Advertising will surely help, but the main thing is all the effort that some one needs to do in order to get it launched. People are hesitant when it comes to installing stuff. Also, Bitcoin related market places don't have a good name due to the media saying "Bitcoin is the currency of deep web market places". And there surely are more reasons of why it's not really taking off.
Not really. The Bitcoin economy's problem is fundamental as mentioned in my post above yours. When BTC is mostly hoarded and stored then Bitcoin's economic growth is impossible. But its value will rise, that's for sure, since it is mostly treated as an investment vehicle (ie a commodity like gold) rather than a currency. And I wonder how much it all depends on China. If most coins are created, tradet and stored in China, the rest of the world gets more or less pointless. Next logical step is run 90% of the nodes in China and finally do the coding.... correct ! China owns Bitcoin in a way or other. the exchangers are manipulating the price, the miners are "creating" BTC. Nodes? they can buy 10,000 servers and it's done  Got me Nodes are cheap. So if thats done that way, by by core and hello Ian.... |
|
|
|
ok lets clarify some things..
currency is an umbrella term.. nearly anything can/is a currency. it only needs to hit one point. #medium of exchange
EG in prisons, cigarettes are a currency
then below that umbrella term are different forms of currency that not only meet the one point mentioned, but also have their own points ontop, that categorize what they are ontop of being a currency.
for instance bank notes(money) are not actually a #store of value. in the UK it says on a bank note "i promise to pay the bearer the sum of"
so a UK bank note is not a store of value, but an IOU
it is a #unit of account because it promises X which can be accounted/quantified
however a £1 coins is a #store of value and a #unit of account..
FIATs points/requirements which makes money money, is that it is made law to be accepted as payment for goods services, and taxes. (#standard of deferred payment)
EG you cannot pay taxes with cigarette for instance. but cigarettes are a currency but dont have enough points/requirements to be in the "money" subcategory.
bitcoin is a #currency
beyond that bitcoin is also
#unit of account
#store of value
but its not universally accepted as #standard of deferred payment, because retailers swap it to fiat to 'settle' the debt in most cases
to me bitcoin is not a monetary currency, but instead an asset currency.
That is it AS WELL. I just do not like to restrict it ( like any other usless restriction like the 1MB...) To me it is also like a real part of ME since I can put in my own work / value and I own the keys... |
|
|
|
>750 <72hours  I hope not. People will get rekt on this, way worse than last time. Or the time before that. There are going to be people who watch this with disbelief, and then when it just keeps going they will finally decide to jump on board once the price reaches 10,000. and then when it drops to like 2 or 3k, they will be gutted , they will lose all hope and belief. they will sell everything at the bottom . (just like last time after the 2013 pump to 266 and then back down to 50.) When the reality kicks in and it goes from 3k to 32k they will have already written this off as a scam, and they will blame you (me?) for their missed opportunity. Friends don't tell friends about bitcoin. I probably agree with this. I told someone to get in when it was at $600 on the way down. Luckily they didn't buy. But now it's passing $600 on the way up in a long term trend reversal so it's a bit safer. Also, we are in a less speculative market than 2013. It's clear now that bitcoin isn't going to zero. (At least as clear as reasonably could be in the investment world). There was always general consensus that it would either go to zero or infinity since the coins were in limited supply. Looks like the latter to me. • We still have actual halving to come. • We also have a capacity jump from 2.3 TPS to 100,000 TPS. • We also have a whole pile of VC funded projects baking in the oven that are going to result in who-knows what massive advances in the viability of industrial use-cases for cryptocurrencies. • We also have Brexit, Grexit, Spexit and Frexit. • We also have gold bugs discovering that their "stack" is not tradeable in limited supply form and not limited supply in its tradeable form. • We also have Dollar collapse, Abenomics lapse, Debt limit gaps and Batwoman straps once Mrs Lagaarde slaps the Special Drawing Rights currency on the world economy as the mandatory international reserve. • Plenty of fundamentals floating around to cushion any big cash-outs I'd say  Yes good comprehension Missing that Japan is back and India awakes trying to keep up the Chinese dominance. Thinking all about the 21 - 1 mio BTC. |
|
|
|
Is Bitcoin a means of storage of wealth, or is it a payment system? If Bitcoin has to be a currency, it certainly must be both. The US dollar is a currency and is neither. If USdollar is currency, it must be both. For the record, there is nothing like a pure currency. USD is definitelly getting less and less currency. Bitcoin is getting more and more currency. But honestly there is nothing to debate over. Definition of money is: #1 a medium of exchange #2 a unit of account #3 a store of value #4 standard of deferred payment. (money is all 4 points at once) So the logical implication is that if bitcoin (or anything else) has to be a currency, it must be a storage of value and payment system=medium of exchange. Another logical implication is that if you believe that USD does not fulfill all 4 points above, then you do not believe it is a currency. (Maybe you have your own definition what currency is, but then we really have a problem.) Last remark: far the biggest problem for bitcoin will be #2; everyone thinks in USD or fiat even when using bitcoin. I pay people in btc always based on exchange rate. Their salary is 4K USD, not 10 BTC. Still all this is trying. Maybe the internet started as an experiment (or still is) but there is no categorical definition what it is. We just have some protocolls living in it like smtp or html. Bitcoin is next such a protocol / experiment. Could be that the biggest experiment to us is yet to find out what it is? Best answer: it is a full new category and we only can project some of it to lower dimensions we can better understand because we can touch it. |
|
|
|
Advertising will surely help, but the main thing is all the effort that some one needs to do in order to get it launched. People are hesitant when it comes to installing stuff. Also, Bitcoin related market places don't have a good name due to the media saying "Bitcoin is the currency of deep web market places". And there surely are more reasons of why it's not really taking off.
Not really. The Bitcoin economy's problem is fundamental as mentioned in my post above yours. When BTC is mostly hoarded and stored then Bitcoin's economic growth is impossible. But its value will rise, that's for sure, since it is mostly treated as an investment vehicle (ie a commodity like gold) rather than a currency. And I wonder how much it all depends on China. If most coins are created, tradet and stored in China, the rest of the world gets more or less pointless. Next logical step is run 90% of the nodes in China and finally do the coding.... |
|
|
|
So with that being said. I present two scenarios A: IF Mass adoption* occurs then the centralized systems (or players) will consolidate their position "reducing incentive for other nodes" thus the centralized system would become more centralized and 1-3 pools would be responsible for securing a network ~300x bigger than today. Not to mention the adoption would raise the price of a bitcoin and thus the incentive for an attack (51% or otherwise) on the centralized system. B: If Bitcoin were to "remain" true to Nakamoto's ideals, mass adoption could not occur. The sole reason bitcoin has grown in such a way is because miners constantly have incentive to secure the network(a comparatively small network). When the incentive disappears ("Halving") coupled with the consistent growth of ASICs, only the biggest miners will be able to continue securing the network, leading to the geographic centralization we spoke of. In the face of a crashing economy do you really think the government would allow an anonymous P2P system that completely undermines their control to be secured on it's soil? I would dress this up and make it look pretty but im tired and just want opinions. My question is how can bitcoin sensible avoid these two scenarios? Soooo guys and gals fire away *Mass adoption = Use by 20-30% of the globe. A) Centralization is really inevitable, but it will be delayed with new technologies like the 21 inc mining chips or the 14 nm asic chips. B) Nakamoto is not the ruler of bitcoin to adhere to his ideas, bitcoin will go where the community wants it. However there will be many principles that will be strongly enforced (21million btc, blocksize, conf time, network structure ,etc) anything else will probably change in 15 years. But it always boils down to being trendy. The mindless masses dont care about principles, they only care about trendy stuff.Can we make bitcoin trendy or not? ... Not with those fees nobody can even calc beforehand.... |
|
|
|
If average tx is twice median tx, will this not lead to under paying tx fees?
(i am asking 21.co also)
The 'average' tx mostly doesn't exist. The sizes of transactions are highly multi-modal. There are a whole lot of small ones (most ones people make) and a decreasing number of larger and larger ones that drag up the average. If you're joe-schmoe and make a transaction, it's most likely you'll make a median sized one. It's like saying the the average number of testicles an American has is 1... and yet relatively few people have exactly one testicle, even though it's the average. [In no case should fees be under-paid... in competent wallets fees are configured per unit size and set accordingly. ] Another way to think about it is that "a transaction" isn't really a great unit of capacity. Consider, what if everyone started using 4-party non-amount-matched coinjoins for all their transactions. We'd end up with 1/4 the number of "transactions" each of 4x the size. Would it be right to say that suddenly the Bitcoin network had 1/4th the capacity because now the tx were 4x larger? No-- they're also doing 4x as much. You could say this only if you know the characteristcs of the tx size distribution (of the future!) or at least the first moments. the average or mean as you know is a very good estimation while the median is just the mid of all sizes and a just bit more stable against outliers. And the density is highest where? |
|
|
|
I forgot to thank tromp for his very valuable interaction. Thanks John.
Thx to you both. Always great readings! |
|
|
|
Is Bitcoin a means of storage of wealth, or is it a payment system? If Bitcoin has to be a currency, it certainly must be both. Bitcoin is nothing without us - just like the Internet, E-Mail,.... but can be all / multidimensional - just what you make of it so: limiting Bitcoin (in any dimension ) is a joke and will be corrected sooner or later |
|
|
|
If the Segwit soft fork does not get activated then there can be no adoption.
everyone can remember the promise that hard fork (everyone upgrading) was not needed because softforks dont need consensus, that segwit can be "compatible" with old nodes. and everything was honky-dory with fluffy clouds and unicorns flying to the moon.. and everyone gets to still be a full node and a free chocolate cookie but here is a blockstreamer admitting that a softfork is not as soft as they first said.. if it was soft it could get activated with out any adoption.. which was the whole point of why people first loved segwit instead of hardforks but now its actually admitted to require adoption just to activate, making it actually a harder-than soft fork. now people are wising up that it need consensus and a high percentage of adoption to activate.... just like a hard fork so here is a radical thought... you may need to sit down and take a few minutes to think about it.. wait for it.. here it comes.. include the block limit increase with segwit.... but before you cry your wet dream admiration's for blockstream.. remember this.. read it, sit back have a coffee and think outside of the box about what im actually about to say.. take a few minutes to let the thought settle in your mind before you shout out your blockstream admirations about why not to do it. just because the blocklimit will be 2mb.. there is nothing in the rational world of reality that suddenly causes a block to bloat to 2mb in size instantly after activation just because the new limit exists.... the block limit is not a rule to say 'this is the the amount of data needed before we do anything'.. instead its about allowing anything from 0-2mb. again for emphasis.. its not a rule that says only accept 2mb blocks.. but anything under 2mb(meaning 0-1mb can still be accepted) EG in 2013 when blocks were finally allowed to surpass the 500k buglimit(related to databases) to then fully embrace the 1mb blocklimit.. blocks were not instantly 1mb in size.. miners were not ejaculating happiness that they can now bloat blocks instantly with 1mb of data.. instead it allowed a couple years to naturally grow at a natural pace.. so while we are now seeing that segwit actually requires people to upgrade, not just out of personal choice, but as a vote/consensus just to activate it.. (finally blockstreamers are starting to admit it) you might aswell increase the potential blocklimit tooo...thus allow for potential growth without needing the constant oliver twist tactics every couple years of "please sir can i have some more". as for the proposal of just 1.05mb or 1.25mb.. that is also a short term thing that wont deter the oliver twist scenario for as long but i can already predict 4 responses. 1. gmaxwell admitting all his code and features are meant for sidechains and he doesnt see the need to expand bitcoin or include features he is coding for bitcoin, things like CT wont even be in bitcoin... thus pretend bitcoin issues are not even in his remit to be involved in, even if he has previously highlighted his features in context of bitcoin by mentioning the words bitcoin more often then his sidechains coin names while talking about his features.* *https://people.xiph.org/~greg/confidential_values.txt - mentions(bitcoin:20 zerocoin:1 elements: 4)2. luke pretending he is not part of the core-devs and his agreement to code the hardfork was not meant to be part of core, but he did enjoy the free vacation in asia. 3. lauda replies with some insult and not actually address the issue. 4. other blockstream fanboys, if not insulting, will atleast try to suggest that hard forks should only be about "classic" debate and not even consider core including a hard fork, followed by those same blockstream fanboys using buzzwords like bigblockers, gavinistas, and maybe even use some latin rhetoric they learned from each other without even checking the context of when or how it should be used.. before ofcourse running back to go play with their monero Long reading - one meaning: WE NEED BOTH (and more for sure in new Releases) Still 2MB HF would just do fine - but it's toooo easy and nobody gets the cheers & credits for implementing. So than do BOTH and mess up the code a bit and get the merrits. |
|
|
|
eth still scam?
Yes.
BTC is the experiment chasing the flawed central banks ETH is the flawed experiment chasing THIS experiment Iamnotback might argue THIS is already flawed and he might be right with some CORE. |
|
|
|
http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/65/The price of any commodity tends to gravitate toward the production cost. If the price is below cost, then production slows down. If the price is above cost, profit can be made by generating and selling more. At the same time, the increased production would increase the difficulty, pushing the cost of generating towards the price.
In later years, when new coin generation is a small percentage of the existing supply, market price will dictate the cost of production more than the other way around.
At the moment, generation effort is rapidly increasing, suggesting people are estimating the present value to be higher than the current cost of production. ... does that spell it out clearly enough for you? Doesn't the fact that supply is fixed suggest that production cost follows the price? ... therein lies the magic, difficulty ratchets up cost and price ratchets up difficulty ... it's a virtuous circle from which the counterfeiters cannot escape. Yes, but nothing ratches up price, so it is the driving factor, no? ... and this is based on 'un-limited' goods - so boder effects from hard limitations can mess up the entire theory here.... |
|
|
|
|
Chinese just know how to attract business: with low fees....
|
|
|
|
It's imminent the next arrival to $600. The poll shows that most bitcoiners expect an increase to $1000 at the end of this month, and perhaps it's a good time to become optimistic despite my usual skepticism.  you know, when people are out on the streets happily roaming about wearing sunglasses and flipflops because the sky is blue, it can be hard to imagine rainfall and cold air. EDIT: I read a lot of "I'm all in", "finally bought back today" comments here. That makes me think we could well have a sizable correction this weekend. On the other hand: mass-media hype has just started. There's a huge delay for "normal folk" to "get in". Could have more legs, too. Maybe both. Where is the media hype? I don't watch TV so I legitimately don't know and would appreciate examples. By the way, I saw this today: https://www.tradingview.com/chart/BTCUSD/JRCAC2XU-Predictive-Analysis-of-the-Next-Megabull-Cycle-To-the-Moon/Bitcoin itself isn't in the mainstream news but sometimes you see something about "blockchain" and how some bankers and tech companies are integrating Ethereum or blockchain. Also if you do a search for Bitcoin news, you always see all these unanimously positive-sounding news articles about bankers, wall street, tech companies, investments, deals, and such. Mainstream press only really covers bitcoin if it crashes and burns/ dev fights/ etc....they otherwise ignore it when the price pumps..figuring some new drama or FUD will come along and drive the price down (hey they may be on to something) .....bitcoin the Mexican soap opera of crypto Or when 1000$ reached / all time high breake through When does the world get the news there are only 21mio....? Just never sell when you not need to... |
|
|
|
For some here that try to put price and decisions in some relations I'd suggest a reading here: .. causes and effects are not obviously related ... http://necsi.edu/guide/Cheers |
|
|
|
|
It is... but the price is very high.
|
|
|
|
|
Selling might be costy...
Wow!
|
|
|
|
*an den
An die Feet is plural |
|
|
|
 No wonder you guys keep starting wars and losing them, you can't even understand your own language  You think german has the same verb for 'go'? Expected more from you. Yes, Google Translate and I do. Try it yourself  Not good German. Sry Nein nein Mädchen Die Schuhe gehören an die Füsse. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
