it just some more FUD you are spreading like "the LN routing problem" bull made up shit stories. Just stop it if you don't know what you're talking about.
Not according to this post ( point #4) I asked why not since it seems to be the main savior for the capacity wars.
Answer - more needs to be done before LN is viable.
Is there some good up-to-date source ( without being super technical) to read about LN issues/challenges ? Bahahahahaha, good luck with that. Probably similar to "explain quantum physics to me in 30 seconds, no big words and be complete"  |
|
|
|
it just some more FUD you are spreading like "the LN routing problem" bull made up shit stories. Just stop it if you don't know what you're talking about.
Not according to this post ( point #4) I asked why not since it seems to be the main savior for the capacity wars.
Answer - more needs to be done before LN is viable.
Is there some good up-to-date source (without being super technical) to read about LN issues/challenges ? |
|
|
|
What is SUPPOSED to happen according to economic theory is that as quantity of money creation decreases (halvings), velocity of money (transactions) is supposed to go up to compensate, maintaining the balance of MV=PQ. This clearly cannot happen if scaling is slower than halvings.
Sidechains, lighting network, etc are no substitute because they effectively trade Bitcon IOUs and not actual bitcoin. You get the same problem that the fiat world has: a fractional reserve money multiplier than can either run positive or negative and screw up the balance.
Somebody please tell me the error of my thinking, or a slow liquidation becomes a serious consideration.
Apart from some other concerns you raise, which I think have merit, I would like to respond to 2 things where I believe you to be wrong: 1) I don't know where you get the assumption that the halvings are supposed to have an effect on velocity of money. 2) I think bitcoins paid through LN are economically the same as on-chain transactions. Yes you could describe it as some kind of IOU, but it is mathematically/informatically based on the same bitcoins, these bitcoins are "anchored", so you should treat these like regular bitcoins. It's not the same thing as a paper IOU (or a digital one) where the only "link" is the trust you have in the issuer of the IOU. EDIT: actually, maybe LN might have some effect on money velocity in the future, by allowing (especially by machines) much more and faster transactions. 1) They don't effect the velocity (v). They effect the quantity (M). So because MV=PQ, a decrease in M MUST be compensated by a proportional increase in V in order for the equation to balance out. If it doesn't, then either price or quantity (or both) on the other side must adjust. 2) yes, you could have some sort of "proof of burn" to prevent LN from operating as a fractional reserve and then you'd be right. Centralized third party actors could also have cryptographically proven 100% reserves (or less reserves, provided they honestly disclosed this). Adam is right. This is FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and doubt), but it is genuine fear, uncertainty and doubt. Thanks, that does address at least one of my concerns. 1) I still don't understand why you want prices to stay the same in this equation (and of course as lambie pointed out, the amount of money doesn't decrease, the rate of new money created slows down). 2)why would you need to burn the btc? I think you need to read about LN some more (actually so do I about the technical details, but I think I have most of the big picture down). You are trading "spending rights" for actual bitcoins that are locked in a special transaction. If you start of with 10 btc, after the payment channel closes, there will still be 10 btc. During the use of the channel, there is only ever 10 btc worth being exchanged. How on earth does this resemble fractional reserve banking? 1) I want the price of goods (P) to go down relative to Bitcoin so Bitcoin's purchasing power goes up. I want the Quantity of goods and services available to purchase (q) to go up, so taken together, I want the left side of the equation to equal the right side, which of course it logically has to. If the rate of quantity increase goes down, then the rate of velocity increase needs to go up. Get that? we are beyond algebra and into calculus, but scaling can't be diminishing or even constant, but needs to be accelerating for the equation to balance out and for price to continually go down while quantity goes up. 2) you need 100% proof of reserves, so if you are exchanging tokens on one network for tokens on another network, you can't still have the original tokens or you have more than you started with (x+1>x) so you have a money multiplier. and Yes, I don't know enough about the LN to discuss technical details. I'm only talking what it NEEDS to be in order to prevent effectively fractional reserve banking. Like I said, I could be making a mistake somewhere, so I am not arguing that LN is a bad idea. I just have questions. I think I also need to clarify two things, in order to be absolutely innocent of trolling accusations. A) I am in favor of the round table agreement- not because I like the terms. I absolutely do not like the terms as I believe the scaling is too slow for the reason I explained above. I am in favor of the agreement because I think it will either result in a change in leadership or rules within Core (which I think is sorely needed), or it will result in loss of support for Core by the miners and therefor a change in leadership of code development from Core to something else, probably Classic. B) Here's my position on the miners: More hashpower is not only good, but absolutely necessary in order for Bitcoin to maintain it's first mover advantage over competing coins or potentially competing coins. There is a huge danger in mining being concentrated in China as it creates a POSSIBLE central point of failure if there is (another) Chinese crackdown. So if we can't get rid of the miners and miners are concentrated in China, what is there to do to reacquire censorship resistance? Only one thing: Increase hashpower outside of China massively, and at a rate substantially faster than hashpower within China is growing. I have no idea how we are going to do that given China's cheaper electricity and labor. 1) I don't get your reasoning. 2) LN uses the blockchain as it's proof of reserve. No other proof is therefore needed. |
|
|
|
What is SUPPOSED to happen according to economic theory is that as quantity of money creation decreases (halvings), velocity of money (transactions) is supposed to go up to compensate, maintaining the balance of MV=PQ. This clearly cannot happen if scaling is slower than halvings.
Sidechains, lighting network, etc are no substitute because they effectively trade Bitcon IOUs and not actual bitcoin. You get the same problem that the fiat world has: a fractional reserve money multiplier than can either run positive or negative and screw up the balance.
Somebody please tell me the error of my thinking, or a slow liquidation becomes a serious consideration.
Apart from some other concerns you raise, which I think have merit, I would like to respond to 2 things where I believe you to be wrong: 1) I don't know where you get the assumption that the halvings are supposed to have an effect on velocity of money. 2) I think bitcoins paid through LN are economically the same as on-chain transactions. Yes you could describe it as some kind of IOU, but it is mathematically/informatically based on the same bitcoins, these bitcoins are "anchored", so you should treat these like regular bitcoins. It's not the same thing as a paper IOU (or a digital one) where the only "link" is the trust you have in the issuer of the IOU. EDIT: actually, maybe LN might have some effect on money velocity in the future, by allowing (especially by machines) much more and faster transactions. 1) They don't effect the velocity (v). They effect the quantity (M). So because MV=PQ, a decrease in M MUST be compensated by a proportional increase in V in order for the equation to balance out. If it doesn't, then either price or quantity (or both) on the other side must adjust. 2) yes, you could have some sort of "proof of burn" to prevent LN from operating as a fractional reserve and then you'd be right. Centralized third party actors could also have cryptographically proven 100% reserves (or less reserves, provided they honestly disclosed this). Adam is right. This is FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and doubt), but it is genuine fear, uncertainty and doubt. Thanks, that does address at least one of my concerns. 1) I still don't understand why you want prices to stay the same in this equation (and of course as lambie pointed out, the amount of money doesn't decrease, the rate of new money created slows down). 2)why would you need to burn the btc? I think you need to read about LN some more (actually so do I about the technical details, but I think I have most of the big picture down). You are trading "spending rights" for actual bitcoins that are locked in a special transaction. If you start of with 10 btc, after the payment channel closes, there will still be 10 btc. During the use of the channel, there is only ever 10 btc worth being exchanged. How on earth does this resemble fractional reserve banking? |
|
|
|
...
tl; dr; pure FUD every word is pure FUD.
Chillax; sexy human females are waiting for you and your bitcoins @ Xotika.TV i can't i'm saving myself a big load to blow on my GF's face. Saving. Delayed gratification. That's what good Libertarian secs is all about  That one deserves a big lol  |
|
|
|
What is SUPPOSED to happen according to economic theory is that as quantity of money creation decreases (halvings), velocity of money (transactions) is supposed to go up to compensate, maintaining the balance of MV=PQ. This clearly cannot happen if scaling is slower than halvings.
Sidechains, lighting network, etc are no substitute because they effectively trade Bitcon IOUs and not actual bitcoin. You get the same problem that the fiat world has: a fractional reserve money multiplier than can either run positive or negative and screw up the balance.
Somebody please tell me the error of my thinking, or a slow liquidation becomes a serious consideration.
Apart from some other concerns you raise, which I think have merit, I would like to respond to 2 things where I believe you to be wrong: 1) I don't know where you get the assumption that the halvings are supposed to have an effect on velocity of money. 2) I think bitcoins paid through LN are economically the same as on-chain transactions. Yes you could describe it as some kind of IOU, but it is mathematically/informatically based on the same bitcoins, these bitcoins are "anchored", so you should treat these like regular bitcoins. It's not the same thing as a paper IOU (or a digital one) where the only "link" is the trust you have in the issuer of the IOU. EDIT: actually, maybe LN might have some effect on money velocity in the future, by allowing (especially by machines) much more and faster transactions. |
|
|
|
... Hopefully we don't dip below ...
~85% chance within hour. ~90% chance within day. Want to bet on that? I ll give you 80 % chance and say within day it doesn't dip below 400 (finex). If I win I get 200 USD worth of bitcoin, if you win you get 50 USD worth of bitcoin. No. I don't bet/do business on Bitcointalk. Too much scamming  Too bad, I guess it ll just be for bragging rights then :-) Bragging rights claimed  |
|
|
|
I miss lambie. He was a class act.
Well, maybe it's all relative.... Lambie was annoying as well, but you fatty seem to be suffering from false memory nastalgia.... hahahahaha Wtf are you guys talking about? Bargainbin and blunderer or whatever is NLC ,so he is still here (or am I losing it?) |
|
|
|
... Hopefully we don't dip below ...
~85% chance within hour. ~90% chance within day. Want to bet on that? I ll give you 80 % chance and say within day it doesn't dip below 400 (finex). If I win I get 200 USD worth of bitcoin, if you win you get 50 USD worth of bitcoin. No. I don't bet/do business on Bitcointalk. Too much scamming Too bad, I guess it ll just be for bragging rights then :-) |
|
|
|
... Hopefully we don't dip below ...
~85% chance within hour. ~90% chance within day. Want to bet on that? I ll give you 80 % chance and say within day it doesn't dip below 400 (finex). If I win I get 200 USD worth of bitcoin, if you win you get 50 USD worth of bitcoin. |
|
|
|
No he's insulting Bitcoin and advocating GavinCoin GavinCoin WTF is that, Gavin is the longest standing developer he's taking heat for personal attacks, the only questionable thing hes done is visit the CIA and the CFR, and that was to tell them how bitcoin worked. You just need to look at what he's produced to know he's pro bitcoin. GavinCoin means squat, try looking for facts! He's trying to make Bitcoin inflationary. He's a socialist. He's an enemy of Bitcoin. I liked you better before. You seem to have become very hostile and unnuanced. I mean like that comment before about a block size increase being the same thing as lifting the 21M cap. Come on dude. Such nonsense ( and I am not against Core by the way, very grateful for the good work the devs do) |
|
|
|
I'm generally ok with the speed of payment. I truly take issue with some properties of the Fiat money, though. Especially with the fact that banks can lend it into existence out of thin air. I can see why someone from a bank would downplay the fact that I am probably not alone.
I don't think of it so much as that they can create it out of thin air. Rather, the deposits you hold at a bank are not real money, but a mix of loans, stock investments etc., with a small bit of cash reserves so they can pay out the few people who want some cash at any given time. True. The smallest fraction of money is in the form of cash of course (the only form of legal tender in germany, for example). Banks are engaging in fractional reserve lending (no surprise). Point being: could they do it with bitcoin? Theoretically yes, if they can get everyone to deposit their bitcoins it could work just as well. Central bank would be replaced by bitcoin network. In practice it wouldn't work well at all though, because bitcoin is way easier (cheaper) to move / store / transact online than cash. It's digital cash. Banks runs are just a mouse click away. They can't let that happen so they'll divert the attention to "blockchain tech", do a little "embrace and extend" magic and hopefully be done with bitcoin. I am reasonably sure that if bitcoin becomes widely used, fractional reserve banking would still be used quite a bit. I don't think fractional reserve banking is pure evil, but rather problematic is that people perceive it as equivalent to cash (more like a vault) instead of a somewhat risky investment. The fact that often governments insure these bank accounts (up to a certain sum) certainly helps this perception of it being 'risk-free' money. And when people start thinking stuff is risk-free when it is not, things can turn ugly. In a bitcoin world, I do think there would be less fractional banking because it's easier to 'be your own bank(vault)', in a quite secure way. Adding to this, the average returns from investments (loans, stocks) might not be dramatically higher than bitcoin appreciation due to productivity gains and population growth, making non-bitcoin investment relatively less attractive (which would slow down economical growth somewhat, but also decrease malinvestment). My 2 cents. |
|
|
|
I'm generally ok with the speed of payment. I truly take issue with some properties of the Fiat money, though. Especially with the fact that banks can lend it into existence out of thin air. I can see why someone from a bank would downplay the fact that I am probably not alone.
I don't think of it so much as that they can create it out of thin air. Rather, the deposits you hold at a bank are not real money, but a mix of loans, stock investments etc., with a small bit of cash reserves so they can pay out the few people who want some cash at any given time. |
|
|
|
What, it's not executable? Then what the fuck are they writing about. Jezus. EDIT: I thought they had found some ingenious way to make bitcoin software execute malware, turns out it is just some dipshit who wants media attention doing nothing at all. |
|
|
|
Unless the exploit has been fixed, that doesn't change the fact that it is a security vulnerability. They don't say this will break bitcoin, just that it can be a portal to install malware. lol, no. nonoononono. Did I misread? Please correct me then. |
|
|
|
Unless the exploit has been fixed, that doesn't change the fact that it is a security vulnerability. They don't say this will break bitcoin, just that it can be a portal to install malware. |
|
|
|
Whatever it is that the economic majority thinks is more important. If it is sticking with the existing miner fleet, that's where the value ends up. If it is firing the existing miner fleet, that's where the value ends up. There is no answer you or I can state without that information that is more correct than another.
ELI5 the mechanism for the the "economic majority" to make its wishes known & relevant? The market. Assuming I hold 90% of all the coins mined to date (I'm economic majority), how do I go about this shit? If you own 90% of the coins, you are the market. Obviously not realistic. In reality there are many participants, and they'll trade with one another and work it out. One fork will be worth more than the other, probably a lot more, but who knows. 90% was chosen at random. Let's say I own 5%, and keep in in cold storage, as a "store of value." How do I make my voice count? Keep in mind, you edited out the important part: <>If I'm just holding the coin (not solding), why do my wishes matter to the miners (I do not buy, only hodl)? To the exchanges (I do not trade, only hodl)?
According to your reasoning, by not trading (hodling the coin in cold storage), I effectively make myself irrelevant. Correct? Hell no, holding is what gives it value. Assuming anyone else wants to buy, they can only buy from miners which is a limited supply. Welcome moon. If no one else wants to buy any sort of Bitcoin, then you're screwed. Same as would happen tomorrow if we woke up and no one wanted to buy Bitcoin without a fork. No guarantee that won't happen. If you want guaranteed store of value, independent of what other people value, too fucking bad. About the best you can do is buy a chocolate bar, at least you can eat it. Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. You claim: "Whatever it is that the economic majority thinks is more important [will be implemented]." I ask: Via what mechanism? You reply: The market, dur! I ask: What does that mean? I hold 5%, I don't trade it, what mechanisms are available to me to make my opinion count? Sure, I can try to sell my hodlings, but only post factum. The "economic majority" is not the BTC long-term hodlers, but the*fiat hodlers*, those willing to *buy* BTC. The miners aren't selling BTC to me, they're selling BTC to people with fiat, those are the opinions that matter, not mine (I'm not buying, remember?) The interests of buyers != the interests of hodlers != interests of miners. Those same participants (fiat buyers, BTC holders/speculators, miners, merchants, users, etc.) are there now, determining the value of the coins you hold. All of those participants will be there later, determining the value of the coins you hold. If you disagree with the economic majority (market consensus) then by definition you trade, and thereby your opinion matters. If you don't trade, then your opinion matches the market consensus.
I'm gonna try ELY5: I own a house (my part of the economy), one of the many houses in Bitcoinia (the economy), which, in turn, is conveniently situated below a levee. Mayoral election coming up. Mayor A wants to nuke the levee (is Socialist, presumably), mayor B doesn't (is Ron Paul). I ask you: How do I vote for Ron Paul, I don't want to live with communists, underwater! You reply: Vote with your wallet. If you don't like the Mayor who gets elected, sell the house. I sputter: Buh...but wouldn't that be too late? My underwater house won't be worth shit, because in a socialist town! I don't want to watch the elections and leave if the commies win, I want a voice. How do I vote? You said I could, because economic majority. But clearly you didn't mean me, I could only react, sell my house when it becomes aquatic. You: The market will take care of it, invisible hand. @oda.krell: feel free to field this. Ok, so you say you want another mechanism for decision making, so that the decision process is proactive instead of responding to changes that have occurred. The question is whether such a thing is possible without being very gameable (I have no clue). But Smooth is completely right that holding affects the market, so you shouldn't debate him on that. |
|
|
|
It sure is nice, sitting here lending out my fiat at >%20 annual return. I don't have to worry about dumps, crashes, hard forks or network congestion failures. I don't care if it goes up, either, because that just boosts the interest rate I get paid.
How much did you buy your account from the original owner for? I don't remember you being that emotional nor negative. I actually remember him as being more emotional, but squarely in the bull camp. I even think I like the "new" (don't think he sold his account) BJA better. |
|
|
|
|
Holy fuck, I was expecting it to go down after 430, but not so fucking fast.
|
|
|
|
Looks like it wants to make a small jump up
nailed it Wow, nice one! How did you see that coming if I may ask? Years of staring at the charts, combined with blind luck . Lol. OK thx =D Don't think we are done yet by the way, I am guessing this goes to 445-450. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
