Now if 'bitcoin can be scaled as gold', and that is important in that it allows 'the rest of the world's money systems tend to stability in value', why do we need Bitcoin to fulfill this role? I mean, if anything, gold is likely to scale like gold, right? Why did gold fail in this role?
Maybe it would move the conversation if you define what it is you mean by 'scale like gold'. Note this may fall out from answering my previous inquiry.
You have to read my writing. you can't just not read it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1809999.msg18055317#msg18055317And the question of why gold failed (and to be clear the answer is in the link, by nash) is also a matter of history. You are asking me to teach you history. I am not your history teacher. Its fact gold failed and both szabo and nash talk about why. Gold isn't rare. Chill, willya? At the point I replied, you had not yet written that post, nor linked the Szabo post. More germane, nothing in that addresses my questions. Let's back up a notch. Is it axiomatic in your estimation that the world would benefit from the existence of Nash ideal money? Simple yes or no will do here - I can work with that as a foundation. Why is it that Bitcoin be used to fulfill this role (or the role of a best-effort approximation of Nash ideal money)? In an earlier reply, you stated: What is your definition of 'gold-like'? It means relatively stable in value
If you mean 'relatively stable in value', then please use that term. Otherwise you seem to be saying that 'gold does not possess gold-like qualities', which is confusing. Is this the 'history lesson' you are referring to to illustrate why gold failed in this role?: Nowadays, however, few would propose a return to the actual use of simply the metal gold as a standard, for the following reasons.
(i) The cost of mining gold effectively does depend on the technology. Recent cyanide leaching techniques have made it possible again to profitability mind gold at formerly abandoned sites in the U.S. so that it is now a big producer. However, the unpredictability of the cost is a negative factor.
(ii) The location of potential gold-mining locations may not be “politically appealing.” so it would seem undesirable to make a political choice to enhance the economic importance of those particular areas.
(iii) There is some negative psychology about gold such tat even if it were the most logical choice after all, the unpopularity of the idea could be very obstructive.
However, right now platinum would be even better than gold, because it has more value per unit of weight. It seems to me that the assertion is that gold would not again be able to fulfill this role (note that this is not the same as 'why did it fail to begin with') because (i) new technologies were invented that caused supply instabilities. There seems to be an implication that a simple decree can prevent technological advances from being applied to Bitcoin. Do I understand that correctly? Is it your assertion that the reasons "few would propose a return to the actual use of simply the metal gold as a standard" are identical to the reason gold failed in this role to begin with? |
|
|
|
Why does a moron franky1 get to derail what is otherwise significant and productive dialogue? I need a moderator to explain to me the reasoning behind such stupidity. I wanna understand what moderators think this is ok.
I'm still catching up with the head of the thread. However, with the most sincere good intentions... You seem to frequently get frustrated with your fellow earthians. This is the internet. Unproductive dialogue will occur. Further, in this particular sub, almost anything is on-topic, as long as it pertains to Bitcoin. I would not expect any moderator to leap to your request. The thread starter (that would be you) has the ability to make a thread self-moderated. Or rather _had_, at the inception of the thread. This would have given you the power to delete posts you don't want in the thread. But as I understand it, that opportunity is now past. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin can be scaled as a gold, but not an ideal money. But if we scale it as gold, then the rest of the world's money systems well tend towards perfect stability in value. This is a VERY good thing.
So the discussion from BOTH sides (all sides) needs to be how to do THAT. And this changes the argument. Everyone wants a stable metric of value. No one will argue versus having that. Big and small blockers alike.
Do you see now, where the division lies? It's in the tacit assumption that we need to scale bitcoin to be ideal money. both sides are guilty of this assumption. nash's argument lifts this divide.
OK, now I am completely lost. I thought you earlier claimed that Bitcoin _cannot_ be ideal money (I assumed you meant in a Nashian sense). I had a tacit assumption that you would eventually get around to claiming that some derivative of Bitcoin could be a Nash ideal money, and that the attributes of Bitcoin that enable the creation of this derivative are the important attributes that must be protected. Now I see I was wrong to jump ahead from your seemingly incomplete statements. Now if 'bitcoin can be scaled as gold', and that is important in that it allows 'the rest of the world's money systems tend to stability in value', why do we need Bitcoin to fulfill this role? I mean, if anything, gold is likely to scale like gold, right? Why did gold fail in this role? Maybe it would move the conversation if you define what it is you mean by 'scale like gold'. Note this may fall out from answering my previous inquiry. |
|
|
|
I read this thread with great interest and this post seems to summarize things for me at least. To recap my understanding of the thread so far:
Bitcoin is good for some purposes and is not good for others purposes (all the "gold" versus "currency" posts).
ALL sides in the great block size increase debate may kill Bitcoin by trying to "fix" it.
Bitcoin is not really broken, it is what it is.
Just leave all the fundamental arbitrary parameters (total number of Bitcoins, current block size, current block generation rate, etc.) as is.
It is too late to change anything now.
If you must make a change to any parameter, create an alt coin and see how the market responds to it.
If we need something with attributes that Bitcoin does not have and can/will never have, create it, don't mess with Bitcoin to do it.
Is that basically what you are saying?
Yes it is, but its only the beginning of the dialogue. You see we haven't yet asked the question, together, as a group, what parameters guard bitcoin's gold like characteristics. I almost hate to wade in at this point, but the thread is growing at a rate I fear I will never catch up with... What is your definition of 'gold-like'? You seem to assert that 'gold-like characteristics' are desirable for bitcoin. Without a working definition, I can neither agree nor disagree. |
|
|
|
If I read your reply correctly, you are essentially claiming 'language changes, so I get to be the one who changes it'. I reply: no, you don't. Anti-fragility by definition requires the ability to evolve. If not, then 'anti-fragile' would be a redundant synonym for 'non-fragile'. and my reply to the bogus reddit chart some guy posted that lies about all traits of bitcoin in order to try and pump and dump it lol:
Different conversation altogether. |
|
|
|
I'm disappointed. Jbreher is like the smartest of you apes and this was a pretty feeble attempt at trying to portray bitcoin as having traits of money equal or better than metals: The fact that bitcoin can be so called "upgraded", which really just means changed, means it's not anti-fragile by default.
On this point, you minsunderstand the definition of anti-fragile. By definition, in order to be anti-fragile, a thing must be able to evolve. No, it does not. Money is supposed to be boring - it's not supposed to "evolve" ... Jeebus - now you're copy-pasting across subs? OK, I'll play along, and copy-paste my reply from where it belongs over to here where you insisted on dragging it: Stay on point. I did not say 'money needs to be able to evolve', I said that the definition of 'anti-fragile' necessarily is imbued with the ability to evolve. You can claim that something needs to be unchanging if you want. While I disagree with you on this point, it is not a conversation I wish to carry out with you. You have a lot of monetary ideas which I think are just plain wrong, but they are axiomatic to you, and I don't care to tilt against that windmill. However, when you appropriate a defined term, and claim a use for it exactly opposite of its accepted definition -- such as your misappropriation of anti-fragile -- you can expect to get called out on it. |
|
|
|
What if Bitcoin reaches $10k and you have a lot of coins (20+) wouldn't that be a good moment to live your life,...
Whatevs. What is a couple hunnert thousand (a couple years first-world salary) against potentially life-changing money? I'm riding this charger as far as it will take me. Better live either as a king or a pauper rather than to merely retire a few years earlier. What if you have 100 coins, and it hits $10k. I would probably retire... That could work in some parts of the world. For me, I'd need several times that. As in some single-digit multiple. |
|
|
|
The fact that bitcoin can be so called "upgraded", which really just means changed, means it's not anti-fragile by default.
On this point, you minsunderstand the definition of anti-fragile. By definition, in order to be anti-fragile, a thing must be able to evolve. No, it does not. Money is supposed to be boring - it's not supposed to "evolve" ... Stay on point. I did not say 'money needs to be able to evolve', I said that the definition of 'anti-fragile' necessarily is imbued with the ability to evolve. You can claim that something needs to be unchanging if you want. While I disagree with you on this point, it is not a conversation I wish to carry out with you. You have a lot of monetary ideas which I think are just plain wrong, but they are axiomatic to you, and I don't care to tilt against that windmill. However, when you appropriate a defined term, and claim a use for it exactly opposite of its accepted definition -- such as your misappropriation of anti-fragile -- you can expect to get called out on it. |
|
|
|
What if Bitcoin reaches $10k and you have a lot of coins (20+) wouldn't that be a good moment to live your life,...
Whatevs. What is a couple hunnert thousand (a couple years first-world salary) against potentially life-changing money? I'm riding this charger as far as it will take me. Better live either as a king or a pauper rather than to merely retire a few years earlier. |
|
|
|
The fact that bitcoin can be so called "upgraded", which really just means changed, means it's not anti-fragile by default.
On this point, you minsunderstand the definition of anti-fragile. By definition, in order to be anti-fragile, a thing must be able to evolve. Things that are unchanging are capable of being non-fragile, but they are incapable of being anti-fragile. |
|
|
|
Well well well. An extra good morning ladies and gentlemen of Bitcoinland.
Glad I woke up early enough to see the tail end of this splendid little leg up we've all been waiting for.
I know, right? I've been keeping my eyes on GDAX of late (personal nexus). My first look this morning was $1230.00. Fun times. |
|
|
|
The gold market has been fully developed for millennia. That's a deeply silly comparison. GLD probably hasn't done gold any favours though. I wonder whether a Bitcoin ETF will do the same. While the price of gold dropped subsequent to the creation of GLD, there may be significantly different pressures with COIN. While I don't know, I rather suspect that GLD was allowed to hold 'paper gold' to back all incoming investment. After all, 'paper gold' has a long and infamous history in world finance, with each ounce of physical gold supposedly 'backing' dozens of ounces of paper gold (I'll leave it an exercise to the reader as to what might happen if a significant fraction of holders suddenly want to convert their paper gold to physical gold). Paper gold being created essentially limitlessly (i.e., fractional reserve) led to no upward pressure on (physical) gold price from investments into GLD. OTOH, my impression is that all the potential Bitcoin ETFs in play will be required to back deposits with actual Bitcoin. If new money flows into COIN, actual Bitcoin will need to be purchased to back the deposits (at least once the Winklevii's personal stash is depleted). This would lead to significant upward pressure on Bitcoin price. The sudden availability for Suzy Creamcheese to direct her 401(k) to Bitcoin, coupled with time-proximate popular press coverage of ATH & 1BTC/1ozXAU parity, and the general malaise in traditional interest-bearing investments, could easily lead to FOMO in the public at large. |
|
|
|
No. I'm a BU proponent, but I must admit that the current level of fees is not a significant detriment to me. Then again, for the last several years, I've not been using Bitcoin for trivial small amounts. The current level gets lost in the noise as a percentage of transaction value. There are however several attributes coupled to the fee that are causing me significant pain. I'll talk about those in a minute after the following observation... Just thinking logically about this, there is no use case for Bitcoin that goes away with smaller fees. Indeed, for every increment in average fees, there is yet another potential use case that is no longer economically feasible. I guess some people might think 'so what?', but I find it a truism that a more usable Bitcoin is a more robust and secure Bitcoin. We should be enabling all use cases that do not cause damage to the system. More importantly, however, the current block size caps system-wide usage of Bitcoin at somewhere around 250,000 transactions per day. Regardless of what the fee rises to. If 300,000 people were willing to pay 0.1, 1, 10, whatever amount of bitcoins as a transaction fee in a given day, not all of their transactions will be able to be processed. Period. Sure, if this was a one-day event, they might be processed the following day. But if usage increases? Nope. Permanent backlog. Regardless of the average fee people are willing to pay. Now back to my personal pain... the uncertainty in regards to an appropriate fee level has turned a thought-free process into one that takes a conscious effort to process. Yeah, I know ... first world problems. But this is just one additional disincentive to using Bitcoin, and one more (small) barrier to increased adoption. So been using Eth & LTC & Doge to transfer Funds between exchanges instead of BTC.
(Cheaper & Faster, and I just convert to BTC on the exchange if needed and avoid the BTC Transaction Fees & Delays altogether.)
Except you are not converting to BTC on the exchange - you are converting to BTC-IOUs, which is a distinctly different thing. |
|
|
|
...
IOW, Komodo is a parasite. phhttthhh to you. Well, Bitcoin is permissionless. This is just one consequence of this permissionlessness. As much as I find it distasteful. Frankly, I don't buy into the 'spam' narrative to begin with. There is no objective way of looking at a transaction, and classifying it as spam vs notspam. As long as it pays the fee that some miner would include it in a valid solved block, its valid. The beauty is, in a small block block chain, they will either be priced out by users willing to pay more than them, or they will have to increase their fees (and help secure the Bitcoin block chain) to continue using Bitcoin as their supposed network security (I say supposed because I personally don't think their model offers any real security at all, but I will admit I didn't bother to delve that deeply into it). In a large block block chain, they (and others) will have free reign to "abuse" the system with great ease. In such a scenario, I expect other measures will have to be implemented to prevent such "abuse" and before long the system will be unrecognizable. Well, no. In either a small block or a large block scenario, they have the ability to use the system. There may or may not be some relative expense barrier, but they can still use it regardless. While I want to think of it as 'abusing' the system, such an attitude would be in direct conflict with the 'permissionless' philosophy. In a permissionless system, anything that goes, goes. |
|
|
|
...
IOW, Komodo is a parasite. phhttthhh to you. Well, Bitcoin is permissionless. This is just one consequence of this permissionlessness. As much as I find it distasteful. Frankly, I don't buy into the 'spam' narrative to begin with. There is no objective way of looking at a transaction, and classifying it as spam vs notspam. As long as it pays the fee that some miner would include it in a valid solved block, its valid. |
|
|
|
I'm curious what people's views on a market-approach for block size, whereby transaction senders (buying space to fit said transaction into a block) and miners (selling space to fit said transactions into a block) find stable equilibrium sizes for the average block
It is an important question. While I am of the opinion that BU implements a near-ideal solution for market-driven blocksize choice, I understand that others have differing opinions. What I have not heard from these others -- as of yet -- is what _their_ proposal for a market-driven blocksize might be. The issue is incentives: it's not so difficult to design dynamic resizing algorithms that respond to nodes acting in a way that assumes they want Bitcoin to work successfully.
The problem is when Bitcoin working is not the incentive, instead, breaking Bitcoin is the motivation. No-one has yet come up with a dynamic resizing design that deals with malicious behaviour.
And that is true for Core as well as it is for BU. If you don't believe that market incentives can work to goad enough participants into beneficial behavior, then you don't believe that Bitcoin can work period. |
|
|
|
Own up: whose the fucking cock who keeps dumping when we try to go above $1200?
Remember, don't be that cock. Do you mean... don't... SELL ALL THE BITCOINS! ? Incidentally, I dumbed my cookie @ $1199.69. Next dumb target - another ~0.1% @ $1233.69. Or buy my cookie back @ $1166.69. Whatevs. Kinda hoping for the former. It does seem like you are determined to keep the price from reaching multiple ATH's. The prisoners dilemma does predict that your selfish behaviour is bad for everyone - everyone loses. However, if you let the ATH's take place, everyone wins. If a piddling ~0.1% of my total holdings could move the market at all, we'd all be in a world of hurt. Well, except me, I guess. That'd be a lot of coin  But Bitcoin as a whole, yes. World of hurt. |
|
|
|
Me: Alexa - enable BitcoinAverageAlexa: There are multiple skills named BitcoinAverage. Use the app to learn how to enable them (paraphrased) Me: Alexa - ask BitcoinAverage for the current priceAlexa: Hmm. I don't know how to answer that question (paraphrased) Me: <grumble, goes back to the computer to look up the proper phrase> Me: Alexa - enable BitcoinAverageAlexa: There are multiple skills named BitcoinAverage. Use the app to learn how to enable them (paraphrased) Me: Alexa - how do I enable BitcoinAverage?Alexa: OK - I have enabled BitcoinAverage. You can use this skill for a number if uses. It may take some time before it can be used (paraphrased) Me:  Me: Alexa - ask BitcoinAverage for the current priceAlexa: Hmm. I don't know how to answer that question (paraphrased) Yup - just about the way every interaction with Alexa seems to go for me. Maybe she'll be ready in an hour. Dad-gummed temperamental bot thingy... Yup, these are some pitfalls/growing pains with Alexa for sure!, though with some clear slow speech you may achieve better results, as I've found personally at least. I actually have Alexa controlling my home automation! You can of course enable it via your app, but it should work enabling via voice, we've tested it a lot and it performs well! You aren't in Germany are you? Nope USA. FWIW, it is now working. I think maybe 'enabling a skill' requires some code update done locally from the cloud. Further, that this code update is done in a leisurely manner. Who knows? The robots are taking over! |
|
|
|
Me: Alexa - enable BitcoinAverageAlexa: There are multiple skills named BitcoinAverage. Use the app to learn how to enable them (paraphrased) Me: Alexa - ask BitcoinAverage for the current priceAlexa: Hmm. I don't know how to answer that question (paraphrased) Me: <grumble, goes back to the computer to look up the proper phrase> Me: Alexa - enable BitcoinAverageAlexa: There are multiple skills named BitcoinAverage. Use the app to learn how to enable them (paraphrased) Me: Alexa - how do I enable BitcoinAverage?Alexa: OK - I have enabled BitcoinAverage. You can use this skill for a number if uses. It may take some time before it can be used (paraphrased) Me: Me: Alexa - ask BitcoinAverage for the current priceAlexa: Hmm. I don't know how to answer that question (paraphrased) Yup - just about the way every interaction with Alexa seems to go for me. Maybe she'll be ready in an hour. Dad-gummed temperamental bot thingy... |
|
|
|
IF anyone would have a use for smart contracts that can be unilaterally rescinded, I would guess it would be the vampire squid and the rest of the pinstriped bandits. Too snarky? OK... Maybe they're just too dumb to see the obvious. Banks have just lost in the R3CEV implosion, with the unavoidable conclusion that a blockchain needs a native token in order to secure its integrity. I guess their next way to avoid handing some gains to the Bitcoin community is to try with Ethereium. Well, at least it has a native token, which can incentivize security. Now they need to breach the liquidity barrier. And that entire looming debacle -- endemic to the system -- of conflating turing completeness with money. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
