What's interesting about this thread that now people start defending HODL bullshit spammers who aren't even engaged in this practice but are behind the same ideology. Or is it because you just have to respond to everything I post?

I don't.

The context of the rest of my post.

Just for you: everbodymost people spamming HODL, I don't say all of them, necessarily there might be a few who do it for various other reasons, but when it comes down to it, on the subconscious level I think it is true for the vast majority.

Out of context it certainly looks that way.

Ok the HODL bullshit has gone long enough.

What it boils down to is the price of Bitcoins has risen to such an extent that most people can't afford them. (notice the plural here guys!)
This results in the current situation: Everybody is sitting on their capital gains and spam the HODL bullshit all over the forum in the hopes that other people don't realize their gains. From this perspective it even makes sense to spam the forum with HODL you are currently in the process of liquidating. Withdraw limits from the exchanges make it necessary to keep the charade up as long as possible.

Will Bitcoins be even more expensive in the future? Possibly.
Does the HODL bullshit have anything to do with it? Certainly not.

The last few posts before this one are so full of hubris.

bitcoinica 2.0

Thanks for the reply Blitz.

If you reconsider, you might look over to the altcoin forum, which even had 3 different subsections added. That said perhaps think of this as another subforum in the economics section rather than strictly speculation.

FIXED

Yes, plastic is almost kind of revolutionary, it made it much cheaper to make certain object which used to be made of wood or metal. But it didn't really lead to drastic changes in a sense that enabling things that were not only too expensive but unthinkable.
Electricity is not really an invention, it's a concept out of physics. Electric generators provide it, well there used to be batteries before that but they didn't really lead to drastic changes.
Of course some things on your list were important, getting into that isn't really the point of the debate here so I think we can leave it at that.

The rest of your post is sadly double speak. Distributed Blockchain ledgers and hash based proof of work is the innovation if you will, but Bitcoin is the product. It already comes with the ledger, which isn't really nessecary, so I say it's a product, not a protocol, if you strip the ledger you have a protocol (altcoins are using it) the rest is software.
It's not even an invention, in computing some progress in computer science is an invention. FFT for example, or more fundamental kernel bootstrap. Then you have applications, Linux for example or you have standards, like POSIX.
So:
The Bitcoin white-paper describes a standard for a protocol, like a RFC. (This raises the question why wasn't it published as an rfc...?)
Bitcoin is two different things: A proof of concept implementation of the protocol described in the white-paper and the product of the satoshi genesis block ledger (and perhaps this community)

I'm glad
There is also a more laymans term blog post which doesn't take as much of your time to boil it down.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/08/03/the_monetary_base_is_irrelevant.html

This is also not true. But please post the infamous currency base+excess reserves hockey stick chart. It's already debunked, and even the FED itself published an article specifically about this misleading claim.
Do you want a link?

bullshit

600watt,

Those are important inventions which influenced the world very much yes, but they haven't really revolutionized anything. Just made existing things more efficient.

Bitcoin is neither of those things. It could be a stepping stone to something that might qualify into the important category but on it's own it falls short of that and even the level before it.
The ponzi scheme accusation highlights one of it's major shortcoming: There is no correlation between it's perceived value and the amount of economic activity.

Also it's more a product than an invention, I know you don't wanna hear it but you can't deny it if you are honest.

For me money is a shared accounting system where each unit represents a certain amount of economic activity. Fiat Currency is the only money currently.
Gold wasn't money for example, but gold ducats were. (Only certain mints were allowed to make them).


Perhaps we would have it on some dial up bbs instead?

Of course, though I wouldn't include The Internet.

A digital asset is not money.

It provides a digital asset under exclusive personal control and non-reversible transactions.

That's a new thing, but it's not revolutionary. Revolutionary is when a novelty changes the way the world economy works.

Revolutionary inventions to date:
Engines working on the Carnot cycle.
Electric Motor/Generator.
Chemical fertilizer.
Transistor.

that's pretty much it.

I don't see any revolutionary changes. The only thing is some people, especially satoshi have revolutionary capital gains... on paper.

Revolutionary would be to see the level of economic growth happening which is implied by it's price. A revolutionary currency could for example provide a closed loop economy instantly, or have each unit correspond to the same amount of value every time, or....

The satoshi deserves this and that argument is hogwash.