My thoughts:
Once a crypto-currency contains a mathamatical mechanism that stabalizes the price of its currency then we will start seeing mass adoption and a true alternative to FIAT. This can be achieved by dynamically changing the supply of currency units instead of the value per currency unit. This system would prevent both inflation and deflation.
Once this happens, bitcoin will no longer be a viable option as a safe and stable storage of wealth or method of transaction.
Once a crytpo currency uses market forces to stabalize the purchasing power then we will start seeing mass adoption. You are essentially suggesting that we need monetary inflation and deflation to stave off price inflation and deflation. That is the wrong route. We need neither type of inflation and deflation. We need to go back to sound money, with the backing for that money coming from crypto-assets that have a stable supply. Are you suggesting backing money with bitcoin instead of backing money with gold like we used to? We would be back to square one, where people would be issuing more money than what they have backed by bitcoin. OR Are you saying backing bitcoin with crypto-assets? Backing anything (i.e. crypto-assets) requires us trusting the owner of that asset, which would also take us back to square one. I'm saying create a p2p network like bitcoin that has its own crypto asset like bitcoin but is not distributed through mining and maintains a set or more stable money supply. Embedded in this network is a banking system that creates debt instruments (collateralize by the underlying equity of the network) that can be used as currency. There is a reason why we have historically used debt as currency, because it is stable. You invest/save through equity and you spend through debt. A crypto-currency backed by another crypto-currency? That's like saying backing silver with gold. These things don't need to be backed by anything because they have intrinsic value in themselves. Doing this to force debt does not make any logical sense. Crypto-currencies such as bitcoin are only unstable relative to USD or EUR..etc. Once they are the only currency in town, then their will be no price stabilization issue and people won't be forced to create useless goods and services by destroying the planet in order to keep this debt based economy alive. I prefer a scenario where people are actually able to store their economic power than force to spend/use it due to the way the economy works. No you've entirely misunderstood, both my statements and the economic reality. I'm saying back crypto-debt with crypto-equity and use that debt as a currency because you can achieve any measure of price stability through debt instruments. What I'm trying to say is create a digital banking system that offers its clients the option of storing value in whatever asset they want. Collateralize the value of the debt with the equity of the network. You do realize that money is debt? You give the bank your collateral. They hold on to it and they give you a claim to your collateral. When banking first started, you gave the banker your gold and got a promissory note from the bank. Now you give the bank your fiat currency and the promissory note comes in the form of a debit card. In the digital banking system you give the bank your collateral and they give you a promissory note (crypto-currency) not for the collateral but for the purchasing power power of a specified asset. Lets say I have a 1 btc ($436) but I do not like the volatility of bitcoin. I put my bitcoin in the bank and get back a crypto-currency form of the usd, so I have 436 crypto-usd. If the price of bitcoin falls it doesnt matter to me because I have claim to $436 worth of bitcoin. I simply end up with more bitcoin than I started off with. If the price of bitcoin rises well then I end up with less bitcoin than I started off with but still maintain the purchasing power of $435 usd. Money has throughout most of history been debt and that is not a bad thing. But as you have alluded to, debt plays a very perverse role in our society. As I mentioned early I think the proper use for debt is money and not financing production, which should be done through equity. Also I have said nothing about forcing people to do things. It is simply in there best interest to use crypto currencies that have the users desired purchasing power. Crypto currencies will become mainstream when they have all the properties of bitcoin but maintain the price stability of the dollar. |
|
|
|
Digital currencies themselves can be Fiat. Why does Dogecoin have a larger capitalization than an innovative coin like NxT or layered improvements like Mastercoin / Counterparty? Why does BTC and LTC maintain their position ~ despite hordes of technically better coins?
It seems to me community is king for currencies. Bitcoin may have an infamous reputation among the mainstream but it frankly hasn't had a serious challenger to date.
Yes you are right, value is subjective, but at a certain point you have face the objective reality of scarcity. The usd is just as overvalued as dogecoin because of the community behind it, but just like the usd will inevitably go to zero so will dogecoin. |
|
|
|
My thoughts:
Once a crypto-currency contains a mathamatical mechanism that stabalizes the price of its currency then we will start seeing mass adoption and a true alternative to FIAT. This can be achieved by dynamically changing the supply of currency units instead of the value per currency unit. This system would prevent both inflation and deflation.
Once this happens, bitcoin will no longer be a viable option as a safe and stable storage of wealth or method of transaction.
Once a crytpo currency uses market forces to stabalize the purchasing power then we will start seeing mass adoption. You are essentially suggesting that we need monetary inflation and deflation to stave off price inflation and deflation. That is the wrong route. We need neither type of inflation and deflation. We need to go back to sound money, with the backing for that money coming from crypto-assets that have a stable supply. Are you suggesting backing money with bitcoin instead of backing money with gold like we used to? We would be back to square one, where people would be issuing more money than what they have backed by bitcoin. OR Are you saying backing bitcoin with crypto-assets? Backing anything (i.e. crypto-assets) requires us trusting the owner of that asset, which would also take us back to square one. I'm saying create a p2p network like bitcoin that has its own crypto asset like bitcoin but is not distributed through mining and maintains a set or more stable money supply. Embedded in this network is a banking system that creates debt instruments (collateralize by the underlying equity of the network) that can be used as currency. There is a reason why we have historically used debt as currency, because it is stable. You invest/save through equity and you spend through debt. |
|
|
|
Understand what bitcoin really is, start with the whitepaper. Then, get in.
Understand what money is, before you invest in a new conception of money. |
|
|
|
listen to warren buffett and don't fall victim to irrational exuberance
I forgot - when you inform yourself, don't listen to the uninformed clowns. I've never met a clown with a $60 bill net worth, have you? |
|
|
|
My thoughts:
Once a crypto-currency contains a mathamatical mechanism that stabalizes the price of its currency then we will start seeing mass adoption and a true alternative to FIAT. This can be achieved by dynamically changing the supply of currency units instead of the value per currency unit. This system would prevent both inflation and deflation.
Once this happens, bitcoin will no longer be a viable option as a safe and stable storage of wealth or method of transaction.
Once a crytpo currency uses market forces to stabalize the purchasing power then we will start seeing mass adoption. You are essentially suggesting that we need monetary inflation and deflation to stave off price inflation and deflation. That is the wrong route. We need neither type of inflation and deflation. We need to go back to sound money, with the backing for that money coming from crypto-assets that have a stable supply. |
|
|
|
|
listen to warren buffett and don't fall victim to irrational exuberance
|
|
|
|
How many of you people go out and buy Bitcoins and then use those Bitcoins to make a purchase? I'd be willing to bet none of you do because it's too difficult to make it worthwhile and if you do you just increased the cost of your purchase.
That's a bet you will lose quickly: yesterday 50,000 bitcoins were spent. For me it is much easier to make a purchase and I have decreased the total cost. This is probably one of the most fallacious post I've ever read. Yesterday 50,000 bitcoins were transacted, which is not the same as saying 50,000 bitcoins were spent. |
|
|
|
Everyone wants this its just misinformed ppl like you that do not know it yet.
When the United States was created, many people wanted to ban lawyers from holding office because they work in their own, esoteric, artificial system, and it would give too much power and advantage over the common man. The same thing is basically true with modern financial markets. People want to make them as complicated as possible so only their little cult can utilize them and reign over people. Most of everything going on in legal and financial arenas is fake, artificial, and should not exist. The only reason it does exist, is men with guns from the government enforce it. Non-tyrannical models of economics and legality follow Occam's Razor. I completely agree. Economics is much simpler than economic pundits make it out to be. The crony capitalists maintain their power through misinformation on the simplest of economic concepts - most notably money.Interest is also basically a form of slavery when taken into proper context, but might be required to make Bitcoin work in the long run. It's pretty sad you see no Bitcoin devs talking about ANY PHILOSOPHICAL principals behind their systems. The closest thing I've seen is Gavin posting a twitter about non-zero sum games. I don't remember if the article was good or bad, but still. I think you mean to say that debt is a form of slavery in the proper context - a sentiment I once again agree with. Today we have a debt laden society. But debt nor interest are bad, it is simply a matter of their use. You could say nuclear energy is bad because you can create wmd, but by the same token, you can use it to power whole nations - look at france. |
|
|
|
Everyone wants this its just misinformed ppl like you that do not know it yet.
No, my statement was more in reference to most Bitcoin people being completely against existing financial models, and you're talking about trying to shove as much of that as possible into Bitcoin. Most bitcoin ppl don't know good financial models vs bad financial models, which is why they tout bitcoin as a crypto-currency when it is most appropriately categorized as crypto-equity. Anything can be a currency, but the most viable currencies have always been debt instruments because they bear the greatest price stability. Thus until we have crypto-debt we will not have viable crypto-currencies that rival existing currencies. A decentralized bank is how we create viable crypto-currencies. If you want to see widespread adoption of crypto-currencies then you are for this innovation, whether you know it or not. |
|
|
|
|
proof of work is inherently wasteful. all proof of whatever systems "solve" the byzantine generals problem. the reason why proof of work systems have the largest portion of the market is because they are easiest to construct, but are not necessarily the best way of coming to consensus. less costly, more scalable systems that use an alternative to pow will eventually eclipse those systems that use it.
also all of these 'coins' constitute a form of equity and as such they are not viable currencies. anything can be used as a currency but what makes for a viable currency is price stability. this is why currencies as we know them have always been debt instruments. until there is a system that issues debt using the equity (coins) of the network as collateral we wont see widespread adoption of cryptocurrencies.
|
|
|
|
heres one that has the highest probability of long-term viability (whatever your definition of long term may be after a little research you may feel the same way too) http://myriad.theblockexplorer.com/looked into it, mining is asinine, so i would have to say that this isn't a long-term viability |
|
|
|
Will be replaced by the next great innovation and will watch their market share dwindle down to nothing.  MySpace is a company, Bitcoin is a protocol The internet is a protocol, nothing similar to the internet preceded it and nothing similar will replace it. The protocol will simply be updated. Same will happen with bitcoin, the protocol will be updated where necessary and nothing needs to replace it. The infrastructure around bitcoin is too large to just be replaced every few years, it took years to build and it's far from complete. No way merchants, banks, exchanges etc. will change to the newest altcoin all the time just for some random functionality that bitcoin doesn't have but the altcoin does or claims to have, it will be far too costly, it's far easier to just update the bitcoin protocol and no infrastructure needs to be changed drastically. Doesn't matter. People are fickle. The newness will wear off and something else will come along or something will happen that makes people want to move on. The infrastructure for WAMU and many other banks was too big to be replaced too. Except they're gone. Actually WAMU wasn't replaced it was absorbed into chase. |
|
|
|
Will be replaced by the next great innovation and will watch their market share dwindle down to nothing. MySpace is a company, Bitcoin is a protocol The internet is a protocol, nothing similar to the internet preceded it and nothing similar will replace it. The protocol will simply be updated. Same will happen with bitcoin, the protocol will be updated where necessary and nothing needs to replace it. The infrastructure around bitcoin is too large to just be replaced every few years, it took years to build and it's far from complete. No way merchants, banks, exchanges etc. will change to the newest altcoin all the time just for some random functionality that bitcoin doesn't have but the altcoin does or claims to have, it will be far too costly, it's far easier to just update the bitcoin protocol and no infrastructure needs to be changed drastically. Bitcoin is a peer2peer network that has a protocol, just like the internet is a network that has a protocol. These are organization and their protocol is their governing structure, in the same way that governments and companies have their own constitutions. For you to say that nothing similar to the internet preceded it is fundamentally wrong, it simple produces more value than any of its antecedents. Also you clearly are not aware of the tech behind the infrastructure of bitcoin. It is trivial to replace bitcoin with an alternative. There is nothing costly about it. What is not trivial is updating the bitcoin protocol... not because of the coding required but because of politics. |
|
|
|
|
everyone uses decentralized banks so that crypto currencies have the purchsing power of whatever asset you want. every store accepts crypto currencies.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think you understand the economics well enough to be an authoritative voice. Dan Larimer certainly has a high iq. I go to the most prestigious college in the world. I too have a high iq. I don't know why you are trying to make it about intellectual capacity when that misses the point. Bitcoin is an expression of decentralized consensus. Capitalism is the same type of decentralized consensus through a resource-democracy. If you have missed the parallelism between pow, pos, and all other resource democracies you cannot speak intelligently about cryptocurrencies and their viability. I really wish you would add to the discussion instead of bashing things that you do not understand.
|
|
|
|
|
Just because you do not understand how it works does not mean that it is not a valuable technological advancement. Most people that use computers and the internet do not know how they work. Most people that use banks do not know how banks work. The point of bitcoin is to decentralize these service that were created in a centralized manner. It doesn't really matter if ppl understand how the centralized systems work vs the decentralized systems, in the end ppl will gravitate to the technology that brings about the greatest efficiency and value.
As to your suggestion that no one "likes " this product, you are terribly misinformed. Everyone even the traders on wallstreet are distrusting of our current banking system and are looking for an alternative. Clearly those in the bitcoin community are even more distrusting. If you have been paying attention to bitcoin over the past few years you would understand that a decentalized exchange is the holy grail of the crypto currency space. It is the sine quo non of the financial renaissance. Everyone wants this its just misinformed ppl like you that do not know it yet.
|
|
|
|
I read through a lot of it, but didn't see any remarks about Bitshares seems to be going for an IPO and how Sunny King feels about that. After 6-12 months of intense, public discussion: Sunny King: "I haven't read much about your work yet..." bytemaster: "assuming it works". Sunny knows it's (a) full of holes and (b) too complicated anyway. There is a reason Financial Markets do not take this type of "prediction market" shortcut... Because you can only do price discovery if both sides take on full risk... It might work OK in a quiet market... but will break down under high volatility. Your assertions do not make logical sense. First of all, Sunny King clearly states that he hasn't looked into bitshares and dpos. Why are you trying to put words in his mouth? Why do you claim to understand Financial Markets when you do not? This 'prediction market shortcut' is present in the financial markets. Its essentially a contract for difference. The only difference with this system, is that instead of being an otc derivative this contract for difference initiates the creation of a fungible derivative asset. How would high volatility every be bad. It simply means that the market is more liquid and accurate price discovery can happen more efficiently. Price discovery will happen for this asset as it happens for any asset that is freely exchanged. Price discovery is not hampered by asymmetric risk, the risk simply gets factored into the price of the asset in the same way that the cost of providing any good gets factored into the market price of that good. |
|
|
|
When I said counterparty equivalent I meant something with a fair distribution. If you see all the next generation projects you find the underlying theme, greed of the developers. I think developers should be greedy but they shouldn't be dishonest and try to claim they are not. NXT, MSC, Ripple, Ethereum has all shown this tendency and Bitshares is following the same path.
How is counterparty more fair? Because it used proof of burn? That doesn't make anything about their crowd funding model more fair that just means that the developers can't use any of that money to help with development. How is the bitshares fundraiser not the most fair? It was announce well in advance and the duration of the fundraiser is longer than any other to date. You can mine pts, you can buy pts, you can donate btc, you can donate pts. There are so many ways to get an allocation in the snapshot. And as previously mentioned the daily allocation of 10,000 allows smaller players to accumulate more stake than they might otherwise.
You all awarded awarded yourselves all the Bitshares X 2-3 months back even though there is nothing there even now. Why would you do that, except to maximise your share? You have a silent fundraiser with your buddies, award yourselves all the shares and now say keep donating to us in the hope that some others will honour it and you will get something.
Bitshares X is a year in the making. There have been several posts here at bitcointalk regarding the Feb 28th snapshot for Bitshares X. Its not a silent fundraiser simply because you did not take the time to look into bitshares. Bitsharestalk.org is the second most active forum only after bitcointalk.org. Theres a huge community of supporters and it continues to grow.
I don't know if you all seriously believe in what you seeing. It would be difficult for you to realise the con your developers are pulling out because you all will profit a lot from it. You all are doing your part now by trying to promote now. In the past few weeks I have heard quite a bit about this DPOS, and it seems thats because you now need others to know to increased demand.
In the past few weeks you should have heard quite a bit about DPOS its revolutionary and the concept only came out about a month ago. The reason for the delay in the bitshares x software is largely due to the newly found realization of how to secure the block chain at the lowest cost.
|
|
|
|
Invictus recommends to all developers using the Bitshares codebase to honor BTS PTS (aka Protoshares) holders with at least 10% as well as BTS AGS holders with at least 10%. Bitshares XT is tested at the moment. You can look at it here and test it yourself https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4480.0;topicseen I knew Protoshares was the IPO coin, but didn't know about the other coin. The prices are much lower than what they used to be so its quite a good bargain being informed late  You are awarding 10% at the start as IPO. How are you distributing the remaining 90%? If you have another IPO for that I would be interested. Whatever you do, make it a fair one, even a proof of burn style process as Counterparty is the only new project which has any credibility. Look at what happens when you invest in a unfair distribution with greedy developers like that of Mastercoin, you get screwed as they try and make their money through deals with third party like Maidsafe. Agree! (Perceived) Fairness correlates with how many people know about the possibilities, that is why the principle is to be as transparent as possible and make threads also here on BTT like this one. Everyone is welcome to join on our forums. Also Daniel and the whole team goes to conferences regularly to make Bitshares known as much as possible. We also head a lot of mainstream media coverage. The rule is to give at least 10% to PTS/AGS. It is up to the developer of a DAC that uses Bitshares codebase to decide which allocation gets him the most support for his project. Mostly it is more than 10% for PTS/AGS... With Bitshares X it was even 50/50. The snapshot for Bitshares X took place on the 28. February. There where delays due to problems with Bitshares X out of which DPOS came out as a solution. We discussed the Maidsafe fiasco here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4090.0 Finally the real reason for all the sudden interest comes out. You and your group awarded all to yourselves and are now promoting it. I don't know whether you really believe what you wrote in that post is it part of the act. I don't think you developers should work for free, but you should be honest. If you want to award even 50%, state that clearly and others will still support. Trying to keep it hidden, awarding yourselves all and claiming it was fair later on won't fool us here. We have seen enough to spot when it happens. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised as Bitshares are closely linked to the Ethereum group who even with all their advertising efforts couldn't fool the community with their IPO. Good luck with your project. Its very interesting and anything which can emerge as an alternative to the cartel has my support. I will just wait for a Counterparty equivalent of your project. I think you have misunderstood. The Bitshares X (the first family of DAC's) allocation is 50% to pts holders and 50% to ags holders. The developers are not directly being allocated equity. The only equity that the developers receive is that which they have paid for through pts or ags like everyone else. This "crowdfunding" method is without a doubt more transparent and fair than any of the alternatives. You can still buy or mine pts very cheaply, and you can still donate to ags addresses. Ags is particularly fair since the daily allocation of 10,000 ags split among donators proportional to their donations encourages those with greater funding capital to spread their donations over several days, which serves to increase the stake accumulated by smaller investors per day. There won't be a Counterparty equivalent to the project. Bitshares DAC's use their own blockchains which allows for greater flexibility in what these DAC's can do. DPOS as explained before is a faster method of coming to consensus than pow mining. Any counterparty "equivalent" would be subject to the same slow transaction speeds as bitcoin. Additionally, its not feasible for counterparty to implement a bank an exchange like bitshares x on top of the bitcoin blockchain. Lastly, counterparty doesn't have enough funding because they decided to go with a proof of burn allocation model which is counterproductive. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
