So... why on earth would you advise anyone to invest in anything which is simply a rip-off (or an advanced ripoff) of something that already has sustained value?
I won't comment on how you put all the alternatives into the same 'scam' category, but the bolded statement is surprising. Have you checked the charts recently? What has sustained value, Bitcoin? Seriously? Sure it did for you if you purchased or mined it back a few years ago, not so much for all the recent bag holders. |
|
|
|
there have been many smoke and mirror attempts by longstanding members of these forums and long-term bitcoiners to dilute the bitcoin network, push people away towards 'other' cryptocurrencies, and in my view, this thread is just another attempt at that.
isn't it desirable to hardcore miners to have the network reduce in hashrate by duping miners into believing 'thiscoin' and 'thatcoin' are going to be worth more than bitcoin in the future? thus leading the blind miner towards mining something else, which in the end has no intrinsic value whatsoever?
So, you think I am a hardcore Bitcoin miner trying to lead other miners with my thread to other coins to reduce hashrate of Bitcoin network so I could mine more Bitcoins for myself? Well, you certainly are free to make that conclusion. But it just goes to prove that die-hard Bitcoiners often think that everyone else has the same blind faith in Bitcoin that they do, brushing away all the reasoning and logic given in this thread, obsessed with the idea that Bitcoin is salvation, such religion  |
|
|
|
Some people don't have any interest in mining so it makes sense there would be coins that get distributed in different ways so there are coins for everyone. People are just trying to capitalize on that I think.
capitalize ? i agree.. print free money while putting nothing into it LOL your defense is it's own criticism hahha Putting efforts and wasting energy to mine a coin (or create whatever in the universe) doesn't guarantee it will have value. Only demand can guarantee that value. Demand depends on utility, unique use cases, not on how many efforts were put into the creation process. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin price does not hamper its function. Bitcoin is doing just fine.
That's not the point I make. The point is that Bitcoin's function is to fuel growth of more advanced crypto technologies and that's what has been going on. Bitcoin funds R&D of crypto 2.0 and its price is a reflection of that trend. |
|
|
|
|
Do you guys feel that with each failed rally AKA dead-cat bounce confidence in Bitcoin is waning and investors more and more probe into what's behind those alternatives? That's certainly the impression I've had recently. Yeah, there are a few die-hard bitcoiners here, who are in denial, but they don't seem to have enough dough to reverse the trend.
|
|
|
|
he doesn't have the wallet.
back then bitcoin was fun money he probably erased and created a new wallet tens of times during 2009-2010.
Why would he erase it? Even back then hard drive space wasn't such a rare commodity only takes a few seconds to backup the wallet. |
|
|
|
8 out of 15 coins on the market cap is now some IPO bullshit ! a sad.. sad... state indeed    It's a paradigm shift |
|
|
|
|
Who cares. Ripple is not a decentralized crypto by design.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is PoW = vulnerable and flawed and can be taken down easily if there is a political will to take it down. Period.
Who's political will do you fear? I don't. But holders of Bitcoin should. |
|
|
|
See, I don't think PoS is the final step. I only consider it more advanced than PoW. Something better than PoS is possible, I don't doubt it. But PoW miners are dead set that PoW is the blessing and use exactly the same arguments against anything else that bankers use against Bitcoin. This is so funny and hypocritical at the same time.
What arguments would those be? Anything to protect their vested interests even though the old technology and/or rules clearly don't cut it any more. |
|
|
|
Are you are suggesting that we just bail out now and sell our coins because of a potential threat? Or are you going to propose countermeasures?
Yes, look for a more secure and intervention-proof crypto technology, Bitcoin is too vulnerable and easy to strike at its core. How does it feel to always live in fear? Many democracies do fail. Does that mean they are not worth fighting for?
Wtf are you talking about? Either you know what will happen and act to put countermeasures against it or you simply are scared and hope it doesn't happen. What I am talking about is really that simple. Bitcoin is PoW = vulnerable and flawed and can be taken down easily if there is a political will to take it down. Period. |
|
|
|
Is nxt better than bitshares?
Try it and decide for yourself, why ask for biased opinions in this thread? |
|
|
|
You are saying that regulators are going to force a particular fork to be legal and others to be illegal based purely on what? If that happened and I were a miner, I would sell my equipment and get out of mining before it happens again.
I am not interested in details, based on what doesn't matter, I am just saying this can be easily done if Bitcoin becomes large enough to be a threat. This can be done with anything in a dictatorship. They could make your blood type currency. You should be careful what you wish for.
You sound like you're in denial. Every time someone tells people what has a high likelihood to happen based on history and they don't like the bitterness of facts, they start blaming the messenger, sticking their collective heads in the sand, that's denial at its best. Do I need to remind you how many times democracies have turned into dictatorships when they were economically devastated? |
|
|
|
Who wants to change the source code to suit the needs of regulators?
Wouldn't large miners (who basically control the network) have to comply with any provision issued to them (including modified code with whatever rules regulators think of to code in there)? Regulators don't bother with this just yet, as they see that Bitcoin is too small and fading away by itself to become irrelevant due to its flaws, and it's cheaper for them socially to just wait it out. But if it didn't fade away and began to grow to threaten the fiat system, be sure, they'd issue this license in a heart beat. When it is a change, that changes how the blockchain works, you would need a hard fork. Users/miners would just have to stay on their old version to not accept it. Alright, users and small miners would stay on their old fork, but large miners that control the network would have to comply with the regulations or shut down operations. Eventually users would have to either sell their Bitcoins (sell them on the old or new fork) or switch to and stay on the new regulated fork as well. What's wrong/impossible with this picture I just drew? You have the incentives wrong. Your mistake is starting with the premise that miners control the network. They don't. The economic majority controls the network. If the economic majority doesn't agree with a change, it won't happen (or last for long). Let's imagine a scenario where a large percentage of the global hash rate wants to implement a change which a large percentage of the economic interests do not want. This group of miners forks Bitcoin. Everyone who has bitcoins at this point now have coins on two chains. They don't want the new forked coins, so they immediately start selling them. The price of the coins on the fork starts to plummet (a majority is selling). If those sellers happen to find buyers for their forked coins, they will now have additional funds which they might use to purchase actual bitcoins. There will be massive (we are assuming an economic majority here) downward pressure on the price of the forked coins, and possible upward pressure on the price of actual bitcoins. You are a miner. You have costs. You may even be in debt for hardware. Are you going to mine the forked coins which are rapidly decreasing in value or bitcoins which are at worst holding at the same value and possibly even increasing in value?This scenario can of course go the opposite way, if the economic majority wants the change, they will liquidate their actual bitcoins and possibly use the proceeds to purchase additional newly forked coins. The point is, the miners are at the whim of those who value the coin. If they try to force changes on the economic majority, they will quickly find themselves mining worthless coins. Prohibition can not stop economic forces (typically quite the opposite). If mining is outlawed, then outlaws will mine. If a coin is valued, people will find a way to mine it, regardless of any legal hurdles. If you're a large mining farm, you're going to mine whatever fork the regulations dictate, if regulations force you to go bankrupt, well, then you will go bankrupt. That's the nature of large businesses, they are easily targeted and regulated. Bitcoin is just too small now, so they don't bother, the whole market cap of Bitcoin is pocket change to them at this point, it's politically not worth raising hell about. The economic majority may as well support the new regulated fork, and the network will keep humming along. But will this new fork be any different from fiat? |
|
|
|
It's just another indication of the bear market, which started at the beginning of 2014 and in all likelihood will go on for another 11-12 months.
Why would the bear market take another year? I don't think any bear market lasted almost 2 full years in bitcoin, why would this one? Basically, the bigger the bubble of the bull market, the longer it takes for the bear market to return to the fair value price. The biggest bubble so far was in 2011, when the price grown about 30x in a couple of months and retracted to 2x in a year. That last one was only 12x and retracted to 3x in a year, so it should've been over by now. I guess it just never repeats any patterns. The bull of 2013 was a run of 15x which retracted to 4x in half a year, so it is not at all predictable. Not the relative price rise, but the absolute price rise has been massive in 2013, this takes time to purge and shake out weak hands. |
|
|
|
It's just another indication of the bear market, which started at the beginning of 2014 and in all likelihood will go on for another 11-12 months.
Why would the bear market take another year? I don't think any bear market lasted almost 2 full years in bitcoin, why would this one? Basically, the bigger the bubble of the bull market, the longer it takes for the bear market to return to the fair value price. |
|
|
|
|
This competition between cryptos and different Proof-of-... is exactly the game of skills, only the fittest will survive.
But it makes sense to review all options available on the market if you're an investor and a user.
If you're a miner, you have no choice but promote PoW to make your living.
|
|
|
|
A big enough stake would earn enough fees or interest (depending on PoS variant) that would cover all life expenses including yachts and mansions, so it will never need to be spent.
Haha, before that happens (it would have to be a huge market cap) something more advanced would surely be invented which would make their huge stakes much less valuable, and people would switch to that more advanced system, provided that crypto currencies survive at all. Same way as more people switch to PoS now, leaving those large holdings of Bitcoins less valuable. See, I don't think PoS is the final step. I only consider it more advanced than PoW. Something better than PoS is possible, I don't doubt it. But PoW miners are dead set that PoW is the blessing and use exactly the same arguments against anything else that bankers use against Bitcoin. This is so funny and hypocritical at the same time. |
|
|
|
Alright, users and small miners would stay on their old fork, but large miners that control the network would have to comply with the regulations or shut down operations. Eventually users would have to either sell their Bitcoins (sell them on the old or new fork) or switch to and stay on the new regulated fork as well. What's wrong/impossible with this picture I just drew?
I could be wrong, but I would imagine that the coins in the new fork would have lesser value than the old fork. For example, if I have relatives living in a "terrorist" country and the new fork does not allow me to remit them money, why would I even use the new fork?Well, for starters, let's imagine that 90% of the hashing power (large miners) switches to the new fork to comply with regulations, where would that leave the old fork? It would make each new block arrive in 2-hour intervals, the difficulty retarget would arrive in 2016 blocks in the worst case, that would be 5 months to wait for normal 10-min blocks or even longer (can't remember how much the max retarget downwards in Bitcoin is allowed). Where would that put the credibility of Bitcoin? In short, it would be a total mess. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
