My "economic majority" phrasing becomes a little confusing here because we must continually ask, "A majority among whom?" A large enough minority with enough difference of opinion from the majority will break away and become the economic majority of a community of people who agree with their values. There are still reasons why each little economic community with varying beliefs about ideal money will not necessarily fork off: size is an advantage, voice can still work if the minority makes convincing arguments, etc.
Here is where I personally think this runs into problems. Again I'll use the gold default as a historical example. Here after FDR defaulted it was perfectly possible for a minority of people to refuse the new fiat system and still transact with each other using the old system (physical gold). The problem was the minority of people (gold bugs) was too small to be effective, they were marginalized and the majority of the world moved on without them. I don't think the "community of people who agree with their values" will necessarily be large enough, if history is any guide (which I believe it is).
As you stated, bitcoin is a more democratic form of money, where the economic majority have a voice and a small group cannot control the system. This is one of the most beautiful aspects of the system. Additionally any minority of users can always choose to stay on the ledger/path they choose.
Any democratic system of money is far inferior to Bitcoin. It is fundamentally the opposite of that, it is an economic system. An occurrence of democratic action is seen as a threat to Bitcoin, AKA 51% attack. Voting is in all cases the supreme failure of an attempt to create quality. Where there is quality, voting is not needed. Voting is for avoiding violent conflict by replacing it with as much as possible with social conflict. It is the use of law against others, and it is for subjugating minorities. We in democratic societies are taught how wonderful it is to have democracy, and it is better than most any other option, but it is also utter crap. I do not wish for a "democratic" system of money and I am very happy that Bitcoin isn't one. The problem is Bitcoin exists within a system of demographically elected governments (supposedly), and this system will try to impose it's will either on bitcoin or on the population. The easier and more common it is to change bitcoin, the easier it is for a demographically elected government (or any gov) to co-opt bitcoin. This thread started with a statement that making bitcoin easy to fork often will be a good thing. My argument is be careful what you wish for because it there are powerful forces which will try to change it into something against it's founding principles.
This is why I stated I prefer that bitcoin remains a rules based system as much as possible outside of the influence of man. The more we enable forking to be common, the more that breaks down and the easier it become for governments to push regulation/etc in.yeah, i think i agree with the bolded part. the more forks, the more fragmentation of the community. we need numerical concentration in the long run. and the fact is, Bitcoin is almost where it needs to be in terms of economic properties. ideally, we might have faster tx times and better anonymity but what we have currently is pretty good and accomplished with a little effort. to your point about why did gold get co-opted; the answer is simple. gold is simply a poor form of money and has been failing the people for decades now. you can only store it and hope it retains its value. meanwhile, gold has no means of regular auditing nor of transacting across distances, let alone in a timely manner. the best you can do with it is bury it in a vault after digging it up, as Wences is fond of saying. Bitcoin, otoh, truly exists across time and space while its supply is hard coded. transacting across the globe in an instant is commonplace. hiding it and securing it, i would submit, is easier than gold with the proper knowledge. thus, it's money properties vastly exceed those of gold and will thus make it much more resilient to any nation state attempting to kill it. furthermore, b/c it is global, it harnesses the natural governmental conflict that exist today and for evermore. this is why i think the Chinese gvt has not killed all the branches of the Bitcoin economy within its borders. it probably realizes that one day they might have no choice but to acquiesce to Bitcoin, which would be the next best choice if they can't have the yuan become the world reserve currency. knocking the dollar off its mantle would be good enough. having both the mining and exchange majority volume will come in handy should that day come. |
|
|
|
Fiatcoin is nearly here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/12/us-bitcoin-ibm-idUSKBN0M82KB20150312\ Unlike bitcoin, where the network is decentralized and there is no overseer, the proposed digital currency system would be controlled by central banks, the source said.
"These coins will be part of the money supply," the source said. "It's the same money, just not a dollar bill with a serial number on it, but a token that sits on this blockchain." Nice. Now they won't even have to turn on the printing presses. Just type in a big number and hit enter. I'm assuming this means we then get accurate insight into exactly what the money supply is. No more shadowstats! No more government handwaving about inflation! Not such a bad thing? Just a guess but fiatcoin's blockchain will probably be private, all clients essentially just client/server so money supply is obfuscated. Likely devices won't hold their private keys, or there will be a master private key that can spend from all accounts. No other way for the government to freeze accounts, implement asset forfeiture, etc. Fedcoin is obviously a dumb idea. It's effectively the same level (or worse) of why-are-you-bothering-with-a-blockchain as doing a gold or silver "backed" cryptocurrency. If you have a fundamentally centralized system, then adding a blockchain just makes it more complex for no reason. Just fire up some servers and make a good API instead. People *still* don't understand the problem that blockchains actually solve. Yep, we are still so early. Frankly, I'm amazed at the low level of sophisticated analysis coming out of IBM regarding Bitcoin. But then again, I bet much of it is being driven by Richard Gendal whom I have been even less impressed. Perhaps IBM is a quintessential example of a big corporation who's benefited so greatly from inflation that they've been blinded. |
|
|
|
|
300 coming right up.
Once we get through it, we should see a nice pop.
|
|
|
|
|
Gold Collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
|
|
|
|
Unless CBs drop Gold as an asset in their vaults, it will be relevant in the future. Either the real economy will catch up with the financial economy, or the financial economy will meet the real economy or a combination), eventually.
But the waiting is the hardest part. No panic, no gold rush.
Ron Paul and others wonder just how much gold exists in that very Feds vault. |
|
|
|
Gold really collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
Are you sure? Because losing 5% in one month is not what I call collapsing. Well, given I made this post on 8/9/11, Gold: I Smell a Trap, I think I've earned the right to say "yeah, I'm sure". Well, will you look at that. Nice timing. Do you still hold a single ounce of gold or are you 100% BTC in the BTC/GLD pair? Sold all the silver and most of the gold. Still retain 2 sleeves of gold coins but that's it. Bitcoin is the future. I keep offering to sell those 2 sleeves to all the gold bugs who stop by every once in a while claiming they're worth $30000/oz for a mere $15000/oz but not a one of them take me up on the deal. Haha  I am pretty much in the same situation. I sold most of my gold in early 2013 but rebought some in mid 2014. Gold is still very nice to balance a portfolio of Stocks and Bonds, unlike BTC it is directly negatively correlated to those. Actually that negative correlation is now changing to positive correlation as we enter deflation. Go back and look at the charts of the brief deflationary 2008-9. Gold and gold stocks dropped significantly along with stocks and non UST bonds. This time that correlated drop should be even greater. And gold is leading. You are absolutely right and I took that apparent change into account when I bought the gold. But as I was going for an 10y+ investment and I still think in that timeframe it will work as a buffer on swings. Only time will tell, but even if it is positively correlated it won't hurt me too much. You'll only be right if Bitcoin fails. That's not looking too likely imo. Bitcoin has all the properties of a super money that gold can only aspire to be. That has to be on your radar. I have plenty of BTC. Most normal investors would say I am way overinvested. So I am not too worried if BTC fails or succeeds. I will be fine either way. Good on you |
|
|
|
Gold really collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
Are you sure? Because losing 5% in one month is not what I call collapsing. Well, given I made this post on 8/9/11, Gold: I Smell a Trap, I think I've earned the right to say "yeah, I'm sure". Well, will you look at that. Nice timing. Do you still hold a single ounce of gold or are you 100% BTC in the BTC/GLD pair? Sold all the silver and most of the gold. Still retain 2 sleeves of gold coins but that's it. Bitcoin is the future. I keep offering to sell those 2 sleeves to all the gold bugs who stop by every once in a while claiming they're worth $30000/oz for a mere $15000/oz but not a one of them take me up on the deal. Haha I am pretty much in the same situation. I sold most of my gold in early 2013 but rebought some in mid 2014. Gold is still very nice to balance a portfolio of Stocks and Bonds, unlike BTC it is directly negatively correlated to those. Actually that negative correlation is now changing to positive correlation as we enter deflation. Go back and look at the charts of the brief deflationary 2008-9. Gold and gold stocks dropped significantly along with stocks and non UST bonds. This time that correlated drop should be even greater. And gold is leading. You are absolutely right and I took that apparent change into account when I bought the gold. But as I was going for an 10y+ investment and I still think in that timeframe it will work as a buffer on swings. Only time will tell, but even if it is positively correlated it won't hurt me too much. You'll only be right if Bitcoin fails. That's not looking too likely imo. Bitcoin has all the properties of a super money that gold can only aspire to be. That has to be on your radar. |
|
|
|
The trend seems to be tapering off, but it's still alive. Meanwhile Ethereum seems to be taking a "money doesn't matter"/"blockchains are a friggin' database technology" stance even after their huge crowdsale. Of course he'd act that way. When he wanted the investor money, he had to build expectations of returns. Now that he has the money, he wants to lower expectations of returns to preemptively shrink the size of the angry mob before it forms. Biggest legal (but unmoral) con in Bitcoin Land to date. I will make something (or maybe not) and sell coins for BTC. And database tech rocks - 19 year old kid might be able to code but has a long way to go to understand how the real world works. Actually, Vitalik is smarter than all of you. All he has to do to make huge returns for Ethereum is go to the beach and do nothing with the 20k or so coins he's holding and watch them appreciate. |
|
|
|
Gold really collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
Are you sure? Because losing 5% in one month is not what I call collapsing. Well, given I made this post on 8/9/11, Gold: I Smell a Trap, I think I've earned the right to say "yeah, I'm sure". Well, will you look at that. Nice timing. Do you still hold a single ounce of gold or are you 100% BTC in the BTC/GLD pair? Sold all the silver and most of the gold. Still retain 2 sleeves of gold coins but that's it. Bitcoin is the future. I keep offering to sell those 2 sleeves to all the gold bugs who stop by every once in a while claiming they're worth $30000/oz for a mere $15000/oz but not a one of them take me up on the deal. Haha I am pretty much in the same situation. I sold most of my gold in early 2013 but rebought some in mid 2014. Gold is still very nice to balance a portfolio of Stocks and Bonds, unlike BTC it is directly negatively correlated to those. Actually that negative correlation is now changing to positive correlation as we enter deflation. Go back and look at the charts of the brief deflationary 2008-9. Gold and gold stocks dropped significantly along with stocks and non UST bonds. This time that correlated drop should be even greater. And gold is leading. |
|
|
|
Gold really collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
Are you sure? Because losing 5% in one month is not what I call collapsing. Well, given I made this post on 8/9/11, Gold: I Smell a Trap, I think I've earned the right to say "yeah, I'm sure". Well, will you look at that. Nice timing. Do you still hold a single ounce of gold or are you 100% BTC in the BTC/GLD pair? Sold all the silver and most of the gold. Still retain 2 sleeves of gold coins but that's it. Bitcoin is the future. I keep offering to sell those 2 sleeves to all the gold bugs who stop by every once in a while claiming they're worth $30000/oz for a mere $15000/oz but not a one of them take me up on the deal. |
|
|
|
Just a thought.. since there is a currency war happening and everyone knows China/Russia is going all in on Gold. It would behoove all the rest to push gold down as much as possible.
Ah, now you're thinking. It may actually be in the US's overall strategic advantage to adopt Bitcoin as backing for the USD in the long run. Wouldn't that be a hoot. |
|
|
|
Gold really collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
Are you sure? Because losing 5% in one month is not what I call collapsing. Well, given I made this post on 8/9/11, Gold: I Smell a Trap, I think I've earned the right to say "yeah, I'm sure". |
|
|
|
|
Gold really collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
|
|
|
|
|
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
Yawn.
|
|
|
|
Yes, THE Blythe Masters. That chick is notorious for JPM manipulation. |
|
|
|
|
Well, this a big deal. Remember when it was just her husband?:
**Blythe Masters joins bitcoin start-up**
> Blythe Masters, the former JPMorgan executive who helped pioneer credit derivatives in the 1990s, has re-emerged as chief executive of a cryptocurrency start-up.
> Digital Asset Holdings aims to be a venue for buyers and sellers of financial assets to meet and transact, switching currencies into bitcoin in order to cut the cost and time of settlement and make use of the decentralised “block chain” as a secure record of transactions.
> Bitcoin was created in the wake of the financial crisis by an anonymous computer scientist keen to displace central banks, government currencies and the traditional banking system.
> Its most ardent devotees include libertarians and drug dealers, but financial services companies are interested in exploiting the underlying technology, which allows the ownership of a bitcoin to be transferred from one user to another.
> “There is a school of libertarian ‘visionaries’ who want to imagine a world without big banks, big governments,” said Ms Masters, who left JPMorgan last April. “That’s nice, but completely irrelevant to this business model. We don’t imagine a world in which big banks and big governments don’t exist.”
> “They say they want the world to change, but the world will change by adopting new technology to do a better job,” she said. Reducing the frictional costs of financial transactions is “one of the great challenges of our time”.
> Ms Masters said she had held discussions with the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England and New York’s Department of Financial Services about the venture, though it would not need regulators’ blessing because it was not an exchange, a custodian or a money transmitter.
> Instead, it will admit creditworthy members — such as big banks and asset managers — to trade between themselves using DAH’s technology.
> Ms Masters would not say how much she had invested, nor when the venture would launch. DAH was founded last year by Sunil Hirani, founder and chief executive of trueEX, an exchange for interest rate swaps, and Don Wilson, founder and CEO of DRW Trading, a proprietary-trading firm. The venture has employees in New York, Chicago and Tel Aviv, a cryptocurrency hub.
> Ms Masters, 45, is best known for a diverse career at JPMorgan, where she was instrumental in the development of the credit default swaps market as a young banker. Latterly she was head of the global commodities business and left when the bank sold it last year for $3.5bn.
> In a research note on Tuesday, Goldman Sachs analysts noted that “bitcoin and cryptocurrencies allow for the decentralised transfer of assets without a central clearing authority”. They predicted that the technology could wipe out 20 per cent of the revenue the money transfer industry makes from consumer-to-consumer currency transfers and allow companies to cut $74bn in overheads from businesses-to-business payments over time.
> A handful of existing companies, including Ripple Labs, are attempting to achieve the same aim, though all have different technology.
> “We feel that some of the basic plumbing is missing in the system,” said Mr Wilson of DRW. “Bridging the gap between bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies and traditional currencies is a problem. One settles immediately. One settles over a day or more than a day. Participants in this ecosystem will be able to control who they’re transacting with because it’s within a closed system where we can control who’s in the pool.”
> Banks have an ambivalent attitude towards bitcoin — intrigued by the technology but concerned about its negative associations.
> BBVA, the large Spanish bank, has invested in Coinbase, a bitcoin “wallet”. But other banks have stopped providing services to bitcoin companies, citing their riskiness. Daniel Masters, ex-husband of Blythe, complained last year that his regulated bitcoin investment fund had been cut off by HSBC.
|
|
|
|
...
Recording all transactions that have happened is done because that's the easiest way to generate the proof, not because storing that kind of history is the purpose of Bitcoin.
Well said. embedding the hash of UTXO in the block headers and retaining only the last few hundred blocks is being experimented with as a client option. The real trick will be figuring out a secure way of letting the entire network do it. I don't think committed UTXO sets by themselves are sufficient. what does "committed" mean in this sense? |
|
|
|
|
another ramp in dollar starting right now. look out risk assets...
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
