Single core processor speed as well as hard drive sizes have not significantly improved through the recent years.
That isn't really true afik. Even so hard drive capacity grows faster than moores law. It is just that it has become unfeasible to use hard disks in the way they were used before. In the past it was possible to re-write and re-read hard disk many times in their lifetime. But since transfer speeds are increasing one exponent below that, mostly linear this becomes a bottleneck. The ultimate death of the hard drives will not be that they can't be produced with higher capacity but that they can't be filled and read back two times before they become unusable. SSD memory grows even faster still, but it too has some issues in that regard. It grows to the power of three where bandwidth grows to the power of two, not as bad as the 2:1 relationship with hard drives, but still. The other issue is that the rapid growth in capacity is facilitated by storing more information in a single capacitor which makes them less reliable. All in all increasing capacity should outperform the growth of the blockchain for quite some time. And after that I doubt that bitcoin will still be relevant. It should still be around but exponential growth should be over. And what sense does make a limited amount cryptocurrency make for sustained exponential growth? None, it has to either hit a ceiling or fade away. |
|
|
|
I was under the impression that this label "Anarcho-Capitalist" applied to me. If that is infact not the case i would be interested in learning why. Would you be so kind as to explain your position with a bit more detail?
I don't know, I am not really familiar with your views. To elaborate: Libertarianism puts the concept of ownership and contracts under the hood of "freedoms" which is inherently flawed. The crux of the matter is that both are subject to power and the use of force, and they cannot exist with out it. Anarchism threats this in an agnostic way while Libertarians are dependent to take them for granted or their ideology falls apart. ah yea deontological libertarins can be a little bit silly at times. To me property is nothing more than a useful construct that we as a society use to avoid conflict. You know since 2 people can not both eat the same apple, we can either chose to fight over it or we can establish some sort of property norm. To me the state is the former and i personally prefer the latter. They can both eat half an apple. Not if they both need a whole apple to survive. Then there is no other possible solution other than (deadly!) force. Of course in nature there is never just one apple... |
|
|
|
I was under the impression that this label "Anarcho-Capitalist" applied to me. If that is infact not the case i would be interested in learning why. Would you be so kind as to explain your position with a bit more detail?
I don't know, I am not really familiar with your views. To elaborate: Libertarianism puts the concept of ownership and contracts under the hood of "freedoms" which is inherently flawed. The crux of the matter is that both are subject to power and the use of force, and they cannot exist with out it. Anarchism threats this in an agnostic way while Libertarians are dependent to take them for granted or their ideology falls apart. ah yea deontological libertarins can be a little bit silly at times. To me property is nothing more than a useful construct that we as a society use to avoid conflict. You know since 2 people can not both eat the same apple, we can either chose to fight over it or we can establish some sort of property norm. To me the state is the former and i personally prefer the latter. They can both eat half an apple. And there is force involved every time, alone the task of grasping the apple is a subject to potential conflict. |
|
|
|
56 days until then.
What kind of power, action or event would be needed for that?
Nibiru hitting earth. |
|
|
|
Some people will never understand exponential functions I guess.  Ok let's see if I understand this well.. you claim that the exponential trend upwards will continue to decline right? Well if you wait long enough this is dead obvious because at some point bitcoin will have reached its peak or slow down so the trendline will eventually catch up to that. Maybe I just don't understand the point you are trying to make here.  I do. Do you understand mine?  |
|
|
|
The image that used to be my signature:  ouch sncr |
|
|
|
Exactly, it's not a question of if but a question of when. And discarding every other rationale about bubbles you might think it won't be that soon but that still doesn't make it likely to happen. What a bunch of bullshit. Either bitcoin goes to 0 or it goes to the moon, simple as that. Your charts and trendlines predict absolutely nothing about the future. Once bitcoin truly starts taking off and it looks like it just might, all these so called trends and charts go right out the window and we have a whole new ballgame. Now you may believe this whole bitcoin experiment will fail or won't get widespread recognition, but you can't say this with any amount of certainty just as I can't. So yes, it's entirely a matter of 'if', not 'when'. Some people will never understand exponential functions I guess. |
|
|
|
 Btw thanks very much for this thread, most of these images are funny in their own way, partly because it's a little bit different than probably intended  |
|
|
|
Also, water is wet.
I told ya!  |
|
|
|
That doesn't make any sense, since this line doesn't really touch the lower end of the chart until January 2013.
It does touch, the line drawn approximately since I dont have proper tools with me, you can see it is 2mm below the lows, so you can see them. We'll see, if your prediction is true, by the end of this year price would have travelled below 20 and I've sold all my coins and went elsewhere then. Exactly, it's not a question of if but a question of when. And discarding every other rationale about bubbles you might think it won't be that soon but that still doesn't make it likely to happen. This line will suffer the exact same faith as the previous ones, but there is a trick to it: Come up with a way to estimate the length where it does match the trend and you've got a system. |
|
|
|
Flawed also:
Easy to fake/spam and limited:
- tcp/ip
- dns
- email
Inefficient:
- Ethernet protocol, invented in the 80s, considered as being obsolete a long time ago
Bitcoin is not going to get superseded by any "better" currency (good luck finding all that crypto power btc already has)
As with DNS, email and pretty much any other Internet protocol, services can work on top of what's already out there: dnssec, encrypted email, ip masquerading etc.
Bitcoin isn't a standard nor a technology. It's a concrete implementation which was meant as a proof of concept. This would be like if we were using cern httpd. |
|
|
|
It's called rally monkey vs. dead cat.  |
|
|
|
Will you be drawing the same line from a even more recent point in the future?
No, I added some text below, which means this line I consider as minimum bitcoin price growth. I don't think it is possible for the price to go below that line, unless something fatal happens to the protocol itself. So far, it has served me well in predicting ends of decline. That doesn't make any sense, since this line doesn't really touch the lower end of the chart until January 2013. Yes it will be broken in two possible ways: Either if the price falls below it. Or if the growth slows down to below it's slope till the line catches up. Since this time prices did rise on a hyper-exponential slope I'd rather think it will be the former than the latter. |
|
|
|
Do it yourself and post it here. I'm not sure what you are asking me to do, I get the feeling that drawing them differently will have even more stunning results.
Ok, my version of "correct" trendline is this one, confirmed repeatedly over three years: pic That's essentially the same line. And it does not make sense to draw it that way on any point before January 2013. Will you be drawing the same line from a even more recent point in the future? |
|
|
|
I was under the impression that this label "Anarcho-Capitalist" applied to me. If that is infact not the case i would be interested in learning why. Would you be so kind as to explain your position with a bit more detail?
I don't know, I am not really familiar with your views. Gotta love when people admit they're speaking from a position of ignorance. That was meant on a personal level, not meant for the association to Libertarianism or "AnaCap" Yes, I think I do know your personal views well enough. |
|
|
|
It's wonderful you hold these societies in such high esteem. Surely they will bring your salvation when the barbarians are darkening your doorway as has happened to every civilization in history. Your politicians and economists have the answers you are looking for.
Either that or humanity will die out. It's always been the freedom-fighters and paradigm-shifting philosphers that have led the revolutions and evolution of every new social system. In fact, they are the ones that pay the highest price to defend humanity against itself. It's your politicians and economists that shy away from progress and lead toward austerity and a more Modest Proposal. Those freedom fighters didn't hoard tokens to inherit their decedents for them to become the new elite. Are you saying that politicians don't hoard money for their progeny? Are you saying they are freedom fighters? Yes. Bitcoiners are non-violent freedom fighters. Bitcoiners don't hoard like politicians, they don't brainwash populations like economists, and they don't build WMD's like scientists. Their battleground is virtual and their ammunition is cognitive dissonance. I reject your concept of freedom. also see |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
