|
Estimates for total market cap potential of bitcoin are as interesting as they are wide-ranging.
At the low end we have today's range $6-10 billion if bitcoin just does what it does today and nothing else.
At the highest end we have replacement of large swathes of the global monetary systems, financial assets and undiscovered uses from bitcoin's extensible nature ... $80-100 trillion range.
|
|
|
|
I know some speculators reverted to fiat at the end of the year because of accounting/taxation uncertainties in previous years. If these uncertainties have been cleared up it might be less selling pressure towards the end of the month than I originally feared.
Or I could be talking out of my ass. Who knows?
I'm actually specifically waiting till 2016 before I do any fiat/btc exchanges, for tax purposes. I'd prefer not to do any trading at all, but if there's a move I might trade on margin. ... by 2040 the vast majority of bitcoins will have been 'mined' into existence. The next 24 years are critical. |
|
|
|
An anti-fragile, censorship-resistant money ought to have no single points of failure and no central authority. The state isn't the only center of power in society. Concentrated private capital is another, and in many ways the state is our protector from its excesses.
What kind of governance model do you think is best suited to protect Bitcoin from abuses by private capital (corporate interests)?
Craftily selected the wedge issue of governance and placed capital corporate power versus State. Knowing full well tvbcof has expressed anti-capitalist sentiments in the past? |
|
|
|
Who could have thought the governance of an open-source protocol would be so political...
Because it's money, people will lose their mind and become animals when money is involved  People are political animals. Money is power, and Bitcoin changes the fundamental nature of money. Man is by nature a political animal. The centralization of the knowledge is the problem here, if everyone could easily understand what is going on then there will be no problem, so it is extremely important to keep the solution easy to understand for majority of users, e.g. decentralize the knowledge. And from this point of view, 2MB block is the most viable solution that can be understood by majority of users The problem seems to be that the number of vocal users outweighs the IQ and experience of the node operators. A type of "Long September" effect as bitcoin edges into the mainstream. In earlier times there was never any disagreement on the way ahead because it was logically apparent to all concerned (not that many of us). It's the flaw of democracy when you let it run it's natural course, you end up with things like politicians legislating the numerical value of Pi. |
|
|
|
UPDATE: SwampNode is up and running BitcoinXT on dedicated hardware. If you have a better solution, I'd like to hear it, but it had better be soon. We're getting full blocks daily now. Before long it will be hourly and then every damn one. You can imagine what happens to bitcoin price when the only offramp from the exchanges is fiat. Only it won't just be one exchange. It will be all of them.
You seem alarmed. 3 of 5 core devs are (I believe) in principle opposed to bigger blocks, and are by conflict of interest disincentivised to buckle. Problem? This is wrong, (intentionally?). The five core devs with commit access were: Gavin A. Greg M. Jeff G. Pieter W. Wladimir vdL Only 2 of 5 have now an affiliation with a commercial enterprise. Now Greg has rescinded commit access that is 1 of 4. The technical problem of how to establish a fee market for future security has still not been solved. Hard-forking before a long-term solution gains broad consensus is dangerous. Gmaxwell's roadmap for increasing the network capacity has good consensus and is the most logical way forward. Solutions for the long-term will gradually become more apparent as it approaches but a better solution is always only 1 lightbulb moment away. Discounting human ingenuity in favour of mediocre workarounds will doom you to losing money. |
|
|
|
I'm a firefighter. You can't put out a conflagration with a garden hose, no matter how much water you have in the tank. Capacity matters.
As a firefighter, do you also have cantankerous, intransigent, opinionated positions on technical details of the electricity network grid, the railway network, the telecomms infrastructure or interstate traffic systems? |
|
|
|
|
ok ... the overnight model runs are in and the news looks good.
456 was expected to be an important number and looks to have confirmed. 500 is a pressure point but not an important number as such, 600 equally weighted.
620 is an important number ... strangely there doesn't seem to be much else between ATH 1250 ish (pressure point) and then important number 1666!
|
|
|
|
Back when Proudhon was the resident shitposter I wonder what happened to him  IIRC, Proudhon said he'd found all the trolling he was doing had an unfortunate effect on him and decided to stop. Rather respectable, really. haha, he trolled so hard he actually turned himself into a bitcoin hater ... and then hated himself. |
|
|
|
we'll likely go past the gold price before hitting the new ATH this time around. Probably more hype cycles in there ...  |
|
|
|
You worry too much.  ... it's know as concern trolling in the business. She doesn't actually care, she's just here to deceive with FUD through feigned of "worry' and "concern". |
|
|
|
Bitcoin does not scale efficiently, but it certainly can scale. We just need to increase the blocksize. To answer your question, this does require a hard fork, hard forks are the only way to increase the blocksize.
Hard forks are also an important governance mechanism within Bitcoin which allow us to resolve fundamental differences and disagreements, even if that might mean splitting Bitcoin, at least that is better then tyranny of the majority. ... these are your talking points, and the limit of your understanding of what you think you know about bitcoin, let alone anything of the technology. You are doing an admirable job of banging on incessantly, in the way of propaganda, upon these points but nothing else, nor adding to any solutions. Go invent your own altcoin if you hate the Core developers with such venom. Engineering projects are inevitably the worse off when politicians and lawyers try to politicise the technology. If you want to use a monetary system that has been politicised and legislated to death, use the US Federal Reserve's debt notes system. |
|
|
|
...
How secure should the network be? What's the sweet spot between cost and security?
The 'optimum' network security level is a variable that should increase with an increase in network value, since it is safe-guarding more as value increases. We're currently paying ~10% of the network's worth, per year, to secure it. In other words, we're paying $1 to store $10 for a year. 1. Is this optimal? 2. If a bank charged you 10%, yearly, to store your money, would you use it? ... you've conflated the issuance of scarce tokens, that will be in circulation in perpetuity facilitating all future transactions, with the cost of securing of the network. Cost of issuing tokens, you say? OK, I'll rephrase: Would you use a bank which charged you 10% of your balance, yearly, to secure your money & print 'USDtokens' (which it would distribute to people other than yourself)? If they could cryptographically prove they were only ever going to issue 21million of those USDtokens, and that proof was backed by the security of the largest distributed hashing power on the planet, maybe I would. And if they just said "look, it's not in our best interest to ever issue more than 21M tokens, because reasons," would you still? What if their word was backed by a shitton of Chinese hardware, capable of doing one thing and one thing only, and already nearly obsolete? ... now you've gone so far into hypotheticals that your analogy has been stretched beyond its usefulness and your arguments are simply ridiculously incomprehensible. |
|
|
|
...
How secure should the network be? What's the sweet spot between cost and security?
The 'optimum' network security level is a variable that should increase with an increase in network value, since it is safe-guarding more as value increases. We're currently paying ~10% of the network's worth, per year, to secure it. In other words, we're paying $1 to store $10 for a year. 1. Is this optimal? 2. If a bank charged you 10%, yearly, to store your money, would you use it? ... you've conflated the issuance of scarce tokens, that will be in circulation in perpetuity facilitating all future transactions, with the cost of securing of the network. Cost of issuing tokens, you say? OK, I'll rephrase: Would you use a bank which charged you 10% of your balance, yearly, to secure your money & print 'USDtokens' (which it would distribute to people other than yourself)? If they could cryptographically prove they were only ever going to issue 21million of those USDtokens, and that proof was backed by the security of the largest distributed hashing power on the planet, maybe I would. |
|
|
|
...
How secure should the network be? What's the sweet spot between cost and security?
The 'optimum' network security level is a variable that should increase with an increase in network value, since it is safe-guarding more as value increases. We're currently paying ~10% of the network's worth, per year, to secure it. In other words, we're paying $1 to store $10 for a year. 1. Is this optimal? 2. If a bank charged you 10%, yearly, to store your money, would you use it? ... you've conflated the income from the issuance of scarce tokens, that will be in circulation in perpetuity facilitating all future transactions, with the cost of securing the network. |
|
|
|
Wha wha wha so many whiny bears, you carry on talking about irrelevant bids and asks and ignore the bigger picture, be my guest. But but blocks lol
Halving.
Difficulty increase.
Increased interest.
These are things that are affecting price. I fully expect to see nearer to $100mil in leverage longs when this really starts bubbling.
Good point. Because everyone wants to use a currency they can't use because it doesn't work  It works perfectly. You'll need to pay for what you use (the most secure system in the world). Full blocks is good foor Bitcoin as miners will get rich and start competing each other even harder for the spoils (and hence increase the security further). Why cant anyone see this? It's so obvious. How secure should the network be? What's the sweet spot between cost and security? The 'optimum' network security level is a variable that should increase with an increase in network value, since it is safe-guarding more as value increases. |
|
|
|
|
TERA : the walls have changed a lot since you've been gone ... they are totally fake now and change in the space of minutes and seconds even.
Some guys had a massive bear whale wall on BearStamp for almost 18 months, it sat just above the ask and moved around all the time but never went away ...
wall observing is just a joke now, so we get this comedy show here ... but damn some of the wordsmithing and gif selection is just choice and funny as hell.
|
|
|
|
Somebody who lost 30 grand would not be asking this forum what to do.
Yep... hahahahahaha  seems kinda 1) troll-ish, 2) made up or 3) retarded Or 4) a kid who thinks being a trader is cool. That would fall under the category of "retarded." Call me a liar all you want, it doesn't change the fact that I have been in this game since 2011. I mined over 3000 bitcoins with the array in this video. I am the owner of the ROBOT-ARMY, which was in the top 10 mining arrays on deepbit. I was running 14GH in 2011. Why does it surprise you that someone that lost 30k on a bogus exchange would be here. In bitcoin world, 30k is peanuts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mR_V90AgL4Nobody here is calling you liar. Its just your attitude that is very competitive and arrogant that doesn't seem to fit others. Including me. How much nicer can I put it? ... when you've been through the crap and had the FUD thrown at you we have bringing bitcoin into the world you'd have some attitude too ... 14GH in 2011 is pretty respectable, i knew i liked this guy. bitcoin ain't for wimps, never has been. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
