(Do I have to explain why larger blocks create runaway centralisation?)
You wot m8? Bitcoin is already designed to centralize regardless of what the block size is because energy costs on the globe are not uniform, giving you some type of sparse grid/matrix covering the earth like this:  Such a centralization factor could be survivable if this was the only negative variable built into the system, but then ASICs came along to give you a secondary, multiplicative, negative effect and turning that matrix into something like this:  The creation of ASICs was the doomsday event and now you just have a cartel controlled rent seeking usury system with no hint of any type of Nash equilibrium. I don't believe this gives any credence to Lauda or UASF forker's "proof of node" scheme, which is just a backdoor Sybil attack, it just means proof of work is pointless if you can't defeat ASICs and have a system always mineable by commodity hardware that can't be "cornered" so to speak. (proof of stake has also always been pointless with no value, don't even mention it) The third variable about proof of work I left out: economy of scale. There are arguments economy of scale would also terminally centralize bitcoin, but then there's a few contradictory arguments like the waste heat being useful for a water heater or something. Some seem to think the waste heat would only be useful on a small scale, but I imagine industry would figure out a way to make better use of it eventually whether it's running a green house or other obscure scenario. |
|
|
|
Shields engaged
|
|
|
|
@ r0ach and others who like gold. I have not had time to dig around and see what is happening at "street level" here. I do see some "Compro Oro" signs at stores, but not to the same degree as a few years ago when I saw them EVERYWHERE.
I read recently that in the USA that MANY have already sold all of their gold (family treasures, jewelry, etc.). I do not know how true that is, nor if the same is happening here in Italy (or France, next stop). Gold is held by very few in Peru (the SIXTH largest producer in the world, not even the Peruvian Central Bank holds much gold).
I prefer silver, but anyways, Anonymint is always rehashing the Armstrong view that gold and silver are a hedge against government. Metals are just as much front running the government since their plan of last resort is always revaluing metals as a kind of way of printing to the moon with far less chance of Zimbabwe wheelbarrow hyperinflation wiping out the system. Also, if you look at volume numbers, it appears people in the west only buy metals when they are skyrocketing, while people in Asia buy them when they're low, so that explains what you see there. As for Sidhujag, he's pretty much hopeless along with the rest of the Ethereum/Cryptocurrency cult members: In the future we will be sucking our entire sun energy to mine a tiny fraction of the already existing 21 mill of bitcoins, while a fleet of mining space ships will be dumping tons of fresh infinite precious metals in the market.  This is basically the exact opposite of what will happen. Nobody will ever be building Dyson spheres to mine bitcoin because anyone with the power and funds to do such a thing can just as easily fork bitcoin and build a bigger buy side and you will witness bitcoin's reverse Schelling point in action. There is no real incentive for everyone to stay on the same chain and be enslaved by whoever managed to acquire more coins than you. Some will claim the network effect enforces this paradigm, but it obviously doesn't apply to bitcoin. The network effect makes assumptions like infinite scalability, which bitcoin doesn't have, and that there would be some type of actual cost or roadblock in creating a competitor, but there's not. Network effect only works for gold and silver because a normal human is incapable of fabricating a new noble metal out of thin air. In that case it is not really network effect, more like forced convergence. |
|
|
|
In the future we will be sucking our entire sun energy to mine a tiny fraction of the already existing 21 mill of bitcoins, while a fleet of mining space ships will be dumping tons of fresh infinite precious metals in the market. This is basically the exact opposite of what will happen. Nobody will ever be building Dyson spheres to mine bitcoin because anyone with the power and funds to do such a thing can just as easily fork bitcoin and build a bigger buy side and you will witness bitcoin's reverse Schelling point in action. There is no real incentive for everyone to stay on the same chain and be enslaved by whoever managed to acquire more coins than you. Some will claim the network effect enforces this paradigm, but it obviously doesn't apply to bitcoin. The network effect makes assumptions like infinite scalability, which bitcoin doesn't have, and that there would be some type of actual cost or roadblock in creating a competitor, but there's not. Network effect only works for gold and silver because a normal human is incapable of fabricating a new noble metal out of thin air. In that case it is not really network effect, more like forced convergence. |
|
|
|
|
IPOs are all scams, so congratulations on the largest cryptocurrency scam ever.
|
|
|
|
Btw, I hope you know I'm just playing a little devil's advocate with you on PMs. The truth is even with all their manipulation problems, I like PMs and own a little silver myself. I think it would be prudent for anyone that likes Bitcoin to also own a little PM too as a hedge. Historically the silver price is looking pretty good right now. Not sure about the gold price though.
It was always thought that tightness in the silver market would be what led to Comex failure and not gold, but I think the gold market is honestly more tight now entirely because there are price insensitive buyers in the form of...the nation states of China and Russia that just print money and gobble the stuff up. It's still possible that silver ends up breaking the fractional reserve bank, so to speak, but there were informal treaties in the past where nation states were not allowed to wade into the metals market and cause a run that both Russia and China seem to be not adhering to and will likely hasten some huge overnight forced revaluation where anyone who had metals the day before is now rich. Whichever one is the domino doesn't really matter. Both would be way up while silver will have the higher percentage gains in the end. |
|
|
|
Money is a zero sum game so if someone else has more of it, you're basically their slave.
r0ach, your statements constantly invalidate your own arguments in favor of PMs. I can guarantee you that the world central banks already own, and will always own (because they control the printed fiat), more gold or silver than you. So I guess you are forever their slave then. There is no central bank I know of that (openly) stockpiles silver. Their somewhat secret groups like the Pilgrims society have actively waged war against it for decades. While silver was still the unit of account for places like China and India, these central bankers had most of their wealth entirely in gold. They had the bright idea that by attempting to demonetize silver, they would inadvertently be enriching themselves in the process, transfering that market cap over to them instead. However, silver has already been gutted as much as possible by their financial manipulation. There is no money to be made by trying to sabotage it more. It's quite the opposite. Now places like India, Russia, China, and random Arab nations who are typically not a part of the western banker crowd are way stocked up on the typical banker asset - gold. Now you're in the exact opposite position as before. Western bankers can now screw over their rivals by raising silver to dilute gold instead of trying to manipulate it down. Regardless of whatever financial warfare they decide to pursue, both metals are trading very close to cost of production, so both will probably skyrocket from what they are now when the wheels fall off the economy, but silver just has way higher upside potential for numerous reasons. |
|
|
|
The strange (and somewhat irritating) thing is, these young tech people are running around looking for the "killer app" that will somehow make a new cryptocurrency fly with the masses overnight.
Does Gold need a 'killer app' to serve as a store of value and usage as money? Does Silver need a killer app? No, they really don't. All they need is people's faith/belief in the PM's built-in attributes that make them a good form of money.
It's because like I said before, gold and silver both have a functional Schelling point while cryptocurrency has a REVERSE Schelling point. Money is a zero sum game so if someone else has more of it, you're basically their slave. If some guy (Elwar) has hoarded all the bitcoins, what incentive is there for you to honor his super mario tokens and let him buy all the goods on the planet and years of your labor, making you his indentured servant? Hint: There is none. For better or worse, metals facilitate this relationship of power where he who has the gold makes the rules, because a regular human can't just invent a new noble metal (gold and silver) themselves. It takes two neutron stars colliding to make them. This is why there is a functional Schelling point in metals as money, because they require the literal power of gawd to create. On the other hand, just about anyone can create their own cryptocurrency now, so the second some guy hoards more than you or transaction fees get too high, you're extremely incentivized to make a new one until the entire cryptocurrency market eventually dies from dilution (even if it was actually decentralized but it's not) and everyone goes back to gold and silver again. |
|
|
|
Is this a good ELI5 of cryptocurrency? what is a iota?
It's this thing called cryptocurrency. Something like gold and silver people buy as a hedge against government except it runs entirely on government infrastructure, with non-obfuscated traffic, on regulated government exchanges, that can then be converted to government money to buy things. |
|
|
|
what is a iota?
It's this thing called cryptocurrency. Something like gold and silver people buy as a hedge against government except it runs entirely on government infrastructure, with non-obfuscated traffic, on regulated government exchanges, that can then be converted to government money to buy things. |
|
|
|
Cast your votes (to spend time while waiting for the opening)
I have seen no endorsement from Putin. Are you sure it will have any value? |
|
|
|
Blockchain is here to stay
Wrong, and this is a phrase constantly spammed by Ethereum and R3 banker shill accounts. Neither proof of work or proof of stake have solved ANYTHING dealing with decentralization and that is what their entire valuation is supposed to be based on. All of this crap can go poof in an instant when it has no fundamentals to hold it up. Both proof of work and proof of stake should be relabeled "proof of monopoly" because that is the only thing it proves. The only winner of this will be whoever liquidates cryptocurrency at the top for silver or gold. It's just that nobody knows what the top will be. And yes, they are all going to implode because none of them are decentralized or have even a remote trace of a Nash equilibrium. They only survive right now as a function of regulatory arbitrage, which is an untenable position due to how easy it is for the state to co-opt cryptocurrency or regulate it into the ground. The government doesn't like competition so those are the only two possible outcomes: regulated into the ground where it's the same as fiat or completely co-opted by the state. It requires very few resources for governments to monitor and attack activities online (cryptocurrency), while it takes them orders of magnitude higher power and resources to defeat regulatory arbitrage in the real world space (peer to peer gold and silver physical transactions). None of the network activity in cryptocurrency is obfuscated, transactions are non-fungible with everything recorded, and the mining pools are enormous attack vectors as well. The whole thing is a giant rat trap at this point to be completely at the mercy of whatever the state decides. Both gold and silver are a hedge against the state and cryptocurrency is not. The fact that coins are not all decentralized does not result in imminent failure.. Decentralization is a dream that started the development of bitcoin, but that doesn't mean that decentralization will stay the cornerstone behind the technology when it's further developed.. Lol, so the only reason any of the stuff has value is it's claim of being decentralized and when everyone figures out the emperor has no clothes, that's not going to make a difference? sure. Once people figure it out (who knows how long that will take) the money will all go to metals again since bitcoin is really nothing except people trying to hedge against the dollar or ride pump and dumps. |
|
|
|
How dare you infer Vitalik is a scammer for performing a 1:1 replica of the movie Wolf of Wall street, issuing an IPO for a dodgy proof of stake coin without solving any of the issues that make proof of stake not viable, and then issuing another IPO inside the IPO of the unviable coin. |
|
|
|
Without a force of consensus there is no convergence and you get defect-defect divergence.
The "force of consensus" = Schelling point = gold and silver, of which there are only two, not 700 different cryptocurrencies with horrible distribution of which there will never be convergence on anything. Cryptocurrency not only has no Schelling point, it has a...REVERSE Schelling point because you're incentivized to break off from bitcoin, buy a bunch of lower priced coins, then try to pump it higher (like Sidhujag). Nature, "god", whoever, created a very small amount of noble metals so it's not really possible to do this with real money. If i was in it for a pnd id be long gone trust me. I innovate and thats the main driver. Money is required but is secondary to making a difference. You on the other hand are inconsequential in any statement or regard for anything related to the movement to sound ideal money You're shilling for cryptocurrency page after page entirely for selfish reasons because you want to make a career out of it being a crapcoin developer. Stop pretending you're Gandhi, you're not. Gold and silver don't require "developers" since they already function perfectly fine out of the box, which is bad for you. You're like a government employee trying to justify their existence. |
|
|
|
Don't do it. Remenber "the markets can be irrational much longer than you can remain solvent".
Because "markets" (especially in cryptocurrency) don't exist, just pump and dumps. Anyone that's been around a long time can remember 3 years ago when there was a series of good news with places like Newegg and Overstock.com announcing they would accept bitcoin and what happens? The prices goes down each time. Then suddenly there's a series of bad news recently with things like ETF being rejected, Bitfinex - the market maker exchange since a price of $200 having Gox-like issues, and what happens? Price goes up for no reason. Recently the price went from $1200 to $2800 for no reason, then dumps to $1800 for no reason. None of it was based on any type of fundamentals, aggregate market, or news. There is no market, it's just however high some guy like Barry Silbert wants to try and raise it before he dumps on you. Once they can find nobody to continue chasing their pump, they load up on shorts and create a new bear market on purpose, which is also not based on any type of fundamentals. In practice, generally anything that's not the unit of account of something is nothing more than a pump and dump. The only unit of account in the past 5000 years of recorded human history that's not catastrophically imploded is gold and silver. |
|
|
|
Blockchain is here to stay
Wrong, and this is a phrase constantly spammed by Ethereum and R3 banker shill accounts. Neither proof of work or proof of stake have solved ANYTHING dealing with decentralization and that is what their entire valuation is supposed to be based on. All of this crap can go poof in an instant when it has no fundamentals to hold it up. Both proof of work and proof of stake should be relabeled "proof of monopoly" because that is the only thing it proves. The only winner of this will be whoever liquidates cryptocurrency at the top for silver or gold. It's just that nobody knows what the top will be. And yes, they are all going to implode because none of them are decentralized or have even a remote trace of a Nash equilibrium. They only survive right now as a function of regulatory arbitrage, which is an untenable position due to how easy it is for the state to co-opt cryptocurrency or regulate it into the ground. The government doesn't like competition so those are the only two possible outcomes: regulated into the ground where it's the same as fiat or completely co-opted by the state. It requires very few resources for governments to monitor and attack activities online (cryptocurrency), while it takes them orders of magnitude higher power and resources to defeat regulatory arbitrage in the real world space (peer to peer gold and silver physical transactions). None of the network activity in cryptocurrency is obfuscated, transactions are non-fungible with everything recorded, and the mining pools are enormous attack vectors as well. The whole thing is a giant rat trap at this point to be completely at the mercy of whatever the state decides. Both gold and silver are a hedge against the state and cryptocurrency is not. |
|
|
|
Without getting into too much detail and jeopardizing our IP, there are a number of ways to reduce the supply without hair cutting wallets (which would be a TERRIBLE solution!!).
Freezing a percentage of the supply from moving has already been discussed in public on this forum so I take it that isn't one of the ways you're referring to? It sounds very similar to the "rolling peg" idea that David Zimbeck of BitBay has been floating for the past year Well, whatever the fine details are, it seems rather hard to categorize it as anything but Keynesian in nature even if it was done in an automated way. |
|
|
|
My shtf plan is mobility. First sign of bad things coming and I find my next country to live in. And they all take bitcoin.
What do you call a sign of bad things? Probably when a foreign (((entity))) forms a state within a state of your own nation and controls the media, banks, govt, and election process itself with things like AIPAC while claiming "Russia" is rigging the election. Wait, that already happened.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
