurrency is a failure. Sure the idea might survive in the long run it will take tremendous innovation and efforts to rebuild the public's confidence. Currently, fiat money has the first-mover advantage & confidence behind it. If Bitcoin is going to compete, it's going to be on the strength of the code. You're also unjustly limiting cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency doesn't need to be just another reitteration of Bitcoin code, it doesn't need to be "trustless" or even decentralized. If it is backed by a major firms like Google, people will trust it--TRUST ME That's why there is no point arguing with you. You are seemingly an intelligent (yet deranged) man but so clearly lack understanding of the fundamentals it is a lost cause. Googlecoin is not cryptocurrency. It would be considerably less efficient to use cryptography in a centralized model. Major firms like Google will never launch any sort of proprietary digital currency. See the case of E-Gold to understand why this is not likely and inevitably doomed to failure. If Bitcoin is going to compete it is because of its economic model and decentralized structure, not the "code" which, quite honestly, doesn't mean much anyway. |
|
|
|
...If bitcoin fails then it shows that they all will fail...
That... That's so inane it borders on brilliance. What in the world made you say that? 1. Bob made a coin that didn't work well. 2. ? ? ? 3. Therefore, all coins made consequently aren't going to work well either. Bitcoiner logic. Bitcoin is trust. The only relevant trust that exist in crypto atm is in Bitcoin. If Bitcoin fails than 95% of the trust in crypto fails. When that happen good luck picking up the scraps and piece back together patchworks of trust. No, if Bitcoin fails then Bitcoin fails. The math behind the code doesn't fail, and other crypto can be built on the ruins of Bitcoin. Like a new plant taking nourishment from the rotting remnants of the ones that came before it. Things will work out, brg444, the day's yet young I see you didn't address the trust issue. You know.. "that confidence thing" is much more important than the math or the code If Bitcoin fails the whole ecosystem suffers enormously. The mainstream doesn't give a shit or make a difference between your shitcoin and Bitcoin. If Bitcoin fails then in the eyes of the public all cryptocurrency is a failure. Sure the idea might survive in the long run it will take tremendous innovation and efforts to rebuild the public's confidence. |
|
|
|
Lol at the results.
Thats why bitcoin is going to lose the war. People are afraid more of btc's rise than its crash. They don't want it to succeed and get caught offguard.
This is because majority lost their trust to btc. If btc price was staying 800$ or more in these days the results were maybe be different.
If you've been around here long enough, then you know Bitcoin is prone to speculative bubbles and price "crashes". That's pretty much why people picked the latter option, because they know about a thing called volatility. Bitcoin's "crashed" so many times in the last 5 years, it's almost numbing to see just a $10-$15 swing. Stick around here longer, you'll eventually learn something. You must be kidding me. Btc get to 1000$+ Because Mt.gox Bubbled the whole market. Putin says a word bitcoin crashes! China wakes up, bitcoin rises! Then Democratic China Republic (Or Russia) says Bitcoin is no good, lets ban it; Bitcoin dies. It was all like that. Sure it didnt died yet. But like i said people are now in fiat mostly. They dont trust btc like they used to be.Like when the only relevant exchange was MtGox? Surely BTC was much more trustable then, right  |
|
|
|
How much resources does it take to start using a payment processor for select digital content, with barely any PR--a few blog posts? If you're suggesting that Microsoft made a mistake, that's possible too tho. I'm on the fence re. this, convince me  Not a mistake. It's called foresight and having a vision. Something you so evidently lack. So Microsoft, having decided to let a payment processor pay it in $$$, is now a visionary? But brg444, you said open source...  Baby steps You know they can decide to hold whatever % of BTC they choose right? "Microsoft has a long-term vision for bitcoin, BitPay and the blockchain. Starting with digital goods in the US is the logical first step, however, they want to expand to Europe and globally and add support for other products as part of that rollout." Lol, do understand that Microsoft flatters you only to get into your pants wallet. as if I'd let them have my Bitcoins |
|
|
|
How much resources does it take to start using a payment processor for select digital content, with barely any PR--a few blog posts? If you're suggesting that Microsoft made a mistake, that's possible too tho. I'm on the fence re. this, convince me Not a mistake. It's called foresight and having a vision. Something you so evidently lack. So Microsoft, having decided to let a payment processor pay it in $$$, is now a visionary? But brg444, you said open source... Baby steps You know they can decide to hold whatever % of BTC they choose right? "Microsoft has a long-term vision for bitcoin, BitPay and the blockchain. Starting with digital goods in the US is the logical first step, however, they want to expand to Europe and globally and add support for other products as part of that rollout." |
|
|
|
Modern money is more complex. It depends on elasticity of supply, which, in turn, depends of having IRL people at the helm.The Luddite need to undo centuries of innovation to return to cowrie shells seems attractive--everyone understands how cowrie shells work, and simple must be good, amirite? Why spend years studying economics when a bit of horse sense is enough? The problem's it ain't Anything that depends on humans and centralized planning is a failure waiting to happen. Your elastic supply money is ending with the fiat experiment. Elastic supply is just an excuse to print more money to serve a certain minority's interest. |
|
|
|
How much resources does it take to start using a payment processor for select digital content, with barely any PR--a few blog posts? If you're suggesting that Microsoft made a mistake, that's possible too tho. I'm on the fence re. this, convince me Not a mistake. It's called foresight and having a vision. Something you so evidently lack. |
|
|
|
...
Why would a multi billion dollar conglomerate like Microsoft have to pander to such an insignificant currency as Bitcoin and such a small minority of users like us Bitcoiners?
Because it costs them nearly nothing, far less than they hope to get from (admittedly) nearly-irrelevant contingent like you Bitcoiners. So they're using a payment processor. So what? They immediately convert fiat, we know! They're definitely not hurting or needy for these measly sales. I'm pretty sure they're way smarter than you, and know a thing or two about tech and business, than NotLambChop. Large profits result from series of small profits. That's how money is made. Now go play your new vidya. So answer me this, NotLambChop. Why bother adding it as a payment? Apple, Amazon, and Google haven't done it yet. Because the companies you've listed think Bitcoin is too embarrassing? What point are you trying to make here? Very curious of company as successful as their's to just add it. Adding Bitcoin won't make them any real profit, Why add it? Think deeper, this is a Multi Billion dollar company, and please don't retort with "it costs them nothing". A rational agent should take profit, no matter how trivial, when no risk is involved. So yeah, it cost them nothing & they make money. Not sure how this could be made any simpler. Now run along & play your vidya. Nothing? It cost them resources & time that could theoretically be used for more profitable ventures than the thrills of a couple Bitcoiners buying Xbox Ones on their website. Surely you're not thinking they're making any significant profit with Bitcoin as it is right now |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
