The intrinsic value of government fiat is as a very poor grade of toilet paper, also as kindling for when the lights finally go out because government has put a cap on the price of electricity.
In the absence of government putting a gun to your head it would trade at its intrinsic value.
Bitcoin's intrinsic value: evading government coercion.
Yes, I agree. The liberty and freedom bitcoin provides is part of its value. So the fact that America is damned if they do and damned if they don't, with regard to accepting/outlawing bitcoin, says a lot about it's value. How can it provide liberty and freedom if it is both certain to crash in price as a Ponzi-bubble and is doomed to fail technologically? Your statement makes no sense to me at all, in light of the revelations I have revealed. I can only assume you don't believe my revelations. Then go ahead and join the others over the cliff you go. Of course not. Why are you still here? I'm done here. Enjoy.
Oh, thank God! |
|
|
|
This thing is diabolical, I simply copied/pasted the wrong address can't believe there is no undo.
Perhaps you should wait a few more years before committing any significant investment into bitcoins. |
|
|
|
if it makes you feel any better, all of us are now a little bit wealthier.  Well, all of us that have bitcoins... ...excepting himself, of course. |
|
|
|
Hi,
sorry I've been searching the forum with no luck. I sent money from my wallet at blockchain.info to a wallet that does not exist (I pasted a previously deleted address ). Now the transaction (obviously) shows as Unconfirmed, Very Poor etc. It's been like that for many hours, nothing's happening.
What can I do to delete it so I can make a new one to the right address? Thanks!
If the address that you sent it to was a valid bitcoin address, there is nothing that you can do. It's just gone. Even the prior poster's suggestion of sending a new one with a higher fee will not work, because even if your wallet client would do it (it shouldn't, you'd have to hack it) the rest of the network will reject the new one if it includes any of the coins that the first transaction has in it. That would be, by definition, a double spend attempt. The network is designed to make this particularly difficult, and peer nodes won't even forward the new transaction onto it's own peers if it has already seen the first transaction, because the first transaction has already used those data points/inputs and that renders the second transaction invalid. Transaction propogation is fast enough that 99.999% of all network nodes have already seen your first transaction by the time you had the ability to compose your original post in this thread. |
|
|
|
|
I've spent or lost 90%+ of my original horde because I happen to like stuff.
|
|
|
|
What Peter means when he says that bitcoins (the currency) has no intrinsic value, he really means that it has no non-monetary use. In this sense, he is correct. Bitcoin has no non-monetary use. However, Bitcoin (the system/netwrok) does have features/characteristics that have usefulness beyond the context of a simple means of exchange, and all of those features require the use of bitcoins (the currency) to utilize. In this sense, Bitcoin does have an 'intrinsic value' in the economic sense. While I can't pay my taxes with it, I certainly can do many useful things with it, that no other curerncy in history can do without third party help. Such as create blockchain enforcable contracts... https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/ContractsAnd, perhaps eventually, the transfer of asset titles... https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AnkP_cVZTCMLIzw4DvsW6M8Q2JC0lIzrTLuoWu2z1BE/edit?pli=1http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24620-bitcoin-moves-beyond-mere-money.htmlAnd the (terriblely underused) transaction scripting system promises to do much, much more I, for one, do see value in a completely impartial, automated and near zero cost system that not only replaces most of the functions of brick * mortor banks, but most of the functions of the county clerck as well. I totally agree with all that. I think Bitcoin as a technology has huge potential. But in my mind that just cements the idea that the current price is a huge bubble even more. Pretty much anything people say to defend Bitcoin's intrinsic value is stuff that Bitcoin is capable of, and may be doing in the future. Transfer of titles, contracts, even distributed corporations, it all sounds awesome. Even as a payment system it sounds awesome. How you wouldn't want to take a huge bag of gold with you to the airport, but taking some BTC with you is trivial. It all makes sense. But none of it is possible right now. And yet right now the price is continually rising to tremendous levels. The argument is that Bitcoin currently has no intrinsic value. Not that it won't have it in the future, or that the technology sucks in general. I'm personally at awe of what this tech can do. But just currently, in this moment in time, none of that stuff is happening. It's barely even being used as a way to pay for things. So like I said, that means that the current price is driven by speculation, which cements the idea of a bubble even further. But that's not true either. While I metnioned some huge things yet to be implimented well, the one thing that is inarguablely in use is the distance transfer and settlement functin of the Bitcoin netowrk. This can be compareed favorablely to any banking transfer system or to Western Union, or Paypal. No one would argue that these other systems don't have their own values, as reflected in their profit margins and market capitalizations; however those functions are characteristic of uisng bitcoins as a medium of exchange, and also drive some minimum demand for bitcoins if for that reason only. That alone doesn't contribute to any significant 'intrinsic' value of the currency, but it contributes some, because markets do value those functions and the only way to access those same functions permitted by they bitcoin network at very low cost is to own (and therefore hold) some bitcoins yourself. Oh, and I totally 100% agree with that. But ask yourself this question: Does that functionality alone, coupled with the limited ways to spend BTC, justify a $1,000 per coin price-tag? If BTC was trading at above the old ~$20-$30 mark I'd totally understand. But at x50 times as much? Even with gold being hoarded by governments and central banks with huge power, it's "only" at maybe x10-x20 times its intrinsic value as for its uses in jewellery and electronics. How is it possible that Bitcoin is approaching the price of gold, while there's such tremendous pressure on gold from such powerful sources? Again, I'm just trying to say that the current price is extremely higher than it "should" be, not that it should have a price of zero. It definitely should be worth something. I'm just not sure what that something is, but I feel it can't possibly be thousands of dollars just yet. Of course I can't argue that Bitcoin's current market price is due to such funcationality. I can't make that argument for any particular price, after all that is what the pricing mechanism actually does for us. However, the same can be said for gold. If one could seperate gold's intrinsic value from it's monetary value, how much would it be? No one really knows, but it's certainly less than it's currency market value, since the monetary value is in there as well. Gold is horded by governments & cnetral bankers because of it's moneteary value, not because it makes great radiation shielding. Personally, I wouldn't say that gold would have an industirial value higher than silver does; particuarly since industry has already consumed enough silver that the above ground, refined stocks of gold exceeds that of silver. The natural ratio of scarcity ( 16.5 times as much silver as gold) is wrong in our modern context. BTW, that's one reason that I favor silver over gold in my personal stocks; because if gold ever does lose it's monetary value in the market, there's more of it available than silver, and silver has more known industrial uses. The other is that silver has very real anti-microbial properties that makes it more useful after TEOTWAWKI for my own family than gold would be. PS, please excuse my dexlexia, I'm having a particularly bad day. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin was not premined. Hal Finney mined block 70-something, that is, the same day the Bitcoin software was released. You can read it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155054.0Quoting Hal Finney: "When Satoshi announced the first release of the software, I grabbed it right away. I think I was the first person besides Satoshi to run bitcoin. I mined block 70-something, and I was the recipient of the first bitcoin transaction, when Satoshi sent ten coins to me as a test. I carried on an email conversation with Satoshi over the next few days, mostly me reporting bugs and him fixing them." Good to know. Thank you. Nonetheless, my intention is not only to find proofes, that bitcoin was not premined, but also to make a story about bitcoin invention, early development, etc... Hopefully it's not too late to do that. It's all on the internet - specifically on these forums. Do you want us to hold your hand? Just use the search function, dig through the early threads, read Satoshi's posts and the discussion in which he was involved... Its not so difficult. Well, about that. I strongly suspect that many of Satoshi's posts have been scrubbed from the archives. You were here when he was still posting. Are there specific incidents to which you're referring? None that I can prove. |
|
|
|
What Peter means when he says that bitcoins (the currency) has no intrinsic value, he really means that it has no non-monetary use. In this sense, he is correct. Bitcoin has no non-monetary use. However, Bitcoin (the system/netwrok) does have features/characteristics that have usefulness beyond the context of a simple means of exchange, and all of those features require the use of bitcoins (the currency) to utilize. In this sense, Bitcoin does have an 'intrinsic value' in the economic sense. While I can't pay my taxes with it, I certainly can do many useful things with it, that no other curerncy in history can do without third party help. Such as create blockchain enforcable contracts... https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/ContractsAnd, perhaps eventually, the transfer of asset titles... https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AnkP_cVZTCMLIzw4DvsW6M8Q2JC0lIzrTLuoWu2z1BE/edit?pli=1http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24620-bitcoin-moves-beyond-mere-money.htmlAnd the (terriblely underused) transaction scripting system promises to do much, much more I, for one, do see value in a completely impartial, automated and near zero cost system that not only replaces most of the functions of brick * mortor banks, but most of the functions of the county clerck as well. I totally agree with all that. I think Bitcoin as a technology has huge potential. But in my mind that just cements the idea that the current price is a huge bubble even more. Pretty much anything people say to defend Bitcoin's intrinsic value is stuff that Bitcoin is capable of, and may be doing in the future. Transfer of titles, contracts, even distributed corporations, it all sounds awesome. Even as a payment system it sounds awesome. How you wouldn't want to take a huge bag of gold with you to the airport, but taking some BTC with you is trivial. It all makes sense. But none of it is possible right now. And yet right now the price is continually rising to tremendous levels. The argument is that Bitcoin currently has no intrinsic value. Not that it won't have it in the future, or that the technology sucks in general. I'm personally at awe of what this tech can do. But just currently, in this moment in time, none of that stuff is happening. It's barely even being used as a way to pay for things. So like I said, that means that the current price is driven by speculation, which cements the idea of a bubble even further. But that's not true either. While I metnioned some huge things yet to be implimented well, the one thing that is inarguablely in use is the distance transfer and settlement functin of the Bitcoin netowrk. This can be compareed favorablely to any banking transfer system or to Western Union, or Paypal. No one would argue that these other systems don't have their own values, as reflected in their profit margins and market capitalizations; however those functions are characteristic of uisng bitcoins as a medium of exchange, and also drive some minimum demand for bitcoins if for that reason only. That alone doesn't contribute to any significant 'intrinsic' value of the currency, but it contributes some, because markets do value those functions and the only way to access those same functions permitted by they bitcoin network at very low cost is to own (and therefore hold) some bitcoins yourself. |
|
|
|
johnybigs.. just go silently into the night, and return to the labcoin thread you dearly love.. your constant "bitcoin gonna die" chatter is getting boring now..
Sadly, its not just johny bigs if you look at all the other threads most of them are about bitcoin dying. That's been going on for as long as I've been here. The bears have always been with us, the bears will always be with us. Bitcoin has no future if the influx on truly new alternatives to it, and the fact it has massive scaling issues which are still not addressed to this day its days are numbered.
Bitcoin's issues of scaling have been known from the beginning, and so have the solutions. Bitcoin's blockchain was never intended to be the ledger for the entire world's daily transactions. Off-network/out-of-band transaction processing is inevitable, and expected. It's the primary reason that free transactions are part of the protocol, not as a form of miner charity. Miners can be paid for bulk transaction processing 'out-of-band' for on-network transactions in many ways, and parrallel settlement networks that deal with lower value/lower risk transaction off of the main bitcoin network are already under development. Stratum is one such network, although off-network ttransactions are not it's primary focus.
Imagine mass adoptiom that would give us GBs of block chain a day, it's ok says Gavin you can just run a lite version, that's great so then the proper blockchain will be centralized on a few servers, maybe the NSA can help to store 100GB worth of data a day.
It can still go up way more but it wont be the leader in a few years.
If you say so. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin was not premined. Hal Finney mined block 70-something, that is, the same day the Bitcoin software was released. You can read it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155054.0Quoting Hal Finney: "When Satoshi announced the first release of the software, I grabbed it right away. I think I was the first person besides Satoshi to run bitcoin. I mined block 70-something, and I was the recipient of the first bitcoin transaction, when Satoshi sent ten coins to me as a test. I carried on an email conversation with Satoshi over the next few days, mostly me reporting bugs and him fixing them." Good to know. Thank you. Nonetheless, my intention is not only to find proofes, that bitcoin was not premined, but also to make a story about bitcoin invention, early development, etc... Hopefully it's not too late to do that. It's all on the internet - specifically on these forums. Do you want us to hold your hand? Just use the search function, dig through the early threads, read Satoshi's posts and the discussion in which he was involved... Its not so difficult. Well, about that. I strongly suspect that many of Satoshi's posts have been scrubbed from the archives. |
|
|
|
There was a proposal on the dev mailing list (from Mark Friedenbach) that I quite like which doesn't seem to have been mentioned here.
Set XBT = 100 Satoshis
This is likely what's going to happen anyway. The XBT standard must be fixed, and it would be wise for us to assume that we're going to end up with Satoshis with a near penny value anyway. It shouldn't be an issue in the meantime, after all the Japanese are used to a very fine base currency unit. |
|
|
|
The large block subsidy kinda distorts the economics of mining.
In which case, it's a self-correcting issue. So long as that's what's going on. |
|
|
|
Well, if the Party decides to outlaw Bitcoin it would be very easy for them to block it. The Great Firewall of China would simply block the network. Much easier then killing it then it is in the rest of the world.
It would not be easy at all for them to block it. They can't block it right now, and they know it. Done correctly, they can't even find it. |
|
|
|
I hold gold and bitcoin.
i buy things with btc all the time.
i have never ever ever ever bought anything with gold.
I'm exactly the same way, except I mostly hold silver. I've never directly bought anything with silver, but I've bought everything from mobile phone service to honey candies to digital artifacts (TF2) to handmade things on Etsy with bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I love peter Schiff as much as any other libertarian, but guys, come on... He has millions of dollars invested in gold and built his ENTIRE company around precious metals. Maybe a LITTLE bias coming through there.
After all, he's only human. He's spent his entire career talking about and selling gold. One can really expect for every smart man to notice the inflection points in history while it's happening. A lot of people were still investing in buggys & horse whip manufacturing long after Ford Motor Company was mass producing the Model T. |
|
|
|
And what do you think?
Well he's not wrong. Well, maybe a little wrong.
Bitcoin has very little intrinsic value. It does cost resources to produce.
Both are true with gold as well. Gold's intrinsic value is what it could be used for if it wasn't desired for it's monetary value, and as a jewlry doesn't count. Gold does have industrial uses that are ignored because it's monetary value prices it out of that market, but if it no longer had any monetary value, it'd be fair to say that gold wouldn't be significantly more valuable to industry than lead is. I wouldn't think that knowning that the intrinsic value of the stuff you're investing in is about one-thousanth of what it's current market value is would sound to many of his listeners as an acceptable bottom. What Peter means when he says that bitcoins (the currency) has no intrinsic value, he really means that it has no non-monetary use. In this sense, he is correct. Bitcoin has no non-monetary use. However, Bitcoin (the system/netwrok) does have features/characteristics that have usefulness beyond the context of a simple means of exchange, and all of those features require the use of bitcoins (the currency) to utilize. In this sense, Bitcoin does have an 'intrinsic value' in the economic sense. While I can't pay my taxes with it, I certainly can do many useful things with it, that no other curerncy in history can do without third party help. Such as create blockchain enforcable contracts... https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/ContractsAnd, perhaps eventually, the transfer of asset titles... https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AnkP_cVZTCMLIzw4DvsW6M8Q2JC0lIzrTLuoWu2z1BE/edit?pli=1http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24620-bitcoin-moves-beyond-mere-money.htmlAnd the (terriblely underused) transaction scripting system promises to do much, much more I, for one, do see value in a completely impartial, automated and near zero cost system that not only replaces most of the functions of brick * mortor banks, but most of the functions of the county clerck as well. But the product of those resources is just tons of giga-hashes and the appropriate hashing equipment. Maybe if Bitcon's proof-of-work was something useful that would be a different case. Then maybe people would want Bitcoins for their own usefulness.
As noted above, I want them for their unique usefulness. But even if I didn't, my gigahashes also heat my bsement in winter. Nothing is wasted as far as I am concerned.
Also there's no doubt that people are entering Bitcoin mostly because they're expecting the price in the future to be higher. Definitely not because there's a lot you can do with Bitcoin at the moment, because there isn't. In fact, adoption by merchants seems to be the biggest thing the community is trying to achieve. So that means the bulk of Bitcoin-wealth right now is speculation. And that definitely spells a bubble.
Time will tell. |
|
|
|
|
Mining is probably a waste of your time.
|
|
|
|
The reason is because the cartel needs to gradually consume the hashrate of the network, so it can delay the transactions of non-cartel customers who are on the blockchain. To force them to join the cartel or lose customers to the cartel. Why? You think they will create transactions that don't need to exist, just so that they can not send them out to the rest of the network? You are confusing the cartel's transactions with the non-cartel transactions. The later are the ones that get delay. The cartel's miner excludes them when adding a block solution to the block chain. I should have left this in this thread days ago.... https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
