Maybe define the interconnectedness of ledgers as the inverse of the cost to move money between them. But this cost function is not just exchange fees. It would ideally take into account the amortized cost to set up and maintain accounts in various exchanges, the time value of the money while it is inaccessible (presumably the inter-ledger exchange takes more time then intra-ledger exchange), and other such externalities. if i'm not mistaken, he's talking about other blockchains, like those of altcoins and sidechains. I think you could generalize to all ledgers including implicit ones like fiat currencies. I have worked out a way of discussing the network effect as it relates to the interaction between Bitcoin, other blockchains, sidechains, various off-chain systems, and fiat currencies, and conversion friction is the centrepiece of that method, and I'm saving it for a future article because nobody seems to read the 4500 word ones. you mean a 2wp that locks up your money for at least a 2d minimum, may also force you to post a bounty, & is at high risk of being stolen is considered friction? |
|
|
|
^Quite nervous today are we?
I'm no "newbie troll" dude.
All I meant is that your post "you said this stuff but you said it before a pump therefore it's bullshit" was childish. That is all.
no, i'm pointing out that the tenor and content of his posts follow along with the price and reflect his emotional attachment to it. that's pretty clear. |
|
|
|
Maybe define the interconnectedness of ledgers as the inverse of the cost to move money between them. But this cost function is not just exchange fees. It would ideally take into account the amortized cost to set up and maintain accounts in various exchanges, the time value of the money while it is inaccessible (presumably the inter-ledger exchange takes more time then intra-ledger exchange), and other such externalities. if i'm not mistaken, he's talking about other blockchains, like those of altcoins and sidechains. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin has clearly failed in an 'exchange' role as evidenced by still not needing to fiddle with the 7 tps transaction rate (1MB block size) and not being on a trajectory to need to do so any time soon. The reason for this is abundantly clear and I've been saying so for years: Bitcoin is simply not competitive in this role.
...
I don't fully get where you're coming from on this one. Does it all boil down to your assertion that blocksize increase would have to outrun Nielsen's law in order to sustain significant transaction throughput? Forgive me for neglecting to answer your other questions, but I like to try to keep things tight, and this is important. Firstly, Adam cast some pearls that I'm afraid went over most people's heads which is a shame. He is not talking about exactly what I want to mention here, but the same principles apply: ...
Its a little risky to play steganography arms race though because they could bypass that (at the limit steganography wins) by replacing
...
So, here's the deal: Something can act as a reserve if it is rock solid in all circumstances. Gold is a classic example.If in the future things are as they are now from a regulatory point of view, there are all kinds of instruments which could serve my purposes. I've long said that Bitcoin is a fun little toy in today's world and hardly anything more. In a world where it is really needed there is nearly no chance that it won't be viciously attacked by those who are threatened. The attacks possible (and likely in my opinion) against Bitcoin will drastically shrink the available bandwidth and the reliability the network. I don't give two shits what the capacity of todays or tomorrows 'consumer grade' bandwidth may be. It's an irrelevance in a situation where it matters. And even in situations where it does not ( mainstream monetary systems are working fine) there is a high likelihood that the global internet will become more restrictive and less free for other reasons. Bitcoin really only has value to me if I can have some confidence that it will be supportable under vigorous attacks. I suspect there are many others who feel similarly and enough to result in some pretty high valuations. If Bitcoin can succeed here then that success will be (potentially) available to solutions which use Bitcoin as a backing. Sidechains would be a good example, and by their nature they are quickly adaptable and a whack-a-mole headache to attackers.
It is this potential to possibly succeed which give Bitcoin it's value. Fortunately for Bitcoin, most of the alts are not really vying for this market-space since the very thought of a hostile global internet is widely considered to be some sort of crazed conspiricy theory...and it's no fun to restrict ones code anyway. As I've mentioned ad-nauseam recently it does not matter how big or small the transaction rate, fees, or coinbase. Bitcoin is economically doomed relying on the normally assumed rewards. This because the hashing power grows at a rate proportional to the reward so it relatively quickly becomes unprofitable no matter what the reward. Hashing gear is durable however, so it does not shrink. Maybe it can find something else to do or maybe not. Sidechains could help resolve this economic dilemma because they must support Bitcoin at a loss if need be...they cannot afford to let native Bitcoin be unhealthy. The above para means that nothing good economically can be achieved by increasing the block size. The only thing doing so could achieve would be to make the solution more bloated and thus more easy to attack. To add insult to injury, the piss-ant 10x or 20x size increases would chase out another big tranche of enthusiast class infrastructure providers and not come close to supporting even a mid-sized exchange economy anyway. At least by my seat-of-the-pants estimation. --- Just a brief word about Bitcoin's competitiveness as an 'exchange currency'. It sucks. The system is a marvel of inefficiency because it was architecture to be resistant to some aspect of the kind of nightmare attack scenarios that I allude to. Just look at the real cost of providing a transaction...it's laughably high. Also there is no reason to suspect that mainstream systems are ever going to become more secure to the Joe Sixpack class user so he'll always be struggling with secret keys. And, of course, there is the block latency which requires various shortcuts, workarounds, and throwing out of some of the security features that Bitcoin crows about in the first place. Bitcoin is also just (barely) subversive enough to create all kinds of legal-ish and regulatory-ish hassles that make it a real bitch to use, and I don't see that changing. If it does change then Bitcoin loses almost any reason to be used. The list goes on. this is tvbcof on the day of the last plunge down to 155. nice memorial. Why are you mentioning short term price action with regards to what he said (he didn't even mention current price)? Some of them are good points IMHO. I hope you don't believe that price pumping short term (or even medium-long term for that matter) means that not even some of his arguments are valid or something... you can stop hoping right there. i think his concerns are invalid. In that case you don't think it's more appropriate to provide arguments against his views instead of mentioning price at the time of his post which has little relevance at all? i have 4 yrs worth of arguments against his positions littered throughout this thread. just because you, as a newbie troll, can't be bothered to go back and read up on those arguments doesn't mean i haven't provided them. let's be clear; tvbcof and i disagree on everything. if he says black, i say white. that's just a fact. i'd put him on ignore if he weren't so amusing. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin has clearly failed in an 'exchange' role as evidenced by still not needing to fiddle with the 7 tps transaction rate (1MB block size) and not being on a trajectory to need to do so any time soon. The reason for this is abundantly clear and I've been saying so for years: Bitcoin is simply not competitive in this role.
...
I don't fully get where you're coming from on this one. Does it all boil down to your assertion that blocksize increase would have to outrun Nielsen's law in order to sustain significant transaction throughput? Forgive me for neglecting to answer your other questions, but I like to try to keep things tight, and this is important. Firstly, Adam cast some pearls that I'm afraid went over most people's heads which is a shame. He is not talking about exactly what I want to mention here, but the same principles apply: ...
Its a little risky to play steganography arms race though because they could bypass that (at the limit steganography wins) by replacing
...
So, here's the deal: Something can act as a reserve if it is rock solid in all circumstances. Gold is a classic example.If in the future things are as they are now from a regulatory point of view, there are all kinds of instruments which could serve my purposes. I've long said that Bitcoin is a fun little toy in today's world and hardly anything more. In a world where it is really needed there is nearly no chance that it won't be viciously attacked by those who are threatened. The attacks possible (and likely in my opinion) against Bitcoin will drastically shrink the available bandwidth and the reliability the network. I don't give two shits what the capacity of todays or tomorrows 'consumer grade' bandwidth may be. It's an irrelevance in a situation where it matters. And even in situations where it does not ( mainstream monetary systems are working fine) there is a high likelihood that the global internet will become more restrictive and less free for other reasons. Bitcoin really only has value to me if I can have some confidence that it will be supportable under vigorous attacks. I suspect there are many others who feel similarly and enough to result in some pretty high valuations. If Bitcoin can succeed here then that success will be (potentially) available to solutions which use Bitcoin as a backing. Sidechains would be a good example, and by their nature they are quickly adaptable and a whack-a-mole headache to attackers.
It is this potential to possibly succeed which give Bitcoin it's value. Fortunately for Bitcoin, most of the alts are not really vying for this market-space since the very thought of a hostile global internet is widely considered to be some sort of crazed conspiricy theory...and it's no fun to restrict ones code anyway. As I've mentioned ad-nauseam recently it does not matter how big or small the transaction rate, fees, or coinbase. Bitcoin is economically doomed relying on the normally assumed rewards. This because the hashing power grows at a rate proportional to the reward so it relatively quickly becomes unprofitable no matter what the reward. Hashing gear is durable however, so it does not shrink. Maybe it can find something else to do or maybe not. Sidechains could help resolve this economic dilemma because they must support Bitcoin at a loss if need be...they cannot afford to let native Bitcoin be unhealthy. The above para means that nothing good economically can be achieved by increasing the block size. The only thing doing so could achieve would be to make the solution more bloated and thus more easy to attack. To add insult to injury, the piss-ant 10x or 20x size increases would chase out another big tranche of enthusiast class infrastructure providers and not come close to supporting even a mid-sized exchange economy anyway. At least by my seat-of-the-pants estimation. --- Just a brief word about Bitcoin's competitiveness as an 'exchange currency'. It sucks. The system is a marvel of inefficiency because it was architecture to be resistant to some aspect of the kind of nightmare attack scenarios that I allude to. Just look at the real cost of providing a transaction...it's laughably high. Also there is no reason to suspect that mainstream systems are ever going to become more secure to the Joe Sixpack class user so he'll always be struggling with secret keys. And, of course, there is the block latency which requires various shortcuts, workarounds, and throwing out of some of the security features that Bitcoin crows about in the first place. Bitcoin is also just (barely) subversive enough to create all kinds of legal-ish and regulatory-ish hassles that make it a real bitch to use, and I don't see that changing. If it does change then Bitcoin loses almost any reason to be used. The list goes on. this is tvbcof on the day of the last plunge down to 155. nice memorial. Why are you mentioning short term price action with regards to what he said (he didn't even mention current price)? Some of them are good points IMHO. I hope you don't believe that price pumping short term (or even medium-long term for that matter) means that not even some of his arguments are valid or something... you can stop hoping right there. i think his concerns are invalid. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin has clearly failed in an 'exchange' role as evidenced by still not needing to fiddle with the 7 tps transaction rate (1MB block size) and not being on a trajectory to need to do so any time soon. The reason for this is abundantly clear and I've been saying so for years: Bitcoin is simply not competitive in this role.
...
I don't fully get where you're coming from on this one. Does it all boil down to your assertion that blocksize increase would have to outrun Nielsen's law in order to sustain significant transaction throughput? Forgive me for neglecting to answer your other questions, but I like to try to keep things tight, and this is important. Firstly, Adam cast some pearls that I'm afraid went over most people's heads which is a shame. He is not talking about exactly what I want to mention here, but the same principles apply: ...
Its a little risky to play steganography arms race though because they could bypass that (at the limit steganography wins) by replacing
...
So, here's the deal: Something can act as a reserve if it is rock solid in all circumstances. Gold is a classic example.If in the future things are as they are now from a regulatory point of view, there are all kinds of instruments which could serve my purposes. I've long said that Bitcoin is a fun little toy in today's world and hardly anything more. In a world where it is really needed there is nearly no chance that it won't be viciously attacked by those who are threatened. The attacks possible (and likely in my opinion) against Bitcoin will drastically shrink the available bandwidth and the reliability the network. I don't give two shits what the capacity of todays or tomorrows 'consumer grade' bandwidth may be. It's an irrelevance in a situation where it matters. And even in situations where it does not ( mainstream monetary systems are working fine) there is a high likelihood that the global internet will become more restrictive and less free for other reasons. Bitcoin really only has value to me if I can have some confidence that it will be supportable under vigorous attacks. I suspect there are many others who feel similarly and enough to result in some pretty high valuations. If Bitcoin can succeed here then that success will be (potentially) available to solutions which use Bitcoin as a backing. Sidechains would be a good example, and by their nature they are quickly adaptable and a whack-a-mole headache to attackers.
It is this potential to possibly succeed which give Bitcoin it's value. Fortunately for Bitcoin, most of the alts are not really vying for this market-space since the very thought of a hostile global internet is widely considered to be some sort of crazed conspiricy theory...and it's no fun to restrict ones code anyway. As I've mentioned ad-nauseam recently it does not matter how big or small the transaction rate, fees, or coinbase. Bitcoin is economically doomed relying on the normally assumed rewards. This because the hashing power grows at a rate proportional to the reward so it relatively quickly becomes unprofitable no matter what the reward. Hashing gear is durable however, so it does not shrink. Maybe it can find something else to do or maybe not. Sidechains could help resolve this economic dilemma because they must support Bitcoin at a loss if need be...they cannot afford to let native Bitcoin be unhealthy. The above para means that nothing good economically can be achieved by increasing the block size. The only thing doing so could achieve would be to make the solution more bloated and thus more easy to attack. To add insult to injury, the piss-ant 10x or 20x size increases would chase out another big tranche of enthusiast class infrastructure providers and not come close to supporting even a mid-sized exchange economy anyway. At least by my seat-of-the-pants estimation. --- Just a brief word about Bitcoin's competitiveness as an 'exchange currency'. It sucks. The system is a marvel of inefficiency because it was architecture to be resistant to some aspect of the kind of nightmare attack scenarios that I allude to. Just look at the real cost of providing a transaction...it's laughably high. Also there is no reason to suspect that mainstream systems are ever going to become more secure to the Joe Sixpack class user so he'll always be struggling with secret keys. And, of course, there is the block latency which requires various shortcuts, workarounds, and throwing out of some of the security features that Bitcoin crows about in the first place. Bitcoin is also just (barely) subversive enough to create all kinds of legal-ish and regulatory-ish hassles that make it a real bitch to use, and I don't see that changing. If it does change then Bitcoin loses almost any reason to be used. The list goes on. this is tvbcof on the day of the last plunge down to 155. nice memorial. |
|
|
|
You've still got me.
Yes, afterthoughts often linger. Yep, the guy who screams at every blip in gold and whose emotions/FUD swing with every Bitcoin dip. Sad really how desperate for recognition one can be. About the only time I even check the gold price over the last year is when you make one of your numerous 'gold collapsing' exclamations. Sometimes I check Kitco and find that you seem to have made up the decline out of whole cloth, and a fraction of those I might bother to respond to. Probably my history of pretty good calls, not all supporting your campaign of wishing Bitcoin up, have colored your perceptions and memories. tvbcof in action:  |
|
|
|
look the hell out:  |
|
|
|
Long term perspective:  |
|
|
|
oh my: leading indicator SLW:  Junior Miner misery continues:  Majors, no better:  Word of the Day (last few years really): DEFLATION |
|
|
|
people were gabbling on the wall observer that the recent price runup to 290 was a pump to make more money off the auction. This "analysis" seemed ill considered to me because government functionaries aren't going to be getting a bonus based on the auction price and therefore have no incentive (unlike wall st) to pull these tricks. It seems more likely to me that the pull back right before the bidding opened was the artificial move... or even more likely it was a natural pullback that was amplified. An entity who engineered an artificial pullback would use this knowledge to keep its bid high while others might bid at current market. Obviously if this is true it is bullish... entirely speculation, but I'm interested in your thoughts...
from many years of trading, i would recommend ignoring news events in general, especially ones that have long lead times like the auction. certainly, natural disasters and "zero day" natural disasters will have effects if large enough. otherwise, following the technicals is the wisest approach as it's almost impossible to factor/price in all the myriad news events over short time periods even when it seems obvious. also, large swaths of ppl are just contrarians and love to invest based on doing something unexpected or going against the grain. thus, what's makes sense to you, may not make sense in terms of market responses to news events and explains why so many seemingly intelligent ppl get confused and emotionally distraught when prices move opposite to what they've reasoned. now, having said that i believe more in technicals than fundamentals, it IS important to understand the fundamentals of the market you're investing in, especially with Bitcoin. assclown emotionally weak minded individuals, like tvbcof, have emotions that swing like the lilies which follow the price. which is precisely why all his FUD bottomed precisely @155 and have now gone quiet as we've rebounded. unbeknownst to even him, since that bottom he'll now sneak in a positive comment every once in a while in an attempt to be able to say "he called the bottom" way out in the future. if you understand Bitcoin, like i believe you do, then you will view huge pullbacks like the last >1 yr as a buying opportunity and ignore guys like tvbcof. this pullback has been a dream to fulfill one's greed when it comes to Bitcoin accumulation. this means understanding the economics, cryptography, mathematics, and game theory behind Bitcoin. this knowledge helps keep things in perspective that helps shield against your emotions due to the volatility. Oh, this short term analysis is just a fascination/hobby for me; I bought on each 00 all the way down. the beautiful thing about Bitcoin is its transparency. you really can get a good idea about what's happened in the past and what's likely to happen in the future based on its open source nature. this is unique in the financial world. the "consensus" approach to change helps alot in this regard as anyone can participate and learn even at the level of the individual. as much as Redditors like to bash Bitcointalk as being full of trolls (they never mention Reddit is filled with them just as much if not more), it still is the bastion of ongoing knowledge of what's happening in Bitcoin. the thread model establishes continuity and evolution of thought. it also helps establish credibility in the participants. which is why this thread is so popular and long lasting as it is blessed with many, many thoughtful participants who come and go, each of whom contribute valuable ideas and perspective. we all learn from each other. consistent sources of information can be difficult to find in a complex topic such as Bitcoin. this is why we all keep this thread running. not to mention that Gold and Sound Money is key, imo. |
|
|
|
people were gabbling on the wall observer that the recent price runup to 290 was a pump to make more money off the auction. This "analysis" seemed ill considered to me because government functionaries aren't going to be getting a bonus based on the auction price and therefore have no incentive (unlike wall st) to pull these tricks. It seems more likely to me that the pull back right before the bidding opened was the artificial move... or even more likely it was a natural pullback that was amplified. An entity who engineered an artificial pullback would use this knowledge to keep its bid high while others might bid at current market. Obviously if this is true it is bullish... entirely speculation, but I'm interested in your thoughts...
from many years of trading, i would recommend ignoring news events in general, especially ones that have long lead times like the auction. certainly, natural disasters and "zero day" natural disasters will have effects if large enough. otherwise, following the technicals is the wisest approach as it's almost impossible to factor/price in all the myriad news events over short time periods even when it seems obvious. also, large swaths of ppl are just contrarians and love to invest based on doing something unexpected or going against the grain. thus, what's makes sense to you, may not make sense in terms of market responses to news events and explains why so many seemingly intelligent ppl get confused and emotionally distraught when prices move opposite to what they've reasoned. now, having said that i believe more in technicals than fundamentals, it IS important to understand the fundamentals of the market you're investing in, especially with Bitcoin. assclown emotionally weak minded individuals, like tvbcof, have emotions that swing like the lilies which follow the price. which is precisely why all his FUD bottomed precisely @155 and have now gone quiet as we've rebounded. unbeknownst to even him, since that bottom he'll now sneak in a positive comment every once in a while in an attempt to be able to say "he called the bottom" way out in the future. if you understand Bitcoin, like i believe you do, then you will view huge pullbacks like the last >1 yr as a buying opportunity and ignore guys like tvbcof. this pullback has been a dream to fulfill one's greed when it comes to Bitcoin accumulation. this means understanding the economics, cryptography, mathematics, and game theory behind Bitcoin. this knowledge helps keep things in perspective that helps shield against your emotions due to the volatility. |
|
|
|
You've still got me.
Yes, afterthoughts often linger. Yep, the guy who screams at every blip in gold and whose emotions/FUD swing with every Bitcoin dip. Sad really how desperate for recognition one can be. |
|
|
|
Both heading DOWNTOWN. 400's baby, bring it. 300's next.
Don't get too excited. $400 is in the cards, yes. But 300...? I don't think. Big rises have yet to backfill. In order for the $1000+ high to fill, it would have to drop below $300, possibly as low as ~$160 before the trend reverses. Of course growth rates may be enough to keep that from happening. If the ~$400-430 range holds through the supposed China deadline and the big investments start drawing in new usage, we could easily be headed back to the moon. In short, April is going to be a pivotal month for Bitcoin (and gold, silver, bonds, nearly everything else). I think if a collapse doesn't happen here, we'll know whether Bitcoin will truly thrive by late 3rd to 4th quarter this year. Nice call by miscreanity on your thread cypher. i do miss him. |
|
|
|
down, down, down:  |
|
|
|
lol no..  saw when it had like 2 views and I just thought shit more people need to see this lol yeah I am highly involved in an alt but that video is gold regardless!! Lol Lol, that video is on par with Hitler, maybe even better. Whoever made that has great timing and nuance. Couldn't stop laughing myself! As a Spaniard, I approve of this video. It's especially funny to someone who knows Risitas, who more than a comedian is a teller of personal anecdotes as miserable as they are funny. P.S: Now I notice Risitas has become a meme, damn, I thought this video was one of a kind. No such thing on the net, I guess. Given the misery of the Spanish economy since 2008, i can imagine he's had plenty of material. |
|
|
|
Caveat: SHA256 broken==blockchain corrupted--your BTC transferred ta hax0r's wallet--irreversible. You can hardfork the ashes all you want, your money's gone. Poof! Fini. You need to work in your FUD. Your scenario is less incorrect for ECDSA than it's incorrect for SHA256. lol Dude! Been waiting for you to show up! Did you actually produce this? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cIasr2AiyZ0 lol no.. saw when it had like 2 views and I just thought shit more people need to see this lol yeah I am highly involved in an alt but that video is gold regardless!! Lol Lol, that video is on par with Hitler, maybe even better. Whoever made that has great timing and nuance. Couldn't stop laughing myself! |
|
|
|
Caveat: SHA256 broken==blockchain corrupted--your BTC transferred ta hax0r's wallet--irreversible. You can hardfork the ashes all you want, your money's gone. Poof! Fini. You need to work in your FUD. Your scenario is less incorrect for ECDSA than it's incorrect for SHA256. lol Dude! Been waiting for you to show up! Did you actually produce this? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cIasr2AiyZ0 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
