Store-of-value was programmed into us by the Scientology Overlords so they might easily take our gold when they return. Bitcoin is a secret weapon created on the Planet Satoshi to defeat the Scientologists.  |
|
|
|
All centralized exchanges would shut down if that happened. Then truly decentralized exchanges would thrive. Let's see them skin the sheep.
You must be new here, but your "legendary" status says otherwise. What did Gox, BTC-e and Stamp all do 2 years ago before we broke above $100? Were they losing their asses or did they open up because they knew it was a lucrative business even below $100? I'd actually wager a guess that they make more money at lower prices because volumes are higher and more people are able to buy more with the same balance. Their actual USD fees wouldn't change much if at all but their BTC fees would double. Win win. "You can sheer a sheep many times, but skin it only once." In bitcoin's case meaning unregulated central exchanges will be finally exposed as bad for bitcoin because they favor fiat profit taking. Even Wall Street doesn't allow such volatility. Decentralized exchanges will slow down trading and allow natural price discovery without panic trading. Also such low prices are boring and nobody will care anymore. Bitcoin will go back to hobby status until the next development wave creates more disruptive technology that eliminates exchanges entirely. |
|
|
|
Reminds me of the Ethereum Bitcoin dump. They had dumped some 30K coins all of a sudden, which crashed the Bitcoin prices then. And now it is the turn of Factom to dump their coins.
I wonder why they use Bitcoin for their fundraisers and not wire transfers like bitcoins are bought. |
|
|
|
|
Obvious honeypot to get paedos to use traceable bitcoins like the DEA tried to do.
|
|
|
|
|
The explanation for the glitch at OkCoin will be interesting.
|
|
|
|
Looks like I schooled myself with that scenario. I see what problem you're pointing out now. AB's funding transaction and BC's funding transaction cannot interact with each other directly. It doesn't matter what B's output on AB is. If B's output on BC is 0 then he/she cannot send any more BTC on that channel without transacting on the block chain.
I think the solution to this will be multifaceted. As the network grows, BGP-like routing systems can emerge to find working paths for transactions. Also, I see a market incentive for hub-and-spoke 2-of-3 payment channels emerging, with well-funded, well-connected hubs charging higher fees.
Exactly. Fees will be the reward in this case, not an altcoin that so many others are convinced are needed. Fees are something everyone understands. |
|
|
|
The Science Is Settled!!!
Is Economics a science now? The results just seem to be for sale to the highest bidders. The international war on cash is accelerating. What's next?...fine art, rare goods, will only exist in registries with a bank? After cash is banned, it's likely gold will be next. They tried it once before and this time they will succeed. While nations are trying to repatriate their gold and Wall Street issues paper gold, physical gold itself will be under attack. |
|
|
|
|
All centralized exchanges would shut down if that happened. Then truly decentralized exchanges would thrive. Let's see them skin the sheep.
|
|
|
|
He is a Core developer.... ffs ...if he jump ship, at the sight of the smallest wave, many will follow. Core developers are the captains of the ship, they should navigate us out of trouble or go down with the ship. They have absolutely no obligation to do that, I think we all knew awhile back that special interests like the Bitcoin foundation among others would try to ruin Bitcoin and this is going to be part of what does it, I think the biggest trouble will happen if you ever have legislators trying to make changes to the code themselves at which point you can expect an immediate exodus. This is a problem with every volunteer organization that ever existed. It's called a schizm. There is no such thing as a Core developer other than anyone that contributes some bugfixes to the code or contributes features to Github. Few developers agree on features and many have left Bitcoin to make altcoins. Most of them have no concept of security and consensus. The one notable exception was Satoshi himself. But nobody knows where he went or what he is doing. |
|
|
|
I have said this before and I say it again, the usage of dedicated hardware is a huge risk because it leads to some sort of centralization that can be used by the Dark forces to attack BTC, just like he says. HOWEVER this is simple to circumvent, it is always possible to change the algo to something that can only be done by GPU's or CPU's again - and it is not realistically possible to require licensed for those. Or, if the bad guys start monitoring electricity usage, use a POS solution. NXT requires no mining at all. I do not agree with Todd about the risks of regulating the core protocol because it is impossible to force the majority to support a compilation that supports stuff like blacklisting.  Weak points are the fiat conversion and the dedicated hardware, that's for sure. How are GPUs and CPUs not dedicated hardware? Are they all identical? Are their architectures public domain? If your algo benefits from one over another what's to stop that manufacturer from making special deals? |
|
|
|
|
Countries that claim to be ruled by law have no legitimate reason to treat Bitcoin different than any other assets. Bitcoin can also resist unlawful states. It's funny nothing in his perspective has any historical references. He seems to repeat the mistakes of other cynics regarding scientific breakthroughs.
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like you should be an administrator.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah I don't know how I'm using bitcoins here in the Philippines. I have fiber optic internet in the poor Muslim island of Mindanao. Sometimes I even use bitcoins while drinking my mocha at Starbucks or Krispy Kreme. The perception of poverty is from folks that haven't been to the Southern USA. In fact it's difficult to find a Filipino not staring at their mobile device. More filipinos are on Facebook that any other nation per capita.
|
|
|
|
i don't see any other reason for his negativity other than buy cheap coins, a core dev should encourage the adoption(not but telling the false of course, we all know that bitcoin is in a despair phase) but a dev, should talking about addressing bug/problem related to btc, instead of "fudderising" it
He isn't your employee. He is writing new code for bitcoin for free, so he didn't take any obligations to us. Why do you think that you can speculate about btc future and he shouldn't? Think of all Bitcoin holders as business stockholders because they own a piece of the Bitcoin system. Trusted stockholders and officers are required by law to act in the best interest of corporations. While there is no such law for Bitcoin, the reasons for those law are just as valid in a decentralized business entity. The value of Bitcoin doesn't grow through earnings, it grows through deflation. |
|
|
|
Why do I get the feeling that everyone on this thread is an obsessive gambler, but no one ever wants to be truly wealthy?
For all the fkn around with bitcoin you guys do day trading (and mostly losing), I could have pointed you to at least 5 stocks that in 2014 would have doubled your money going long and holding.
I bolded the part that pertains to me. I sold hundreds of coins at five bucks, and I felt great. Even when price started moving up to 50 bucks I thought "this is awesome, I'm gonna be rich!" But when the price got to a thousand, I just felt nervous and scared. People that were only casual acquaintances started trying to become much more "friendly". One of my co-workers even made the comment that he could hack my private keys with a crowbar. (He said he was joking) If bitcoin goes up at the expense of a dollar collapse, you might be surprised at how desperate people can get. Bitcoin only had a $9B market cap at it's peak. That wasn't even enough wealth to attract Wall Street. Bitcoin holders are a long way from "truly wealthy" by their standards. |
|
|
|
|
If Satoshi had used an S-curve allowing a slow release at first instead of large dumps of Bitcoins, would it have seemed more fair to those that shout "EARLY ADOPTERS ARE ELITISTS!" and only now would 50 BTC blocks be offered?
|
|
|
|
Readers need to remember one thing:
Peter Todd is a 30 yrs old programmer.
He lack life experience and credential to talks about other aspect of bitcoin. He should stick to the technical aspect.
That can be said about a number of devs. Some of them grow wiser, some of them become FUDsters for the press. Why does the age matter here? It's more common for older people to stick with their beliefs, rather than accept something new. He might not have experience and thus shouldn't be predicting the future. He shouldn't definitely be talking in a wrong way about this, because his job is to code for a cryptocurrency. The part about TBF is correct though. What does old age have to do with beliefs? Wisdom is the perspective created by large collection of truths. Learning takes time. Life is OJT. |
|
|
|
Readers need to remember one thing:
Peter Todd is a 30 yrs old programmer.
He lack life experience and credential to talks about other aspect of bitcoin. He should stick to the technical aspect.
That can be said about a number of devs. Some of them grow wiser, some of them become FUDsters for the press. |
|
|
|
|
If it really is better, then Bitcoin will assimilate it. Resistance is futile.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
