|
even a cursory look at BTC's history has seen many "bans" by china on BTC, the PBOC and friends routinely come out and BAN or similar to BTC etc.
It is amazing to see that people still react to this in almost anyway.
I suppose there must be a lot of new entrants who have not lived through the history of BTC.
|
|
|
|
|
since 2x seems to be abandoned, I can only say this make BCH argument stronger. There is no reason for core not to at least 2x. The HD and bandwith space is clearly there, it does lower fees, and provides the end user options.
The BCH network has not imploded nor has the software failed as many predicted. Core are left without excuse as why to not entertain a blocksize increase.
Or at least I am yet to hear a cogent reason post facto BCH.
|
|
|
|
|
9kK is a nice profit on 5k....see you at 100K a btc
|
|
|
|
[3] Yes. I mean no one can force you to delete them if you want to keep the locally, but they become invalid. Only the transaction for opening a channel and a transaction for closing the channel is stored on the blockchain.
Maybe there would be a reason to keep invalid transactions to prove they took place? If a pair of commercial partners has a dispute over whether or not a payment took place, records may be desirable in order to prove what happened (I guess this is highlighting a weakness of Lightning; no such problem can be exploited when transacting on-chain). How can it be exploited if both parties keep track of and agree on each transaction that takes place while the channel is open? The involved parties are able to see whether they received the correct amount each step along the way. Whether the selling party actually delivered the goods or services for the payment received is neither LN's nor the blockchain's responsibility. Apart from that commercial partners need to keep books either way, regardless of whether they get paid on-chain, off-chain, via traditional banking or in cash. but how would you prove impartially your books are the correct record, when the other parties books say different? |
|
|
|
|
[1]So when a channel is open where are the records stored?
[2] is each transaction stored or is only the final decrement or increment stored or only
[3] When a channel is closed are all the records gone excepting the final records and do they have to go to the blockchain at that point?
|
|
|
|
|
who exactly is going to be left even holding BTC at 1M? essentially a lot of people will have sold out at 40K, 100K, 200K and so on. Probably a good chunk will be held by sovereign wealth funds and states at that point.
Imagine selling at 40K and missing out on the 960K.......
|
|
|
|
|
The elision of sovereignty from the state to the individual.
This allows for a leap in self actualization, self determination in a way that has never been seen before
You are not at the mercy of the "mob" or the brute force of sequestration of your labor under any pretext.
Finally reason has to be used, and only reason on an individual basis.
The implications of this are nothing less than the total restructuring on society, states and life on this planet, and perhaps our reach for stars as well.
It essentially allows a new mode of thinking to be implemented that was before this theoretical.
The Banks can see it coming from their angle, they are 75% to 99% redundant
Fiat credit has been debased already and the now completely cut out by BTC tech, which will force sovereign adoption of BTC or a crypto.
Think through the implications.
|
|
|
|
Yes, we all want bitcoin to hit the $1 million mark, but do you plan to sell before then or even if it hits $1,000,000 would you really sell then? So the question is, have you thought about when you plan to cash in or don't you plan to cash out?
There are lots of 'experts' on previous related threads having the same thoughts like this, "you should not cash out your btc yet, wait for it until it reaches an expensive price or you will lose the chance to earn big". I ask them when they are planning to sell their BTC and answer me with a price. Yeah right.. But when I ask them "what if you sold your BTC but then its price got even higher just a day after?", they cannot answer me. My point is, bitcoin price is very volatile. You never know what will happen so for me, I'd rather lose the "chance to earn big" rather than actually losing my investment. Here's what I do. I always cash out a part of my earnings, whatever the price is and the other portion is kept still as BTC. So whatever happens, I won't lose everything. its not that volatile except 1 way (up) if you zoom out the log graph since 2010 |
|
|
|
|
Im not sure 1M btc would see wide spread adoption, due to fees, rather it would be for sovereign wealth assurance and thus credit rating and large currency swaps purchases.
Eg it would still be a cheap way to transfer 200M worth of funds to buy something. I mean you could do it for a few hundred dollars that's actually ok.
However if BCH Activates Segwit and takes over, then problem solved. We can probably do a transaction of a few cents.
|
|
|
|
|
You don't get to sell twice, when you sell and the market moves then moves against you.
|
|
|
|
In a ponzi scheme you hope to receive more money from the next person(s) incoming, and so this plays with the velocity of money.
So the upshot of BTC, is its about unfettered and inalienable rights to access block space, a decentralized ledger with zero counterparty risk in a known supply system.
Lots of people are buying bitcoin in order to sell for a quick profit without caring one jot about using it as currency. They are creating a ponzi bubble on top of the value of bitcoin as utility. Normal ponzi scheme collapse when "the game is over." Bitcoin ponzi bubble will collapse, but bitcoin will still exist and continue at the correct value. This is crap and i suspect you know it. No one has unfettered and inalienable rights to access block space, when miners can decide whether or not to include one's tx. Turning each block into a fee market is insane and bad economics by the illiterates.I did modify my defn to:: "BTC is necessary but not sufficient access block space. Its is sufficient when you have enough residual to update the ledger, after fees"Also I am not limiting my argument to BTC but to cryptos in general, so fees are much lower on LTC and BCH for instance. |
|
|
|
Ah franky you sound a bit butthurt if BTC has become digital gold, what is wrong with that? You can use the LN network or a crypto of your choice for buying stuff; even the Romans did not use gold coins for their daily shopping; silver and copper was used for that So 2000 years ago, "gold adoption" was quite low amongst merchants because they did not have enough change. But gold was the king. BTC is the king now.  btw. what is "block space"? Owning a bitcoin means owning a guaranteed piece of a highly valued public ledger, not a guaranteed low fee when transferring it. by block space I mean access to the space in the blocks in the ledger. For BTC the only option is BTC to access this. I said nothing about a fee. Although the fee does set a minimum amount of BTC you need to access block space so I should refine my defn to you need a minimum amount of BTC to access block space and that is the amount that remains unconsumed by fees. |
|
|
|
the issue is that there is no promise of block space
you have to bid for it using tx fee's and even then there is no guarantee.
as for utility. that is in decline too. less and less merchants accept bitcoin than in 2014.
and now with every one running away from blockchain utility and running towards LN multisigs.. the OP's argument of counterparty agreement falls flat too
bitcoin is no longer the same ethos and idea of 2009. stop trying to sell bitcoin as the 2009 ethos to people on the forum that know better.
in short if your promoting bitcoin to people on this forum your advertising to people that already know about bitcoin, thus double wasting your time.
bitcoin is losing its utility and only bcoming a background reserve.. not a front line currency
if you want to promote bitcoin, atleast be upfront honest and embellish its real abilities and offerings not the stuff that the BScartel are removing and twisting out of the community. because once people start using bitcoin they start to see that its not what the OP is talking about anymore. and so they start to only care about a fiat price as an exit strategy rather then what was the ethos of 2009.
all i can see the OP doing is stretching the truth using old outdated thos, just to hope for a fiat price increase due to hype so he can exit.
...
with less people trying to make bitcoin utility grow. and more people just looking to pump and dump, its becoming more apparent that bitcoin is becoming less about features and more about buying from one person to sell for profit to another .. much like ponzi's bubles, schemes.
in short bitcoin needs to get rid of the fiat loving a-holes and concentrate on coded rules for expanding utility.. not 'free market' crap
I did say crypto tech in general not BTC necessarily. BTC has issues, and a pos coin or other basket of coins could take over. Your biding on blockspace BTC point is true, as does off chain transactions. I also feel if core does not adopt 2xSegwit, then the BCH camp sound a lot more convincing. I would love to see BCH activate segwit! I feel BCH has proven the system does not collapse under block size increase. It seems reasonable that some blocksize increase is made by core as technology has increased massively since 2009 in terms of HD space and bandwidth per $. |
|
|
|
Any record in either of those space still existed on centralized ledgers, where you relied on others to act as intermediaries and fulfill promises. This is a fundamental difference. Block space is decentralized. You update the ledger without any intermediary. Your actions cannot be countermanded or erased.
A ponzi scheme is reliant on a centralised ledger because it requires the "company" to manage which people it pays at which time and which money it can put in its pocket. You're correct about that part. However, tulip bulbs are not reliant on a centralised ledger, they are simply an object. The benefit of having block space is that you can say "I have BTC which is worth X amount" - in the same way, you can show someone a tulip bulb and as long as they know what it is, they recognise that you own it (this is entirely decentralised, just like gold and other offline transfers of goods).
The distinction between a Ponzi scheme and Bitcoin is entirely objective and obvious, so it's utterly ridiculous to compare the two as it would just be referring to natural supply and demand as a Ponzi scheme. However, tulip bulbs rely on this same supply and demand, so to call it a similar economic bubble is subjective and there is certainly an argument to be made on that side. I am fairly certain records of who owned some tulips would have be kept on centralized registers somewhere. But even if wrong I can argue the converse. Tulips were never kept on a decentralized register |
|
|
|
|
when has decreasing supply (banning something) ever driven price down?
Chinese can get thier money out. They will find way to by BTC through other countries
|
|
|
|
|
ok its time to put these to bed.
In a ponzi scheme you hope to receive more money from the next person(s) incoming, and so this plays with the velocity of money.
With btc, what is gives in exchange for fiat, or other goods is a promise to be able to access block space.
edit>specifically btc is necessary but not sufficient, you need enough btc to pay the fee, and a remainder<
That promise is unable to be taken away by any other entity. Only you with your private keys can make the decision when you wish to access block space and change the ledger.
Ponzi schemes have never even had an equivalent to block space.
Now some people may chose to think through the lens of a ponzi scheme because they hope to get more fiat in the future for the same number of btc, but that's not what BTC is. If you do get more fiat that's a function of btc being a better system, immune to quantitative easing, policy changes, corporate welfare, bad laws and economically failed jurisdictions.
Along the same reasoning, tulips did not give you access to blockspace. You simply had a tulip.
Now for both you may argue but tulips and pozi gave you access to "tulip space" and "ponzi space" to update the ledger in the respective schemes.
Lets deal with that.
Any record in either of those space still existed on centralized ledgers, where you relied on others to act as intermediaries and fulfill promises. This is a fundamental difference. Block space is decentralized. You update the ledger without any intermediary. Your actions cannot be countermanded or erased.
While this alone is sufficient to rebut and assertions of "tulips" or "ponzi scheme", we can make a sort of restatement of these in ways that may be more understandable
You could not transfer to any actor anywhere in the world in either ponzi or tulips with zero counter-party risk and irrespective of capital controls or other risks. The records of you position in the ponzi system was not guaranteed to last or be fulfilled, rather the longer it goes on the more it tends to zero. Tulips well they are very very perishable and you cant exactly send them thrould the internet.
So the upshot of BTC, is its about unfettered and inalienable rights to access block space, a decentralized ledger with zero counterparty risk in a know supply system.
The features were not and have not been found in any ponzi or tulip scheme. Nor shall they.
|
|
|
|
|
trusting your value to closed source amenable to a court order or corporate policy will never compete with btc.
|
|
|
|
|
if people bothered to sit down and work out what bitcoin actually is, you know read the white paper, do some maths, you would soon arrive at the conclusion::
China is irrelevant
Dimion is irrelevant
USA is irrelevant
every thing is irrelevant excepting 2 things
only::
[1] the laws of thermodynamics, btc /crypto tech has less entropy that than the next best system (this is not to say some pos coin cannot beat btc itself, I mean crypto tech itself). And when I say system I mean alot of the financial markets, gov systems, education systems, system of companies, legal systems
[2] maths need to be changed itself to affect btc, your argument is with the way the universe is put together. If you don't like it go and live in another universe literally is your only choice.
knowing this you can see btc tech is going to take most of the money value out there. It's a question of when. A fraction of existing gov will be left and a rump of all the financial systems if that.
written another way people will see fiat as bad credit, as will countries as will all actors. Where they do not they will be disciplined by the market as their holdings are evaporated away, taxed away, seized or otherwise sequestered.
|
|
|
|
|
I have to say this is a ridiculous dead cat bounce.
the dump feels more like a slow flash crash more than a trend.
|
|
|
|
I owe about $50K on my mortgage. Should I throw 15BTC at it and be done, or keep paying the minimum and HODL the coin as an investment? 15BTC is <20% of my holdings that I purchased at $250/coin back in 2015, by the way. Thanks in advance!
they reckon 10% spent of your wealth has not so much of an effect. That said, let all the money printing evaporate the value of your 50K to 5K. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
