Makes me wonder why Russia and China are litterally buying gold by tonnes every month all the while the West sells it for fiat.
Gold backed Yuan in the not too distant future maybe?
Reminds me of this   |
|
|
|
Don't delude yourself that the world is going to return to a gold backed currency, but do be sure that Gold will be a store of value long after Bitcoin has vapourised into thin air.
In that time, space mining makes gold not so rare anymore. How do you suppose you get that precious gold to earth? Carrying weight to earth is going to be extremely difficult and costly. It may be easier to get it out of space than in to space, but any carrier needs to be sent into space costs about 25,000 per kg. Imagine a space pod to carry gold that needs to be sent into space and what it would cost, in addition to the mining equipment that needs to go there and the personnel. I don't think the gold mined from there would be worth the effort at the moment. Let alone any manned mission to planets or moons are very rare. The gold supply should be very stable until those kind of problems are solved. Space mining. Please! We can barely get a man on the moon |
|
|
|
|
Expect them to try and impose a global fiat currency before gold makes a comeback. Hint SDR's
The idea of a gold backed currency is great and in reality is it is much better than fiat because there is 'some restraint' on quantity of money. But it has its problems when trust is lost, everyone wants their gold and finds out its gone, then the system breaks down.
Best idea would be to forget backing it and use actual gold coins, although thats a bit barberous
However I do expect gold to be a good safe haven investment. don't risk it all on crypto
|
|
|
|
Wedge looks to finally resolve this weekend.  But which way, up or down ? |
|
|
|
Wedge looks to finally resolve this weekend. But which way, up or down ? |
|
|
|
So I think Mike Maloney is right in principle. What nobody knows is is where we are in the "dance". He's alluding to the fact that there is something blowing up under the hood of the world economy - who knows. The thing about these things - as he points out - is that nobody knows about it until it's arrived because if "they" told us anything meaningful they'd just be bringing about a self fulfilling prophecy triggered by massive bank runs so no official pronouncements can ever afford to tell the truth.
Mike Maloney has been predicting inflation followed by deflation followed by hyperinflation for quite a while. On that scale we are in the deflation. I don't know his thoughts on crypto but he is a huge believer in gold and silver, particularly silver. |
|
|
|
And, of course, when the CEO of Bitcoin one of the most senior devs publishes a piece about Bitcoin being dead...  who no-one had ever heard of until his little moment in the spotlight. There are good reasons for the next bubble will take off, there will be capital flight from plunging stock markets, there is undervalued bitcoin which has fallen too far in value because scalability fear, there will be halving mania to factor in, there will eventually be agreement about scalability. While all that is going on there will be human greed who will notice a rapidly rising asset and rush to get onboard too. It could be a perfect storm |
|
|
|
|
For me its all normal market psychology after that mini bubble spike up to $500. this is all part of market correction from big price rises. Don't forget we were below $300 not so long ago, we are still up and bull mode is still on.
I still expect big rise due to halving, give it time.
|
|
|
|
If you like charts, get the popcorn out and start munching to this lot from Mike Maloney. Thanks for the link, I always like to hear what Mike Maloney is thinking |
|
|
|
|
Zerocash.
The amazing new private coin in which you have to trust the creators will NOT collude to have a power to print any amount of 'cash' in an undetectable way.
|
|
|
|
Vote on whether or not to implement contracts ? Or benevolent dictator decides
How about we make a proposal to decide if we implement contracts? Like I've always said, I'm along for the ride. If the network doesn't want me to implement something I won't. However, I'm voting yes and I'll argue the merit of contracts for our platform. I think they're important. As feelthebern said, thanks for great response Evan. To me this does seem obvious for a proposal. Personally I don't like the risks of locking into long term projects. Maybe I haven't considered it all through enough but I don't like the risks. The budget allowance is not a bottomless pit. The exchange rates too volatile. As with Occams razor maybe simplest solution is best. Someone said Dash might be a monster. I hope ultimately in a good way. I had a vague uneasy vision of 'the network' turning out being worse than 'for profit corporations' are now. Maybe human kind is doomed to these fates. Imagine if we are all one day enslaved by the Dash network in a way 10x worse than what goldman sachs and jp morgan do today ?!  "Someone said Dash might be a monster" That was me and it’s just an expression, but look at it this way: DASH has become an entity that can hire people direct, anywhere in the world, to do anything. Or buy whatever it wants, all by itself, no middle man, no banks. You can take out the team it’s hiring to develop it and it can hire new people from new places who work and get paid automatically via the internet. You can’t turn it off or censor it because it pays for nodes that can reappear anywhere at any time and it can also pay people to adapt it to keep itself available. It utilizes thousands of distributed minds to makes it’s own decisions on time, without contention, without waste or individual human self-interest, and it's core business is the autonomous production and facilitation of transfer of it's own monetary medium via the internet. It’s currently orchestrating people to install itself on ATM machines, stores and enter the WWW and targeting billion $ companies from whom it wants to gain market share so it can grow. And we know from the dramatic events of the last few days even the people who created it aren’t able to dictate it’s decisions even when they really want to. And they planned this into the design. People often say ‘you’ve created a monster’ for small things. In this case, in a highly positive and decentralized way, I think it's warranted. Right on Andy, great comment. Dash is becoming Skynet. Skynet is what I thought when reading that too ! Scary stuff, maybe we should kill it before its too late ? lol |
|
|
|
Why would you want to make it more difficult for people who have invested a lot of money in Dash to vote? I don't see the benefit.
In answer to your question, people who have invested a lot in masternodes get a lot of dash paid in masternode payments so its not like you are hurting them. If it were possible to have only one vote per person instead of per masternode, the idea I guess is that the little people get more influence in the direction of Dash which might serve as a way to prevent too much power accumulating to those few wealthy elites at the top of the Dash pyramid. If you get my meaning (oops did an edit instead of reply by accident, have lost the original comment I had here ) |
|
|
|
snip
I finally changed my votes to "No" due to the crazy flip-flopping the network was doing. Plus Otoh had changed his votes from "No" to "Yes" just this morning, due to hearing it was working out with Terpin. I asked him to change them back to "No" so we could implement a proper contract. I think it makes much more sense.
That doesn't read like: The network of master nodes decide  Hmm true dat. Seems like a few people control a lot of masternodes. A majority? Motion that 'vote many' is abolished ? Are you saying if I have more than one masternode, that means I shouldn't get more than one vote? Or perhaps it should just be more difficult for me to vote my nodes than someone with one? I don't know how you could stop someone having more than one vote but you can at least make it difficult for someone to vote hundreds (or more) times. But how would that get voted in ? lol Maybe safe to assume that the dictator(s) still have ultimate power |
|
|
|
Also I remember hearing about an anonymisation technique in which you have to trust the person who generated the first block to destroy the private key without writing it down, otherwise they have the ability to decrypt the anonymisation forever after. Is this using that technique ? If so why trust they don't have the backdoor key handy ?
Your memory is only partially right. There is a potential problem with trusted setup. They have said they play to do this in some public ceremony with multiple parties so that unless ALL of those parties collude, the minting process is safe. If all parties colluded they could print a unlimited number of coins undetected, however the privacy of transactions would not be affected. Essentially it is an economic threat of a poorly designed setup allowing parties to collude to print unlimited coins. There is not a privacy threat from collusion. Good god that is like a million times worse. So they'd be able to 'print' unlimited quantity of money undetected ? And we trust that this inner circle present at the seeding ceremony are trustworthy ! |
|
|
|
snip
I finally changed my votes to "No" due to the crazy flip-flopping the network was doing. Plus Otoh had changed his votes from "No" to "Yes" just this morning, due to hearing it was working out with Terpin. I asked him to change them back to "No" so we could implement a proper contract. I think it makes much more sense.
That doesn't read like: The network of master nodes decide Hmm true dat. Seems like a few people control a lot of masternodes. A majority? Motion that 'vote many' is abolished ? |
|
|
|
Vote on whether or not to implement contracts ? Or benevolent dictator decides
How about we make a proposal to decide if we implement contracts? Like I've always said, I'm along for the ride. If the network doesn't want me to implement something I won't. However, I'm voting yes and I'll argue the merit of contracts for our platform. I think they're important. As feelthebern said, thanks for great response Evan. To me this does seem obvious for a proposal. Personally I don't like the risks of locking into long term projects. Maybe I haven't considered it all through enough but I don't like the risks. The budget allowance is not a bottomless pit. The exchange rates too volatile. As with Occams razor maybe simplest solution is best. Someone said Dash might be a monster. I hope ultimately in a good way. I had a vague uneasy vision of 'the network' turning out being worse than 'for profit corporations' are now. Maybe human kind is doomed to these fates. Imagine if we are all one day enslaved by the Dash network in a way 10x worse than what goldman sachs and jp morgan do today ?! here's our chance to ensure that never happens. Get up, lobby, vote, submit proposals, and overall help the network grow. I know Evans heart is in the right place, but in all fairness so is mine. And I'm sure the same can be said about MOST Dash users. I also think Evans heart is in the right place. I do consider Evan to be a benevolent dictator, I don't mean that in a bad way. |
|
|
|
Vote on whether or not to implement contracts ? Or benevolent dictator decides
How about we make a proposal to decide if we implement contracts? Like I've always said, I'm along for the ride. If the network doesn't want me to implement something I won't. However, I'm voting yes and I'll argue the merit of contracts for our platform. I think they're important. As feelthebern said, thanks for great response Evan. To me this does seem obvious for a proposal. Personally I don't like the risks of locking into long term projects. Maybe I haven't considered it all through enough but I don't like the risks. The budget allowance is not a bottomless pit. The exchange rates too volatile. As with Occams razor maybe simplest solution is best. Someone said Dash might be a monster. I hope ultimately in a good way. I had a vague uneasy vision of 'the network' turning out being worse than 'for profit corporations' are now. Maybe human kind is doomed to these fates. Imagine if we are all one day enslaved by the Dash network in a way 10x worse than what goldman sachs and jp morgan do today ?! |
|
|
|
Vote on whether or not to implement contracts ? Or benevolent dictator decides
You decide. If you don't update your client, that's your no vote. If you do update your client, that's your yes vote. It's just like Bitcoin, in that sense. Dash is unique and allows masternode operator opinion to be gathered. For perfect example look at the recent proposal, 'Shall we up the block size to 2M ?' of which 99% said yes. A similar proposal should be made about implementing contracts which is arguably much more important than block size increase. Why vote by opting out when a better system is in place already ? |
|
|
|
|
Vote on whether or not to implement contracts ? Or benevolent dictator decides
|
|
|
|
Thanks for posting this link. I was about to post this. Absolutely crazy. To me this this statement makes him not being more than just a joke. The 21M coin cap is and should continue to be inviolate, or it isn't bitcoin anymore. Having it out there for a vote makes the entire Classic project looking totally foolish. I dont know why but reading that link reminded me of lord of the rings where all the fellowship of the ring are arguing until Frodo says he'll bear the ring erm... anyway.. i'm not a major holder but i'm worried about implication of non-core winning |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
