Part of the issue is that they refused to get us a persistent donation address, so they only address we could get would technically only be valid for 15 min. Would support for stealth addresses fix that problem? |
|
|
|
This is pretty much the limiting factor. As a rough barometer, I think I saw some poll of investors recently that said ~55% of them thought bitcoin was a terrible investment, or that it was in a bubble. Further increases in value would only reinforce this position for some of those folk, would it not? You want a certain number of people to remain sceptical of Bitcoin for as long as possible, especially among the people who lend USD. Is there a single event, or chain of events that would change this perception, or do we watch the number slowly fall until the remainder can't stem the tide? Hyperbitcoinization is the last bubble in the USD/BTC exchange rate. All the prior speculative manias collapse when the infrastructure can no longer handle the growth and Bitcoin holders sell in order to "lock in their gains" One of these times (we won't know which one until after the fact) the risk perception of BTC vs fiat will invert such that Bitcoin will be regarded as the safe asset. Once that happens, the bubble doesn't pop because it becomes less about the rise of Bitcoin and instead is the flight to safety away from the USD (fiat in general). |
|
|
|
|
It's already a no-brainer to borrow long term in USD and buy and hold BTC.
What we're waiting for to see hyperbitcoinization is for that knowledge to rapidly spread through the pool of potential borrowers.
|
|
|
|
When it becomes a no lose scenario to borrow USD to buy bitcoin, then the whole thing will implode at the speed of banking.
Since Bitcoin began trading on exchanges, how many 365 day periods exist where would you end up with a loss if you had borrowed USD at typical credit card rates, vs the number in which you'd end up with a gain? |
|
|
|
Haha, I see what you're getting at, but certainly if the Fed just came out and said the USD will be dead sometime in the next decade and bitcoin might replace it, It still wouldn't happen overnight. There would be a date for those circumstances as well, and that would be the worst case scenario.
So, assuming they are never going to say that, and some people will dismiss this rumor, and they can delay with regulation, etc. There is some kind of date that might account for all these circumstances? I'm not a researcher, but I imagine that I would try to create different variables for all of these things, if I were...
It's something that can only be known in retrospect. Once you have positive feedback loops in a system(*), you're outside the domain of linear predictions and into chaos theory. The act of measuring the system to obtain dates introduces new knowledge, which changes behaviour, which invalidates your prior measurements. (*)simplified, the actual mathematical conditions for chaos are a bit more involved. |
|
|
|
how can we be sure that these dates do not account for that? Because they can't. It would create a logical paradox. The existence of the prediction inevitably changes the basis of the prediction. |
|
|
|
There's some question about the authenticity of that posts, but assuming it's true, I can see one thing I bet his analysis missed: Our best case scenarios are modeled upon current bitcoin adoption rates which have simulated a tipping point for the year 2026 (worst case 2021); this time frame projects the Fed (via the dollar) to lose its dominant global monetary policy maker status - instead everything will superceded by bitcoin. The mere existence of this kind of knowledge sets up a positive feedback loop. When the insiders know the game will be over between 2021 and 2026, some of them will start moving for the exits with a goal of being out by that time. The actions of insiders to exit from a collapsing system by nature accelerate the process of collapse. The insiders will notice the acceleration, and everyone who is preparing their exit will accordingly accelerate their plans. This causes further acceleration of the collapse... If that Reddit post is true, then the tipping point will arrive much sooner than 2021. |
|
|
|
Also, I love the idea of a DIY Bitmessage-Mail-gateway on my own hardware. Is there anything out there already? All the pieces exist if you know how to put them together. If you're running your own mail server, then you can run Bitmessage in daemon mode and use bmwrapper to add a POP/SMTP interface that your stack can interface with. |
|
|
|
http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/im-hoarding-bitcoins-and-no-you-cant-have-any/ One of the most annoying things about Bitcoin is that it’s so convenient to make payments with it that sometimes it is extremely tempting to spend it and avoid the hassle of using dollars. One of the ways to help deal with the temptation to spend is to demand a Bitcoin discount at any store that accepts Bitcoin. This is perfectly reasonable because not only is the store lowering its own costs by using Bitcoin, but it is asking me to give up an inherently superior commodity.
Hoarders are more important than merchants. If a restaurant downtown starts accepting bitcoins, this does not necessarily create an incentive for anybody to buy more bitcoins. Why would anyone bother if they can still just use a credit card? If you can convince a merchant to accept bitcoins and stop accepting dollars, then I’ll be impressed.
Unless a merchant is offering something that cannot be bought for dollars, or at least offering a discount, he is only benefiting Bitcoin to the extent that he encourages more hoarding. If he immediately converts the bitcoins he receives as payment into dollars, and if his customers only buy bitcoins so as to spend them at his shop shortly thereafter, then neither has much direct effect on Bitcoin’s demand. The real hero is the hoarder behind the scenes who buys from the merchant and enables him to convert his payments into dollars.
|
|
|
|
There is no reason that all payments couldn't be done with this kind of address— assuming it was well constructed, and users would be much less private if only a narrow usecase uses them. So the entire Bitcoin ecosystem should wait around for your NIH solution to be ready instead of taking advantage of the immediate improvement that's available right now? |
|
|
|
Already we seem to have not learned from the experience with this kind of address in Bytecoin/Monero/etc.— Payment IDs are an important feature but also a usability challenge with the way they're implemented in BCN/XMR/.... Right now with the way dark wallet implements this if you ask two different parties to pay you with the same address and only one of them does, you cannot tell which one paid you. How is this any different than the problem we have right now without stealth addresses? 1) Some merchant uses a blockchain.info wallet containing a single address to accept payments (yes, people really do this). 2) They give the address to two customers. 3) Only one customer pays. 4) Merchant doesn't know which customer paid without asking them. It doesn't make sense to delay stealth addresses because they don't solve every problem. |
|
|
|
|
Maybe they need to be renamed to "tip addresses" or something to make sure people don't use them in situations where they are not appropriate.
|
|
|
|
Already we seem to have not learned from the experience with this kind of address in the Bytecoin/Monero space— the payment IDs are an important feature but also a usability challenge with the way they're implemented there. Right now with the way dark wallet implements this if you ask two different parties to pay you with the same address and only one of them does, you cannot tell which one paid you. I don't think stealth addresses are ever going to be appropriate for anything other than online tip jars. They do a great job in that role. If you want to know who has paid you, then you should give them an xpub specific to them and let them use that from that point on. See my comment on this gist: https://gist.github.com/ryanxcharles/1c0f95d0892b4a92d70a |
|
|
|
|
In addition, stealth addresses only need to be better than the current standard of "publish a static address that anyone can look up in blockchain.info" in order to represent an improvement. The only thing they could possibly get wrong and be worse than what we have now is leak private keys.
|
|
|
|
New address types should not see widespread use without extensive review for cryptographic and privacy weaknesses and functionality footguns. This really needs a clear specification. All true, and at the same time we don't want this to turn into a Waiting for Godot situation. "Inadequate review" could be a great excuse to pigeonhole the functionality indefinitely. |
|
|
|
From IRC: 2014-08-04T16:12:34 <@jrick>I marked the issue as low prio for now since there are just other things that need to happen first, but I would like to see support for it in btcwallet |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
