look at the comments. wow, what a change for the better. |
|
|
|
The coin itself is actually a counterparty asset so it exists on the counterparty protocol
Remember when Wall Street started making synthetic derivatives composed of mortgage-backed security derivatives? The main failing was not derivatives but that government backed the funding of questionable mortgage debt. If wall street or any private company screws up it'll fall over, but when government backs something it becomes a giant that crushes anyone who stands in its way and in the end it trips up anyway Maybe securitization is bad but if it is questionable then its very likely rated as such. The problem stems when people dont question or rate debt that could fail realistically that's not true: http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201110140001Fannie Mae entered the fray after the Wall St banks pumped up the CDO market. Banks are the "out of thin air lenders" and when regs are light and money is cheap, they lend BIG. money was so cheap and gvt backing so implied, debt instruments were trading just like money. furthermore, ratings by Moody's, Standard & Poors, Fitch all were bought off to give high ratings. this is well documented. so no, Wall St was the progenitor. |
|
|
|
Now consider Storjcoin as a share and I think we end up with a contradiction. If I hold x% of the Storjcoins(shares), should I not earn x% of the revenue from the Storj network? If they were shares then I should. But I don't: the revenue flows to the nodes providing the service. The nodes are the shareholders! So Storjcoin is not a share.
What is Storjcoin then?
Exactly, Storjcoin is not intrinsic to the Storj system at all. This can only end badly for the Storj developers, either they quietly phase out Storjcoin and make the system competitive against distributed storage networks that are frcitionless, or the system loses out to an unencumbered design. My thoughts exactly (and I agree with your previous comment too). But MoA is a smart guy. He thinks we're missing something. Are we? I haven't looked into specifics of the StorJcoin economic model at all. Like any division of ownership/labour/incentive structure if they don't get that right it will be a failed venture. The ones that do and the analysts that dig in and find the right ones will make the right bets ... focusing on one failed application you might be missing the wider possibilities? Maybe fork the open source StorJcoin and bolt on the correct economic model and you'll have a winner? Hey guys, Ryan here Storj Community President. Caught the discussion happening figure I would help you out and give some answers l Storjcoin is not equity in storj. Storjcoin is the token used to purchase storage on the decentralized cloud network People running the application Driveshare(in development github.com/storj) will be able to sell excess hard drive space The whitepaper describing this process is being reviewed right now and adjustments to it. If you want to store something on the network you will use a metadisk node Current public nodes (note without drive share running these are early demos and not a decentralized application) node1.metadisk.org you can read the metadisk whitepaper here metadisk.org/metadisk.pdf People using metadisk will purchase space that they need using storjcoin So therefore storjcoin will have value as it has a commodity directly attached to it. This is a brief summary and there is lots of more information on the Storjtalk.org forums Hope to see you there or send a reply here and I will do what I can to answer how is Storjcoin secured and who holds the ledger? The coin itself is actually a counterparty asset so it exists on the counterparty protocol since i know not much about Counterparty, except that a bunch of ppl burned their BTC to get Counterparty tokens, again, how is Storjcoin secured and who holds the ledger? |
|
|
|
Now consider Storjcoin as a share and I think we end up with a contradiction. If I hold x% of the Storjcoins(shares), should I not earn x% of the revenue from the Storj network? If they were shares then I should. But I don't: the revenue flows to the nodes providing the service. The nodes are the shareholders! So Storjcoin is not a share.
What is Storjcoin then?
Exactly, Storjcoin is not intrinsic to the Storj system at all. This can only end badly for the Storj developers, either they quietly phase out Storjcoin and make the system competitive against distributed storage networks that are frcitionless, or the system loses out to an unencumbered design. My thoughts exactly (and I agree with your previous comment too). But MoA is a smart guy. He thinks we're missing something. Are we? I haven't looked into specifics of the StorJcoin economic model at all. Like any division of ownership/labour/incentive structure if they don't get that right it will be a failed venture. The ones that do and the analysts that dig in and find the right ones will make the right bets ... focusing on one failed application you might be missing the wider possibilities? Maybe fork the open source StorJcoin and bolt on the correct economic model and you'll have a winner? Hey guys, Ryan here Storj Community President. Caught the discussion happening figure I would help you out and give some answers l Storjcoin is not equity in storj. Storjcoin is the token used to purchase storage on the decentralized cloud network People running the application Driveshare(in development github.com/storj) will be able to sell excess hard drive space The whitepaper describing this process is being reviewed right now and adjustments to it. If you want to store something on the network you will use a metadisk node Current public nodes (note without drive share running these are early demos and not a decentralized application) node1.metadisk.org you can read the metadisk whitepaper here metadisk.org/metadisk.pdf People using metadisk will purchase space that they need using storjcoin So therefore storjcoin will have value as it has a commodity directly attached to it. This is a brief summary and there is lots of more information on the Storjtalk.org forums Hope to see you there or send a reply here and I will do what I can to answer how is Storjcoin secured and who holds the ledger? |
|
|
|
You can reduce the argument right down when you look at the broader economic context. Namely, why even use a service, however well it provides that service at a mechanistic level, that needs it's own special tokens? Unless the service fails as a concept without a built in currency, then the developers are adding friction to information services instead of continuing in satoshi's spirit of liberation as they claim to. It's all wrong from a plain information theory perspective, either you're a distributed TLD system or you're a currency. If you want to be both, expect inefficiency, confusion or conflict. Put another way, imagine if we all did this in commerce now? Shoecoin at footwear stores, foodcoin when you buy food but don't forget to keep some beercoin just in case you buy that at the same time. No beercoin? Hey, we convert at great rates! Doesn't take alot to see where that would end up... everyone who's not profiteering agreeing on something universal.
There will be a natural recognition that schizophrenic designs don't benefit users, and so Namecoin and Maidsafe will survive in their overall purpose as differentiated from bitcoin, but the token component cannot. If the tokens are not made optional or allow for direct access to the bitcoin protocol, then they won't compete well against rival systems that employ bitcoin as money and stick to addressing the actual problem they purport to solve. Maybe all this appcoin insanity is a good thing. It keeps Bitcoins out of the hands of people who've shown a lack of discernment, therefore they'll control a smaller fraction of the future economy. Well, except for the developers who sell their scamcoins for Bitcoins. You'd think the fact that the developers prefer to hold bitcoins over appcoins would be a giant red flag for potential investors... it's not a good thing. Bitcoins are the only thing they can monetize with. they are a drag on Bitcoin b/c of all the scams and failures. they suck out valuable capital away from Bitcoin. they are means of getting something for nothing. much like POS which involves no work. alas, most investors in cryptocurrencies will lose money. c'est la vie. |
|
|
|
|
Naval said it himself in the video. devs can "sell" premined coins and the dev can hold back a % as a funding mechanism.
so in fact, the coins should represent shares in the company.
|
|
|
|
Think of it this way. Speculators leveraged up free fiat from the Fed and bid up the silver market into the May 2011 peak. Now that the market has reversed, leverage is being margin called out of the silver market. Prices are collapsing as a result. And? and what? Bitcoin? are u kidding me? we're still in a large consolidation phase and the successive lows are still higher over a short 8 mo time period. this is just the pause before the next ramp. |
|
|
|
i disagree with some of Naval's concepts. 1. @ 5min he talks about a Dropbox appcoin where instead of POW it uses Proof of Storage. WTF is that? he goes on to say that the appcoin derives its supply and demand from trading btwn those who provide and those who request storage. that's fine. but what happened to the POW security mechanism for the appcoin? 2. he advocates for the appcoin networks-the problem is they all have identifiable creators (Satoshi stayed anonymous for a reason) and they are premining coins. creators can be thrown in prison and the premining would be a problem for me. are Satoshi's coins a problem for me? no, b/c he kick started his own mining after releasing the open source Bitcoin software and everyone was free to have mined back then if they had the foresight and the luck to have heard about Bitcoin. at this point, the general concensus is that he may never sell his coins or if he does, it will be when Bitcoin is @ $10000-100000. good for him. but everyone else who starts an appcoin w/o a POW security mechanism or a decent chance at developing a network effect isn't for me. 3. i view these appcoins as nothing more than the same business structures we have today in fiat. and they're just complicating things with an appcoin that actually might make things worse since they don't necessarily have a rational POW security mechanism for their coins. 4. these appcoins networks are just specialized closed source communities serving a defined function. they will never reach the size of a money system like Bitcoin. 5. money affects everyone round the world. this is why we have global participation in Bitcoin and this is critical to it's security. no one gvt can shut it down b/c gvt's disagree over the long run. their varied interests is what assures the game theory Nash equilibrium that keeps each of them in check as they each worry that the other might just be building secrets mines and support for Bitcoin. this is why we have the network effect we do. 6. as far as allowing these appcoins to merge mine onto the Bitcoin network? i view that as leeching. Namecoin, ok. it was an early merged coin and the DNS function could serve a valuable purpose in the future. but other appcoins/shitcoins? no way. i'm not a dev but from my understanding there does need to be some special code inserted into the mining software to allow merged mining and i doubt there is zero cost to that. also, why should we as Bitcoiner's allow an appcoin distract from what Bitcoin is trying to do? Bitcoin itself is not out of the woods yet so i will seriously resist any appcoin/altcoin/2.0 that tries to leech off our network. |
|
|
|
Think of it this way. Speculators leveraged up free fiat from the Fed and bid up the silver market into the May 2011 peak. Now that the market has reversed, leverage is being margin called out of the silver market. Prices are collapsing as a result. |
|
|
|
Don't the lower high's worry you then?
Well I am in general the type of person that honestly does not care how much things are valued in $hitpaper. Proudly. Ever since 2006. Paging Melbustus. |
|
|
|
^^^^
Thanks for the info! So at what price do you see silver to likely bottom out, and when? Just curious.
single digits. |
|
|
|
Looks like you quoted it for you to preview before posting it. Thanks for clarifying what "everything" is and isn't. How can one assume it doesn't include Alts when you appear to discuss them on a daily basis in this very thread?  and as for "everything", i'd bet 10 USD that i used the term for just those assets as i defined them back when you were subbed to my letter. there's no inconsistency. i'll try to be clearer next time. I can honestly say that I do not remember you defining "everything" to mean only those assets/investments. I appreciate your willingness to be more clear in the future. smoothie, here is the context in which i usually use the "everything else down" phrase. as you can see, it can't possibly include Litecoin: PM's are a play on armageddon where the whole internet gets junked b/c of severe worldwide depression and deflation. this would do btc in for sure. i just don't think we get that bad, altho it IS going to get bad.
I've never quite understood this. If we're talking a Mad Max type situation, is anybody going to want gold, except perhaps for its industrial uses? I think oil, food, or other useful consumables will be in much higher demand. before btc came along, i was a big believer in Bob Prechter's theory of dollar down, everything else up (incl PM's); dollar up, everything else down. if u look at mkts u can pretty much see this is exactly what has happened since the advent of the Fed and even more tightly correlated since 1971 when the gold std was revoked. paradoxically, acc. to Prechter, if we go into a depression (we had a small whiff of this in 2008), the dollar will skyrocket and everything else will crash incl. PM's. If you look at FerBanke's actions in light of this theory, u clearly see he believes we r on the brink of severe deflation and depression which is why he has pulled out all the stops and more in inflating the money supply. amazingly he has sparked the greatest stock mkt rally ever since the bottom Mar 2009. the question is whether we're in another bubble. i think we are. BTC was spawned by Satoshi precisely b/c of worldwide central bank reflation. so it is an inflationary phenomenon as far as i'm concerned and certainly will flourish in that environment. the real question is what happens to BTC if everything goes into reverse and we re enter the deflationary spiral b/c some bubble blows up somewhere like the Middle East or a European default. it certainly could crash as well as the dollar skyrockets. why would the dollar skyrocket. b/c 60% of world debt is USD and would have to be liquidated severely contracting USD money supply and paradoxically increasing its value. up until recently i believed BTC would crash as well but i'm increasingly leaning against that view. why? b/c i think the drive towards BTC popularity will be b/c of its inherent STABILITY. the problem with the USD is its INSTABILITY with a bias to the downside. every business owner incl myself hates this volatility making it hard to make longterm business decisions. the Fed doesn't understand this. i don't think the 2nd Great Depression takes down the internet or smartphone technology and will be the winner in the end vs gold and USD. |
|
|
|
just to prove i'm not BS'ing: bit coin needs to be freely exchanged with silver and gold,so you can store your surplus wealth of bitcoin in the pyisical world of assets, just the same as you securely store them in your electronic wallet. I couldn't agree more. Eventually the bitcoin community will figure out that there is no point trading bitcoins for a government sponsored depreciating currency and they will flock to gold and silver. Bitcoins my have more upside than silver right now but silver is hands down the safer bet. I'm afraid there are a large number of people here that have overextended themselves with BTC and will get wiped out at the next big pullback. Better to hold your savings in a couple different forms of hard assets and ride out the volitility. Glad to see there are at least a couple other silver bugs here as well.  before we start this debate of PM's vs. btc, i will say i started investing in gold and silver back in 2005 with gold at $550 and silver at $9. this week i liquidated 3 bags of junk silver and converted to btc after what amts to a 500% profit in silver. i still hold over half my holdings in bullion and won't sell any gold. clearly i am a PM's bull but turning less so and very much a btc bull. i believe that digital currency is the future. the question is does it have to be backed by PM's to be successful? i don't think so. as a former Goldmoney holder, which i think is the std, i don't see that gold backed digital currency community growing at all esp. in comparison to btc. why is this so? 1. few ppl can afford PM's at this price in terms of per ounce, 2. even if they could afford they can't transport it to London or Switzerland where their vaults are to then set up a digital acct, 3. u can only transact with other Goldmoney accts, 4. even if Goldmoney vaults or other vendor vaults were located around the world it becomes impractical to move the stuff around to balance out accts, 5. the digital age demands an easier way to transact. evidence of this is the M-Pesa in Kenya. as long as the amt of btc is not allowed to inflate beyond its stated objectives it will grow in value and be a much more effective way to transact than PM's. i think that todays speed of transaction and efficiency MAY have made PM's impractical. PM's are a play on armageddon where the whole internet gets junked b/c of severe worldwide depression and deflation. this would do btc in for sure. i just don't think we get that bad, altho it IS going to get bad. |
|
|
|
What spawned the silver rally in 2011? And where do you see the silver price by end of 2014?
there's a 9yr cycle in gold. silver usually moves with it and oftentimes leads. the last bottom of that cycle was Oct 2008. i used that cycle, along with fundamentals and the Bitcoin phenomenon, to call my personal top in silver in the last week of Apr 2011 and gold in Aug 2011: Gold: I Smell a Trap. when a chart blows off like that so early in a cycle, it usually means it's going to end up being L translated and end up lower than it started. you can see the run up in silver into its top in May 2011 soon after its bottom in Oct 2008. b/c silver often leads gold, to me, it was an obvious blow off top despite what all the silver pumpers were stating at the time, which was "going to 200". it's concerning when a chart blows off like that so early in its cycle b/c it's likely to end up L translated and bearish. i picked that top @48 by selling 3 junk bags of silver in May and averaging out @44 soon thereafter. don't get me wrong, there is some luck in doing something like that. it's not a science. it's intuition, experience, fundamentals, technicals, all combined. b/c of the steepness of that blowoff, i can't see it coming back for a long time. remember the last blowoff was in 1980.  edit: b/c silver leads, and i thought it topped in May 2011, then i was hunting for the gold top soon thereafter, which ended up being Sept 2011. gold had been in an 10-11 yr bull at that point. |
|
|
|
Cypherdoc, where do you see gold and silver 1 to 2 years from now?
much lower |
|
|
|
for all my former subs, what do u see here? answer: a series of L translated cycles:  |
|
|
|
i'm sorry, but there is just not real growth in certain critical areas of the economy:  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
