I'm impressed with the number of pos guys following this thread.  Why does it have to be us vs them? Why must the crypto space be so divided? I am not a "pos guy". I simply see some value and utility in a well designed system and want to share that with others, just as I do with bitcoin. Fiat is the enemy here. Because if another coin even gets close (same order of mag) to bitcoin in terms of market cap, it seriously erodes the "scarcity" feature/argument of bitcoin, which is one of the most critical arguments for putting any wealth/mindshare/time/effort into bitcoin (and by extension, any crypto). Guys like Schiff and Rickards would be proven right, and no one would be comfortable putting any wealth into any crypto for a long long time. Thus, everyone would lose. Humanity would not see the benefits that decentralized money can bring for many years/decades longer than if bitcoin simply becomes the obvious-to-everyone non-dethronable crypto store of value. To be clear, I think there's niche value in some alts, and some of the experimentation is valuable. But you guys who think that many coins can live side by side with similar monetizations are missing the key point that if that happened, we'd all be sitting side-by-side at *trivial* market-caps, not big ones. It appears that all of my posts stating the Nxt is not a "coin" have gone ignored. Not sure what is the point in refuting the same arguments over and over. I have no interest in trying to dethrone Bitcoin. It's is crypto's store of value. That is it's job. It provides the backing everything else that comes after it. Bitcoin goes up, everything goes up. Bitcoin goes down, everything goes down - because they are directly tied to Bitcoin. Bitcoin is your entry into cryptoland. From there you are free to do as you wish with any system you wish, free of regulation and red tape and slow processes and filled with CHOICE! This is what crypto gives us: CHOICE and FREEDOM to do what we want with our money. Bitcoin is our direct gateway into that and does it exceptionally well. Any coin that is a direct fork of bitcoin is not worth a second glance due to the reasons you mention above. However I believe that like Nxt, Maidsafe, Storj etc are NOT coins. They provide innovative value that is completely separate from it being a currency. They are token that exist on a system that provides other functions - and guess what, their value ARE MEASURED IN BITCOINS and is therefore in direct relation to the utility they provide crypto as a whole! The use of these systems should bring more value to crypto and therefore Bitcoin itself. Of course because they have value they can be traded LIKE a currency and will speculated on but that is not their primary goal. That is Bitcoin's job and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Bitcoin's value is not and should not be threatened by this and if it is, then it would be because it is not doing it's job very well. well, i'll agree with you there. all these Bitcoin 2.0 projects involve "tokens", which unlike you say, are fundamental to the success of the underlying platforms. otherwise, how could you trade a token that is worthless for storage space? tokens have to have some value to do this. the problem though is that those tokens will inevitably trend to 0 value. they are like United Flyer miles. i can't tell you how many times those miles have been devalued or outright cancelled due to non use. for the Bitcoin 2.0 projects, which have specific uses, it will behoove cryptocurrency users to hold their BTC over time until they have the need for these specific use cases. this is b/c of the fixed supply nature of Bitcoin and its real world relationship to ever increasing fiat currency. in other words, BTC should increase in value over time as one holds them instead of tokens. this encourages market participants to hold their BTC until such time as they "need" to use them. the converse is that the value of tokens on other platforms should trend to 0. |
|
|
|
Why does it have to be us vs them? Why must the crypto space be so divided? I am not a "pos guy". I simply see some value and utility in a well designed system and want to share that with others, just as I do with bitcoin.
Fiat is the enemy here.
Because if another coin even gets close (same order of mag) to bitcoin in terms of market cap, it seriously erodes the "scarcity" feature/argument of bitcoin, which is one of the most critical arguments for putting any wealth/mindshare/time/effort into bitcoin (and by extension, any crypto). Guys like Schiff and Rickards would be proven right, and no one would be comfortable putting any wealth into any crypto for a long long time. Thus, everyone would lose. Humanity would not see the benefits that decentralized money can bring for many years/decades longer than if bitcoin simply becomes the obvious-to-everyone non-dethronable crypto store of value. To be clear, I think there's niche value in some alts, and some of the experimentation is valuable. But you guys who think that many coins can live side by side with similar monetizations are missing the key point that if that happened, we'd all be sitting side-by-side at *trivial* market-caps, not big ones. Just like fiat must contend with distributed crypto-currencies, distributed (or not) crypto-currencies must contend with one another. Fair is fair. Each will rise and fall on it's strengths, the the strengths and weaknesses come from all different directions. That is to say, technical and otherwise, and I'll go out on a limb and say that technical strengths and weaknesses will be minor compared to political ones. I think it's way more profound, Bitcoin is a once in 5,000 year paradigm shifting innovation, Alt's are an insignificant incremental improvement. cripto's from my viewpoint are the equivalent of painting a line in down the middle of the road, and saying this new innovation supersedes the road network. there will be metaphoric competition like rail roads and air ports, but the most valuable network will be Bitcoin. yes, which is to also say, "most investors in the cryptocurrency space will lose money" from a lack of understanding of the economics, technical innovations, and political circumstances surrounding Bitcoin. and that, ladies and gentlemen, is why it is still early days for Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I'm impressed with the number of pos guys following this thread. Piece of Shit coins? This wasn't was not me, notme! |
|
|
|
I'm impressed with the number of pos guys following this thread. |
|
|
|
I'm just glad to see you are keeping an eye on Nxt's affairs:P You'll be hearing much more about it over the next few months, I can promise you that.
I look forward to the day when we can look back and laugh at how dismissive you all were, just like the early days of bitcoin.
I've never used twitter, can twits be deleted by the owner? If not, it would be funny to bring those up from time to time in the future  i don't think they can be deleted. here use this: 6years@followupthen.com |
|
|
|
Many of the consumer available technologies are approaching a point where they need progress little farther in order to meet consumer demand. These curves plotted on top of one another reveal the problem. Furthermore it seems likely to me that allowing free communication between individuals is to dangerous to allow and will likely be quashed should an event which facilitates it occur. The solution to that particular problems would be to step back and let the connected industrial players take over the infrastructure aspect of the network, but when that happens Bitcoin is closer to the USD than it is to the original implementation in my view. Yes, it will always have some advantages (hopefully) but it is simply not a compelling solution at that point. To me.
i don't know man. seems the capacity for ppl to take pics and videos of themselves is unlimited. i was shocked to hear those actresses would even allow themselves to be photo'd nude, let alone have the pics uploaded. narcissism at it's best, i'd guess. as for unlimited communication, i agree gvt is a clear threat. but i don't know how you stuff it back in the bag. we're all too used to it. i for one, will fight to retain those freedoms. |
|
|
|
from the Boston Fed:
Second, the resource cost of mining is becoming increasingly unaffordable, not to mention the inefficiency associated with this aspect of the system design. Again, it is possible that within a few years it will become infeasible to rely on this distributed model, however consolidated, to verify transactions.
if it's so unaffordable, then why does it keep doing this?:  |
|
|
|
|
all Liu is saying is that Wall St will resist any financial system that doesn't allow it to take a risk free chunk out in fees or market inefficiencies from the retail investor. so what has changed? there are Wall St individuals "swinging the bat" as stated above in the Bitcoin space. that should only increase with time. we're already seeing isolated banks round the world dipping their feet into the waters. i think this trend continues until Wall St can't ignore it.
there does not need to be any rush. eventually, it will happen.
|
|
|
|
Oh Noes!
i love your humor  or maybe you're just a cocky ass troll, like me, according to notme.  |
|
|
|
from the Boston Fed: The Bitcoin network as originally designed, and especially its associated digital currency, will probably not survive in the long run. Some serious design flaws of the current Bitcoin system have been identified, and some of them may eventually prove fatal.
First, realistic growth projections of the scale of the blockchain indicate that it will likely become infeasible for individual users to store the data on their personal computers, and this may happen as soon as within a year or two. Currently, it already requires nearly 10 gigabytes of hard drive space to store the entire blockchain.
Second, the resource cost of mining is becoming increasingly unaffordable, not to mention the inefficiency associated with this aspect of the system design. Again, it is possible that within a few years it will become infeasible to rely on this distributed model, however consolidated, to verify transactions.
clearly, i don't agree with this. their concerns have been addressed many times here in the forums. plus, i think the Fed seriously underestimates the drive of the ppl to regain control of their money (wealth and capital). in fact i'll go as far as to repeat what i've said before: The blockchain may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as Money-cypherdoc
this is why we're all here in the first place. http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/current-policy-perspectives/2014/cpp1404.pdfSo childish those non-arguments! That really does not sound like the initial results the fed got from their analysts.. http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2cpew8/game_changer_bitcoin_research_at_the_federal/Probably buried the real deal. ^^ ps: reddit source, not sure if true, although the guy wrote in a very good english and puts relative efforts into proving his point and identity. thanks for reminding me of that. i find it interesting that all the negative pronouncements we are getting from different countries come from their CB's. the other gvt agencies seem to be sufficiently confused enough to go along. the most striking example was out of China last year. several gvt agencies actually had issued somewhat positive reports on Bitcoin. only several months later when the PBOC weighed in did the negative propaganda start coming out of their mouths. what do you expect? the binary proposition with Bitcoin is so huge and the potential for so much disruption for positive good remains so high that if there is ANY chance that it can work makes it worthwhile to get involved. and the fact of the matter is that Bitcoin looks like it is NOT going anywhere. |
|
|
|
yep, what caught my eye: Crucially, since the RBS and Lloyds were both bailed out by the UK government during the financial crisis, the UK government is now a significant shareholder in both institutions, owning a whopping 80% of the RBS and 25% of Lloyds. |
|
|
|
from the Boston Fed: The Bitcoin network as originally designed, and especially its associated digital currency, will probably not survive in the long run. Some serious design flaws of the current Bitcoin system have been identified, and some of them may eventually prove fatal.
First, realistic growth projections of the scale of the blockchain indicate that it will likely become infeasible for individual users to store the data on their personal computers, and this may happen as soon as within a year or two. Currently, it already requires nearly 10 gigabytes of hard drive space to store the entire blockchain.
Second, the resource cost of mining is becoming increasingly unaffordable, not to mention the inefficiency associated with this aspect of the system design. Again, it is possible that within a few years it will become infeasible to rely on this distributed model, however consolidated, to verify transactions.
clearly, i don't agree with this. their concerns have been addressed many times here in the forums. plus, i think the Fed seriously underestimates the drive of the ppl to regain control of their money (wealth and capital). in fact i'll go as far as to repeat what i've said before: The blockchain may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as Money-cypherdoc
this is why we're all here in the first place. http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/current-policy-perspectives/2014/cpp1404.pdf |
|
|
|
agree with all of the above except the comment of "hot air".
The forecast service builds on in depth analysis and continuously outperforms buy and hold.
But this is not to advertise the forecasting service, it's about seriously protecting wealth in the next years.
Those who don't see the risk and those who dont want any forecast, do not need to follow or read this thread.
Unfortunately I am not rich...
We are talking a couple of thousands here
Believe me, if you invested at date you registered (2010-09-18) $100 USD and bought 1,600 BTC @ $0.06 then BUY AND HOLD you have more than a couple of thousands here My sentiments precisley. Something doesn't quite add up and I have filed it in the "Too Good To Be True" folder but maybe I am being cynical :-) exactly. given how long S3052 has been around since $0.06, he should be rich given his claims of trading outperformance and having picked the 1200 top with a 100% BTC portfolio. he says he's outperformed buy and hold. those of us who have used buy and hold since that time are up many thousands of % and are indeed rich even despite the pullback. yet he claims he's outperformed buy and hold through day trading, so he should be even richer than rich. doesn't add up at all. it never has. just look at the title of his sub thread. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
