p the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.
What you don't care about Bitcoin's Sound Money principles anymore  How dare you !  They're one and the same point, I don't understand your pitch? My pitch? My pitch is that cypherclown has been championing the danger of breaking the holy link between the BTC unit and its blockchain for the past 50 pages but now that he FINALLY realizes federated server sidechains creates this exact mechanism and that these are implementable natively he has yet again moved the goal post to another fallacious argument. |
|
|
|
Everytime you resort to ignoring my comments I smile knowing I've won that argument.
It's a special kind of insolence, that can hold a belief that off block chain transactions and on blockchain transaction are the same, all the while claim superior knowledge, insight and understanding, while insulting those who attempt to point out otherwise. I can only laugh when it boils down to a self proclaimed victory. Cypher this girl has trolled you hard, even lamchop ran away. brg444's too ignorant to know what he's talking about or he's lying The intelligent posts speak for themselves, brg444 is only seeking to cover them in $#!±. I'm still waiting for you to counter-argument my reply to your question. |
|
|
|
This is why I think that that cannot be the support for the bitcoin price for a long, long time. I think that the main steady state drive will be "buying stuff", with my formula.
Speculation will be the driving force for Bitcoin until mass adoption. It was designed by Satoshi to be so. Speculation is the bootstrapping method for Bitcoin to gain mass acceptance and only then will it realize its promises as a mean-of-exchange Of course. But speculation is always based upon an expectation in the future, and if that expectation is wrong, the speculator looses. So rational speculation is based upon a long term estimate of the fundamentals. And my aim here is to find out what those fundamentals are. As you say, it can be mass adoption as "means-of-exchange", and then the "quantity theory of money" jumps in to indicate what will be the price of things in bitcoin, which will inversely indicate what will be the market price of bitcoin (as compared to other monetary assets such as $ that can buy the same stuff). The market value of bitcoin "as a means of exchange" will then be the fundamental, and it is determined by how much stuff one can buy with it, and what is the average holding time between such buys, as that will determine the aggregate demand for bitcoin, and hence determine its market value. The *other* fundamental is "store of value for the long term". In my opinion, that can only come in once bitcoin is established as a means-of-exchange for some time. Maybe I'm wrong here. But speculation by itself, cannot be a fundamental. It has to AIM for a fundamental. And I'd like, in this discussion, to find out what it is. Read this here : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg9247581#msg9247581These are the fundamentals we are dealing with. |
|
|
|
You seem to miss the point. Growth ('to the moon') can obviously not last indefinitely. At a certain point, steady state will have to set in. Every form of speculation is essentially based upon a bet on that steady state value which is expected to be higher than right now, so that kind of speculation (which is now the main drive) will have to stop one day. Steady? As in... fixed? You do know that Bitcoin is a deflationary currency correct? Which means yes, the growth CAN and WILL last indefinitely. So I propose to make the mental exercise to put yourself in the hypothetical situation where you eliminate mentally that speculative purpose, and try to find out your own drive to put value into bitcoin *for store of value* reasons, and not for "to the moon" speculative reasons. I very well know that the actual situation is the speculative "to the moon" drive. But in order to find out what is going to be the steady state situation, you have to be able to find out what would be the drive to hold bitcoin *without* speculative "to the moon" drive. Well the list is pretty long, but if you insist here's a few : 1. Deflationary 2. Ideal property as money 3. Distributed and outside the reach of any singular entity (read: government) 4. Programmable 5. Highly secure 6. Unseizable So in order to make that exercise, suppose that six months from now, for one or another reason, the bitcoin price has gone up to $ 500 000,- (and not because the dollar collapsed) and it stays there for 6 other months with fluctuations of 10% or so. Obviously, at that price, the "to the moon" expectation afterwards is gone. You do not expect it to rise to 10 million, do you. You might still hope for a small factor of 2 or 3, but that's it. I can certainly envision it reaching 10 million per BTC in my lifetime. But lemme play along to your "scenario".... Are you going to put your savings at that moment in $ 500 000,- coins ? Seriously ?
(or are you going to sell part of what you have to cash in ? :-) ).  At this point it is clear you have no understanding of the dynamics at stake. At 500,000$ per coin I have no interest for your worthless fiat. No I am NEVER going to cash out because at that point it is clear and beyond evident that BTC has won. So yes, I am going to make sure every single penny I have is used to buy BTC. In fact, disregarding your speculative scenario, I can confirm to you that I am going to make this move MUCH earlier This, to find out if you *really* consider bitcoin a good store of value for your savings without any "to the moon" speculation anymore, just a reasonable potential to rise somewhat, like other stores of value like gold, real estate and the like. [/quote] Bitcoin is a GREAT store of value, the best there is in fact. The reason for this is it is simply the best form of money that has ever been created. Gold pales in comparison to Bitcoin. Real estate can be seized through coercion or devalued by speculative market. You are obviously missing the point, right. *Of course* the speculative drive is the strongest one. But it cannot last, of course. Once it is over, I'm trying to find out what would be the drive. Because ultimately, *that* drive is what is going to give bitcoin any value as store of value. Otherwise, it is indeed, just Ponzi, if nothing holds it up once it cannot grow anymore. Just to be clear, I don't think it is Ponzi. But in order for it not to be, one has a clear view on its fundamentals. Fundamentals are never "growth to infinity", but are "steady state" arguments that are sustainable.
In the long term, fundamentals always win. That is why a real Ponzi, which has no fundamentals, always collapses.
So I'm trying to find out what are the fundamentals of bitcoin. As I said, my opinion is that it is "money to buy stuff". Some think it is "store of value". My *opinion* which can be wrong, is that that can only come much later. But "expectations to the moon" are never fundamentals by themselves.
The fundamentals are that Bitcoin is the best form of money that exists. Point blank. Period. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKkfhi8Eaiw |
|
|
|
in this entire 200 pg discussion, my arguments have centered on the SPVproof mainly b/c that is Blockstreams main goal; to insert SPVproof into the source. even they say federated servers are an interim insecure, centralized step. i agree, i discount them as any real long term implementation of SC's for exactly those reasons. the real meat of everything i've argued has and always will apply to SPVproof as it systematizes the SC concept and implies that a community consensus has been reached regarding these things.
stop pretending that i'd be upset at the federated model as you keep gloating and screaming about as above. i could give a shit b/c it's not a threat and should NOT be a reason for us to scream in fear "OMG, give us SPVproof!"
So this: the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.
Was some kind of delusion of yourself that never happened? The "basis of your argument" is no more the "basis of your argument" because you cannot defend it anymore? I'm very sorry but federated servers supported sidechains are ABSOLUTELY part of the future of BTC. Do you not remember those scary opaque, centralized sidechains you make nightmares about? You think they're gonna hand over control of their chain to miners? Hell no! They will most certainly use federations/oracles to verify their chain. Which leads me back to what I have tried to explain to you repeatedly. Most of the sidechains created by Blockstream for clients will be booted on top of federated model servers. They cannot afford the uncertainty of MM and its consequent insecurity. SPVproof are effectively our best ally against any of these opaque, centralized/off-chain schemes. The market should absolutely demand algorithmically pegged sidechains. They are the most certain and secure way to prevent the inflation of Bitcoin through off-chain fractional reserve. Of course they come with a whole lot of implications that should be considered. Others have done a great job at pointing these out, in a couple of posts at that, while you've been witch hunting for the last 200 pages without any valuable contribution. so your argument has morphed from SC's solely being implemented as utility chains, to maybe a NASDAQ stock SC being great, and now to all these Blockstream, IBM, Google created federated server SC's that we all should fear! lol! go right ahead and dream that fantasy b/c i don't fear them at all. let 'em do it. as long as they don't change source. Should we really run a list of your argument beginning at the start of this discussion? Do you even remember this one? the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.
What you don't care about Bitcoin's Sound Money principles anymore How dare you ! |
|
|
|
you mean like this trick? i'm an asshole.
Everytime you resort to ignoring my comments I smile knowing I've won that argument. You are a sad, sad person cypher. I hope you get some help. This pathetic ego of yours is digging you a hole from where you'll have a hard time climbing out of. |
|
|
|
in this entire 200 pg discussion, my arguments have centered on the SPVproof mainly b/c that is Blockstreams main goal; to insert SPVproof into the source. even they say federated servers are an interim insecure, centralized step. i agree, i discount them as any real long term implementation of SC's for exactly those reasons. the real meat of everything i've argued has and always will apply to SPVproof as it systematizes the SC concept and implies that a community consensus has been reached regarding these things.
stop pretending that i'd be upset at the federated model as you keep gloating and screaming about as above. i could give a shit b/c it's not a threat and should NOT be a reason for us to scream in fear "OMG, give us SPVproof!"
So this: the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.
Was some kind of delusion of yourself that never happened? Some fragment of your imagination created by your schyzophrenic mind? The "basis of your argument" is no more the "basis of your argument" because you cannot defend it anymore? I'm very sorry but federated servers supported sidechains are ABSOLUTELY part of the future of BTC. Do you not remember those scary opaque, centralized sidechains you make nightmares about? You think they're gonna hand over control of their chain to miners? Hell no! They will most certainly use federations/oracles to verify their chain. Which leads me back to what I have tried to explain to you repeatedly. Most of the sidechains created by Blockstream for clients will be booted on top of federated model servers. They cannot afford the uncertainty of MM and its consequent insecurity. SPVproof are effectively our best ally against any of these opaque, centralized/off-chain schemes. The market should absolutely demand algorithmically pegged sidechains. They are the most certain and secure way to prevent the inflation of Bitcoin through off-chain fractional reserve. Of course they come with a whole lot of implications that should be considered. Others have done a great job at pointing these out, in a couple of posts at that, while you've been witch hunting for the last 200 pages without any valuable contribution. |
|
|
|
the Blockstream bounty still applies btw  nothing you've said has changed my mind. in fact, its all crystallized it for me. You cook the stuff yourself? |
|
|
|
this is where you are very wrong.
the Federated model SIDECHAINS allows a transformation of BTC to all manner of speculative assets by allowing an offramp to these speculative SC's with opaque ledgers and insecurity. this does 2 things; drains value from Bitcoin itself and increases attacks while on this insecure SC. this is a totally different situation from a gox general deposit address which still exists on the Bitcoin blockchain and even if hacked just moves those BTC to the hackers new address.
FTFY, again. Sure what you describe is true, that is if you believe and trust gox to maintain full reserve. Unfortunately history has shown this to be a very shaky proposition i'm not sure what you think you're fixing. it matters not whether gox maintains full reserve. whatever BTC got deposited to the general deposit address was always there or got hacked away. inflation applies to what was happening with goxBTC on the orderbooks which is not the same thing. LOL you still don't get it do you? Notice the ol' SPVProof/Federated Sidechains switcharoo? See how it fits perfectly in there and remains true? Got it? Probably not....  Lemme pull the same ol' trick : it matters not whether the sidechain maintains full reserve. whatever BTC got locked to the sidechain was always there or got "burned" away. inflation applies to what was happening with scBTC on the sidechain which is not the same thing.
 cool no? |
|
|
|
and you are one senile grampa
what you keep emphasizing is your opposition to the detachement of the BTC asset from the BTC mainchain onto potentially speculative sidechains that could drain away the value off the BTC mainchain. I hope you did not forget this. If so I can gladly pull up your numerous posts that clearly imply this mechanism would "destroy Bitcoin"
what I keep emphasizing, which you are seemingly to stupid or disingenuous to comprehend, is that federated servers do exactly this.
it has never been a debate about changing the source code or not. so unless you are trying to move the goal post ONCE AGAIN, then at least make at attempt at being honest.
you concern is Bitcoin's Sound Money property.
my answer to your concern is you should see your bitcoins RIGHT NOW because SIDECHAINS using a federated model are this danger you so very much fear
no, that's just been your misperception of my argument. it's ALWAYS been about changing source code. OH IS THAT RIGHT the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.
Well tough luck brothers, because the BTC unit CAN and WILL be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) by SIDECHAINS running on a federated server model. That very mechanism is possible without any change to the source code. So...it seems my good man that Bitcoin as Money is broken ALREADY which brings me to ask you...... .... sold your Bitcoins already? |
|
|
|
this is where you are very wrong.
the Federated model SIDECHAINS allows a transformation of BTC to all manner of speculative assets by allowing an offramp to these speculative SC's with opaque ledgers and insecurity. this does 2 things; drains value from Bitcoin itself and increases attacks while on this insecure SC. this is a totally different situation from a gox general deposit address which still exists on the Bitcoin blockchain and even if hacked just moves those BTC to the hackers new address.
FTFY, again. Sure what you describe is true, that is if you believe and trust gox to maintain full reserve. Unfortunately history has shown this to be a very shaky proposition |
|
|
|
man, you are one insolent kid.
i keep emphasizing the SPVproof b/c that is indeed what i'm against b/c it changes source, not SC's in general. you're unable to ascertain that given all the posts i've made about this? sheesh.
federated servers aren't really even on my radar as ppl are free to do whatever they want in their private communities as long as they don't come begging to change source to profit from their business model.
and you are one senile grampa what you keep emphasizing is your opposition to the detachement of the BTC asset from the BTC mainchain onto potentially speculative sidechains that could drain away the value off the BTC mainchain. I hope you did not forget this. If so I can gladly pull up your numerous posts that clearly imply this mechanism would "destroy Bitcoin"what I keep emphasizing, which you are seemingly to stupid or disingenuous to comprehend, is that federated servers do exactly this. it has never been a debate about changing the source code or not. so unless you are trying to move the goal post ONCE AGAIN, then at least make at attempt at being honest. you concern is Bitcoin's Sound Money property. my answer to your concern is you should see your bitcoins RIGHT NOW because SIDECHAINS using a federated model are this danger you so very much fear |
|
|
|
the Blockstream bounty still applies btw nothing you've said has changed my mind. in fact, its all crystallized it for me. allowing the exit of BTC from its secure blockchain via the SPVproof breaks the whole concept of the Sound Money function of Bitcoin in my book. whereas ppl would have been forced to buy into BTC to participate in Bitcoin, now they will be able to buy all sorts of SC speculative assets which will be derivatives of BTC, whether they be on federated servers or decentralized SC's. Bitcoin won't be Bitcoin anymore thus ppl should willingly do this as BTC really won't have the ability to appreciate anymore as it will no longer represent Sound Money. in essence, i see these speculative SC's, which Blockstream will be creating for fees, to be inflationary. their ledgers will be hidden and opaque and insecure as i doubt they will be mined as MM has a limited capacity. let me have you answer that question. what is more likely to inflate Bitcoin? Bitcoin on off-chain schemes or Bitcoins on algorithmically pegged sidechains the SIDECHAINS will break Bitcoins core foundation which is the link btwn its currency unit and its blockchain. this by itself will be inflationary as we will no longer have a functioning system as value gets drained away to speculative SC's (speculative in the sense of not being BTC anymore). off chain systems don't inflate Bitcoin as those BTC deposited at a gox lumped address, for example, still exist on the Bitcoin blockchain. the orderbooks can do their stuff but it is not inflationary to Bitcoin. FTFY. Off chain systems can be equally speculative and drain away value in very much the same way as sidechains would. Additionally, bitcoins locked on sidechains exist in the same way those deposited at gox do. In fact, considering they can be algorithmically pegged and claimed on the mainchain they are even more real than the BTC at gox. In both cases, inflation off the mainchain can not affect the mainchain so I'm not sure what you are getting at. How were you able to somehow deceive all of the people in this thread into thinking you were somehow someway an intelligent person  This stuff you are saying right now is downright embarassing. |
|
|
|
the Blockstream bounty still applies btw nothing you've said has changed my mind. in fact, its all crystallized it for me. allowing the exit of BTC from its secure blockchain via the SPVproof breaks the whole concept of the Sound Money function of Bitcoin in my book. whereas ppl would have been forced to buy into BTC to participate in Bitcoin, now they will be able to buy all sorts of SC speculative assets which will be derivatives of BTC, whether they be on federated servers or decentralized SC's. Bitcoin won't be Bitcoin anymore thus ppl should willingly do this as BTC really won't have the ability to appreciate anymore as it will no longer represent Sound Money. in essence, i see these speculative SC's, which Blockstream will be creating for fees, to be inflationary. their ledgers will be hidden and opaque and insecure as i doubt they will be mined as MM has a limited capacity. so did you sell your Bitcoins yet? because, you know, the federated peg sidechains are coming. Bitcoin is not Bitcoin anymore, already. i already said i don't mind federated servers as it doesn't touch source and therefore doesn't change Bitcoin. i may even use a federated server if it has good features. you are beyond retarded when are you ever going to realize that federated peg create the same off-mainchain BTC scheme as SPVproof would? a sidechain, is a sidechain, is a sidechain. the method used to validate information and communicate between chains changes little. please don't give me that "institutionalized" or "systemized" bullshit. whereas ppl would have been forced to buy into BTC to participate in Bitcoin, now they will be able to buy all sorts of SC speculative assets which will be derivatives of BTC, whether they be on federated servers or decentralized SC's. So in one post federated servers are bad because they create speculative assets that diminishes Bitcoin Sound Money properties but in the next post you "may even use a federated server" Lay off the drinks brother |
|
|
|
the Blockstream bounty still applies btw nothing you've said has changed my mind. in fact, its all crystallized it for me. allowing the exit of BTC from its secure blockchain via the SPVproof breaks the whole concept of the Sound Money function of Bitcoin in my book. whereas ppl would have been forced to buy into BTC to participate in Bitcoin, now they will be able to buy all sorts of SC speculative assets which will be derivatives of BTC, whether they be on federated servers or decentralized SC's. Bitcoin won't be Bitcoin anymore thus ppl should willingly do this as BTC really won't have the ability to appreciate anymore as it will no longer represent Sound Money. in essence, i see these speculative SC's, which Blockstream will be creating for fees, to be inflationary. their ledgers will be hidden and opaque and insecure as i doubt they will be mined as MM has a limited capacity. let me have you answer that question. what is more likely to inflate Bitcoin? Bitcoin on off-chain schemes or Bitcoins on algorithmically pegged sidechains |
|
|
|
the Blockstream bounty still applies btw nothing you've said has changed my mind. in fact, its all crystallized it for me. allowing the exit of BTC from its secure blockchain via the SPVproof breaks the whole concept of the Sound Money function of Bitcoin in my book. whereas ppl would have been forced to buy into BTC to participate in Bitcoin, now they will be able to buy all sorts of SC speculative assets which will be derivatives of BTC, whether they be on federated servers or decentralized SC's. Bitcoin won't be Bitcoin anymore thus ppl should willingly do this as BTC really won't have the ability to appreciate anymore as it will no longer represent Sound Money. in essence, i see these speculative SC's, which Blockstream will be creating for fees, to be inflationary. their ledgers will be hidden and opaque and insecure as i doubt they will be mined as MM has a limited capacity. so did you sell your Bitcoins yet? because, you know, the federated peg sidechains are coming. Bitcoin is not Bitcoin anymore, already. |
|
|
|
that monetary velocity formula is a convenient fiction for ivory tower academic economists, e.g. I don't see anything about an human psychology factor in there.
Here's the one I use:
Bmo = N x A
Bmo ~ total value bitcoin M0 (also called 'market cap')
N ~ total number of entities holding bitcoins
A ~ average Amount of value holding entities are willing to hold in btc
It appears likely that N is only going to keep increasing for the forseeable future (perhaps with exponential adoption rates at times).
A will stay around the same but also may increase as the confidence in holding value in btc becomes firmer.
Yes, that is also correct, but it is the aspect of aggregate demand for store of value in bitcoin. In fact, you ALSO have a "velocity" aspect in your formula, but it is hidden in N ! You are considering people "storing value for a long time" in N. But it is in fact the "average number of people at a given moment in time wanting to store value A in bitcoin". This average could be made up by 100 people holding coins indefinitely ; or it could be made up by 1200 people per year wanting to store value A for a month. Or it could be made up by 10 people per year wanting to store value for 10 years. As I said in my earlier posting, I don't believe that bitcoin will be considered as a secure store of value for a very, very long time. I think the main price drive will come from bitcoin buying stuff. Honestly, would *you* store value in bitcoin right now, if you didn't have any expectation of growth of its value ("to the moon") ?
I wouldn't but the reality is the expectation of growth in its value exist and you cannot simply pretend to remove it from your equation because it fits your argument. Bitcoin is absolutely a secure store of value. More secure than any alternatives on the market. Stable? Obviously not but is stability a requisite to qualify as a store of value? I do not think so. Especially when considering this growth expectation it makes even more sense to store the value of your wealth in such an asset. If you choose to ignore the daily fluctuation and look at the big picture, Bitcoin has been trending up since its inception. It has been what some would qualify as an EXCELLENT store of value historically, especially for those who were early to adopt it. So far Bitcoin as grown exactly because of its store of value properties and certainly NOT because of "Bitcoin buying stuff". Why should we expect this to change so soon? TL;DR : All hail the hoarders http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/im-hoarding-bitcoins-and-no-you-cant-have-any/ |
|
|
|
...
Seriously cypher, don't be a dick. There is no reason to fuck with people's privacy over an internet fight. Grow the fuck up.
I think his account was hacked, or maybe he's been tweaking a bit. The real cypherdoc would never do anything like that. You'd be surprised what one can do when he is backed up into a corner all by himself. Oh well, I'm not mad He's all bark and no bite edit: it is saturday night, maybe he's been drinking too much |
|
|
|
that monetary velocity formula is a convenient fiction for ivory tower academic economists, e.g. I don't see anything about an human psychology factor in there.
Here's the one I use:
Bmo = N x A
Bmo ~ total value bitcoin M0 (also called 'market cap')
N ~ total number of entities holding bitcoins
A ~ average Amount of value holding entities are willing to hold in btc
It appears likely that N is only going to keep increasing for the forseeable future (perhaps with exponential adoption rates at times).
A will stay around the same but also may increase as the confidence in holding value in btc becomes firmer.
Yes, that is also correct, but it is the aspect of aggregate demand for store of value in bitcoin. In fact, you ALSO have a "velocity" aspect in your formula, but it is hidden in N ! You are considering people "storing value for a long time" in N. But it is in fact the "average number of people at a given moment in time wanting to store value A in bitcoin". This average could be made up by 100 people holding coins indefinitely ; or it could be made up by 1200 people per year wanting to store value A for a month. Or it could be made up by 10 people per year wanting to store value for 10 years. As I said in my earlier posting, I don't believe that bitcoin will be considered as a secure store of value for a very, very long time. I think the main price drive will come from bitcoin buying stuff. Honestly, would *you* store value in bitcoin right now, if you didn't have any expectation of growth of its value ("to the moon") ?
I wouldn't but the reality is the expectation of growth in its value exist and you cannot simply pretend to remove it from your equation because it fits your argument. Bitcoin is absolutely a secure store of value. More secure than any alternatives on the market. Stable? Obviously not but is stability a requisite to qualify as a store of value? I do not think so. Especially when considering this growth expectation it makes even more sense to store the value of your wealth in such an asset. If you choose to ignore the daily fluctuation and look at the big picture, Bitcoin has been trending up since its inception. It has been what some would qualify as an EXCELLENT store of value historically, especially for those who were early to adopt it. So far Bitcoin as grown exactly because of its store of value properties and certainly NOT because of "Bitcoin buying stuff". Why should we expect this to change so soon? |
|
|
|
Here: I'll throw you a bone since I really don't have anything to hide and it can only serve to make you look even more stupid in your own thread. https://twitter.com/bergalex
Seriously cypher, don't be a dick. There is no reason to fuck with people's privacy over an internet fight. Grow the fuck up. I'm the one who feels stupid now |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
