|
That said i still think the whole world of crypto is completely over priced, i wouldnt mind bitcoin going back to 1k$ and the hashrate/ energy used going down 90%. I dont think the current model of bubbles and mooning and crazy energy consumption is sustainable.
|
|
|
|
I know many "small" eth miners with custum rigs they stopped mining eth in the past months because of the profitability is not there anymore  they switched either to raptoreum, chia/ chives or looking for alternative or switched to pos / masternodes coins. Already? That's lame, right now ETH mining is still profitable, a 30MH will earn you 1.27$ today I don't see reasons to shut down your rigs right now, not until 30MH earns 0.50$ per day, raptoreum is CPU mining coin and it sucks, chia is even worst the cost of Terabyte space is too high for mining, a 100TB will earn you 3$ per day do you know how much 100TB costs? The Guy i know into chia / chives got a bunch of entreprise grade drives 200tb for cheap on the blackmarket Same for cpu he gathered cpus and motherboards there and there and has spare cpus. And can always use the drive for something else. 1$ a day mean 30$ a month doesnt worth the hassle of mannaging a rig with all the heat and noise i guess. At least hard drive is more quiet and easier to mannage he also target maybe filecoin or other. |
|
|
|
I know many "small" eth miners with custum rigs they stopped mining eth in the past months because of the profitability is not there anymore they switched either to raptoreum, chia/ chives or looking for alternative or switched to pos / masternodes coins. |
|
|
|
|
The main thing is that blockchain can hardly fit within the corporate mindset who works in a pyramidale manner. And most buisness cant really operate smoothly without trust and accountability. Hence why you see an amount of scams and lies unprecedented in any industry.
And immutability is not always a good thing, can see the original dao fiasco as an example of this.
Now there are also advantages, and i cannot help but to see original bitcoin design was a centralised design if you follow satoshi words.
The problem i think is that it has be sold under false premise to a lot of guilible people with feeble understanding of technical and financial issues, in schemes that actually involved trust without provable trustwothyness.
You already had hash trees in systems like github that have already been designed to be dustributed and made a huge difference in the way software is developped today.
|
|
|
|
I have read attack of the 50 foot blockchain book lately it was quite interesting it somehow biased you can feel the Guy is not an enthusiast but it was quite interesting to read nonetheless. |
|
|
|
|
The trend i see is lot of people wish to earn passive income throught owning a virtual token easily accessible in one click. As the get rich by buying a coin is fading out, the attempt at making it like a stock market with dao or such didnt really took either, they are going into the next biggest market for passive income which is real estate. Or nft like collectible. Or anything that can feed the bubble of earning passive income out of the ownership of virtual tokens.
As the economy become all about capital mannagement, especially in big tech, there is an attractiveness in the idea of owning something related to technology vaguely associated with a stock, or real estate or something that bring passive income.
But blockchain technologies in themselves are still limited and the amount of passive income you can expect to make out of just owning token is limited, even if there is of course a huge demand for it.
Im not sure if this is really a good idea to make the economy so virtualized about abstract value of a title of property in a digital system that produce globally nothing.
And i dont think the tokenisation is really that much of a great idea either. Or it easily give a false sense of security while blockchain doesnt bring that much value in most markets other than the bubble / hype aspect.
|
|
|
|
market price is not dependant on the 19mill coins in circulation(hoarded or lost)
its dependant on the small amount of those 19mill that are actually traded(on market orders, deposited in exchanges)
yep market price only changes when orders are actually filled by actually having coin on the market.
the hoarders refusing to sell are not affecting the price. because they are not selling.. they are hoarding.
But they are hoarding with the sole purpose of selling it at higher price to make a profit .. But this dynamic was studied since the beginning, bitcoin has a strong appeal to bubble, for the reaons that the price is completly flexible, that it's deflationists with less and less being mined over time, and the value is indexed on nothing. So there is always this expection that the price can increase in the future. But if it's the only reason to buy it, it cannot work in sustainable manner. The only way it can gain sustainable value is if there is a legit demand for it's utility value as a paiment system. heres a few motto's for you:
a price does not move without a sell
for every seller is a buyer
buyers and sellers work together to make/set/change a price
yep buyers and sellers affect the price. not hoarders
its not hoarders philosophy you should interrogate. its the mindset of the day traders. and what 'value' they see as their purchase/sell limits.
once you grasp this concept then you can move one step closer to getting your answer answered about how markets and price valuations work.
so take some time to understand its the markets that are involved in the market price. and users in the market that decide on a value window by their collective emotions and limits that set the window of value for the price to speculate inbetween.
i have a nice hoard from 2012. and IF i were to put my coins into a market i can(then and only then) affect the market.
but guess what. i am not affecting the market. because i am hoarding
so try to understand the values of those who actually are on the market
i already gave you a few tip-bit examples of things you can research into in previous posts.
and i strangely know you will probably not want to seek and answer, and just want to slam insults just to enforce your pre-formed opinion.
but please just give it a try, research some options. and then you can either verify your opinion or change your opinion. just dont fear testing your opinion, with worrying that your opinion might be wrong.
But the two are completely related, hoarders only hoards because they are also traders and waiting for the good moment to sell with a profit. They don't just hoard to have a nice bunch of shiny coins on their wallet to put on their shelves as a decoration. out of curiosity.
is your understanding of what you feel as the way markets work, based purely on your experience of commodities.
where you see any commodity in circulation, need to be sold in X days.
is that why you dont like hoarding, because its not something you experienced.
is so, the only reason no one hoards beef, milk, orange juice, coffee beans.. is simple.
those commodities have a shelf life. hoard them too long and they go rotten
this is another reason why bitcoin is not a commodity, but an asset. because it has no shelf life forcing it to be sold quick.
(other crapcoins have 'demurrage' features, where bits of coin are lost if hoarded)
but bitcoin is not trying to be a commodity. its an asset. and assets are suppose to be owned long term
Well i have experience in many area, my understanding i think is more based on how stocks as investement gaining value really work, because i learned this with people with 30 year of experience in wallet street market, from the old school of thought akin to warret buffet. It's even the question that was asked in the thread where satoshi answered, it was are bitcoin like stocks of investement, and it's not. Commodity can also have long term value, think about furnitures, maybe cars, but the main point is that they have utility value, and their price is mostly made out of their utility value. Unlike stocks whose value is appreciated on a future potential. When you buy a stock, explicity you are buying something that doesn't yet exist and still has to be created. Hence why there is a risk in stock investement, and also why it can rise in value, eventually a lot if the thing being created out of the investement bring lot of utility value with royaltees and no competition. Bitcoin is not a commodity maybe, but the point is that in the context of asking if it's an investement like a stock, the answer is it's more like a commodity, because it's value it's mostly derived from utility value. It's the only way it make sense. As an "investement" the profit can only be based on unsustainable various kind of great fool games, ponzis, highly speculative bubbles and burst with a value based on nothing solid at all. The mining is not the value of bitcoin. Nobody would pay for a bunch of hash. The value is derived from it's utility value as a decentralized paiment secured by pow. The pow is a mean to an end, not what the value is based on. |
|
|
|
If this is correct it mean some kind of "silver thursday" at some point when hoarders make the price so high nobody really want to buy it anymore and it ends up loosing all value on the market.
Hoarders just make the circulation if Bitcoin decrease, which isn't a bad thing necessarily. Just means the coins in circulation become more valuable. People have also been concerned that the ~21 million coin cap (minus the coins that are permanently lost) isn't enough for global adoption. The number of coins doesn't matter, nor does it matter if the coins are finite. As long as some portion of the total supply is in circulation, the price will be adjusted due to demand. I wouldn't anticipate hoarders to cause BTC's price to fall. I'd think it'd have the opposite effect by causing demand to increase. The demand ok but for what purpose ? Hoarding it again to pull the price up again ? |
|
|
|
your argument is based on you just wishing that you could still get 10000btc for $25 today, and upset that you would have to pay $430k today for 10,000 or only get 0.00058btc for $25
My argument is not based on this, your argument is based on false assumptions and projection. I dont care about how many bitcoin i have at which price if the value is just going to be a roller coaster made of bubbles and crashes every two monthes, requiring to spend my life on trading chart to know if its going x2 or /2 in the next week. Again i have zero interest in those scheme. The rest is your imagination and projections |
|
|
|
Well lightning network is different than bitcoin its not to put a coin in the franky box, but its much more complicated than bitcoin, bitcoin is fundementally simple, 3 people in the world can install a node, and they will be able to run the network, have an address, mine it and make paiment in a secure manner. The Bitcoin node software (and generally: all digital wallet software solutions) hides a lot of complexity. There is also Lightning software with a similar usability. I don't consider that a problem for adoption. Plus LN wouldnt change much to the problem of volatlity and speculation games. [...] And i dont think the "scaling problem" is the issue at least for e commerce a delay of even 1h is still mangeable, even paypal can have similar delay.
I don't say it can directly "solve the problem", but it can lead to more acceptance by merchants and users, and thus lead to the virtuous cycle I described in the last post, where Bitcoin can stabilize and slowly become more usable as a currency, and thus "sustain its value" over time. Not only because it's instant, but also because it saves lots of transaction fees (there are still fee peaks where you pay >$5 if you want an 1-day confirmation, and this problem will probably increase in the future). Even worse: without LN or other scaling solutions like sidechains and statechains (which are still in prototype/idea stage) Bitcoin won't support an increase of more than 50% in terms of transaction density compared with now. Layer-1-TPS, even if it could be increased to let's say 20 or 30, is simply too little for worldwide adoption as a currency. (And no, I don't want the 1 MB/4 MB block size rule to be removed. It is important to keep the network safe and open imo, but that's a completely different discussion). I'm not an unconditional Lightning supporter, for example I support also Paul Sztorc's sidechain ideas, but I think it is a big piece in the puzzle leading to Bitcoin adoption as a currency. Even if the transactions volume is a problem for large scale adoption, already can see 75% - 95% of the volume is the speculative use on exchange from people expecting a high return on their stash, which is also what is driving the price up, and energy use for mining very high. But even so the main problem i see is even let say tomorrow there is a real organic demand as a currency based on a sustainable economic value, then the price is going to rise, the hoarder are going to cash out and crash the price. Meaning anyone who want to really pull an use as a currency has to pay the hoarders lords waiting for their lambo without bringing any value to the network which is currently maybe 90-95% of the economic value today. And then you are still going to have the crazy price / sentiment roller coaster of people seeing this as an investement mostly depending on hype campaign and techno babble, price manipulation, bubbles and bursts and only wanting more of this. Waiting some third world country to crash their economy and adopt bitcoin to cash out their profits. And lightning network or any scaling solution is not going to solve this. |
|
|
|
.
With your calculation our country will need to upload the 30 years of data over blockchain. Possible but not feasible yet.
Even so the root of trust is still the country and real estate reccord  If you trust a regular website you can even skip any cryptography a just use regular web site. Signatures can eliminate the trust in the web service modulo middle man attacks on the identity associated with the keys used to produce the signature. With a cypto currency you dont have to care about this because you dont care about the identity, and all you need to know about the coin ( emission , history, current conditions of transfer) is defined by the blockchain protocol. But unless everyone can physically check the whole history of the home building, the contracts, the reselling, fixes etc blockchain are not going to bring anything, you still need a trusted third party, either its the state, a real estate agency, or directly an indivual seller that you can identify with their public key. |
|
|
|
The problem imo is that blockchain works well when you have to deal with data that is generated according to certain condition defined by the protocol, for physical / material assets not so much, unless the information can be verified by the whole network which is very unlikely for real estate, and it ends up depending on trusted third parties so blockchain are more going to be a waste than anything.
Blockchain for real estate is a meaningless combination, I suspect are made up to attract investors with a buzzword. Fir s of all, I hardly doubt you'll ever need a blockchain for any non-monetary application non Bitcoin application. Secondly, as @IadixDev correctly stated, the oracle and his fairness represent a crucial weak point in any blockchain/physical world interaction. A block chain can record abstract data and signatures. With only that, an entry in the block chain can indicate a transfer of title from one entity to another. That could be useful if it removes the requirement of a trusted third-party to record the transfer. Whether or not the information about the title and its relationship to the physical world can be verified by the network is not relevant to this specific utility. Your statements are rooted in a fallacy called an argument from incredulity. They state that something is not possible or not useful because I cannot personally conceive of the possibility or the utility. On the other hand, there are strong arguments that support the claim that a block chain whose value is derived from something beyond its internal value is fragile. That is why many people believe that Defi block chains and even Ethereum are doomed to failure. A signature can be reccorded as well on a centralized serveur no need to copy it on thousands nodes if nobody can verify the validity of the informations. I can perfectly concieve the possibility to buy real estate via internet, its just blockchain doesnt bring any level of security beyond storing a signature to an unverifiable fact 10 000 times instead of one. If you transfer a coin mined according to the protocol then it works. If you transfer the property of physical things that nobody can check its useless. You still need to trust the person making the signature even if its replicated on 10000 nodes. Someone could just sign an act for a fake house with a fake history of fixes and transfer, and store it on 10000 nodes on the blockchain, it doesnt proove the house and the fixes are real. And i can see the same flawed reasoning around many defi thingies. So thanks for your assumptions on what my belief are rooted on, did you see this information on a blockchain as well ?  |
|
|
|
I don't say it can directly "solve the problem", but it can lead to more acceptance by merchants and users, and thus lead to the virtuous cycle I described in the last post, where Bitcoin can stabilize and slowly become more usable as a currency, and thus "sustain its value" over time.
...
I'm not an unconditional Lightning supporter, .. but I think it is a big piece in the puzzle leading to Bitcoin adoption as a currency.
thats what bankers said when offering bank promissory notes 'pegged' to gold in the 1900's.. and now gold is not a daily use currency nor are bank notes pegged to gold.. and the wild west gold rush is dead just watch out for the PR of "you never have to close your LN channel you can just rebalance" "you dont need to settle to get bitcoin its expensive fee, try an altcoin settlement via atomic swap" its the old banking game. "dont take your gold out to move banks. here have a cheque wrote to another bank" "dont take your gold, here have some brass, nickel and copper coins"
I never participated in any ico or being advocate for pos.
Re: [ANN][ICO][ADX]Iadix Coin POS Purenode HTML5 Blockchain, Starts 15th Feb. Hello, im iadix developper First I want to say there is already some working source code, and we wont "run away" after the ico ends For the moment there is a wallet based on blackcoin that works on win 32/64 and linux, and the expérimental core im working on which is modular portable and light, easy to customize, it use no big c++ framework, so it compile easily , and include already most function to synch à blockchain, and have web app like wallets and block explorer. The definitive coin used for the ico is not compiled with the definitive parameters yet, but it will be before the start of the ico, there is already a "demo blockchain " working currently though, and we have been testing it for a while already. We plane to be transparent on developpement , and I should be active on it in the near future. And I can answer questions if there is any you literally made an ICO of a PoS coin using your own username as the coin designation. Its some friend who wanted to do this but the goal was not to do a pos coin, if you read well you will see i pulled from this project, and if you look in the newer thread you will see what it is. This thread is dead for years lol for the moment its still hybrod pow/pos because its a testnet and i dont want to spend elecricity to mine a testnet. And if you dig deeper like on my steem account you will see ive been critic of ico for a while. And i still say this in the last post of the newer thread which is more what my plan was since the beginning. Its my friend who wanted to make this ico thing but then when i saw their plan was just to make shitcoins to sell poker chips i pulled out. Moved the github, changed the name, it was not my plan at the begining. If doing an ico with a pos coin was what i wanted to do because im so frustated with fomo i would have kept going with this thing with my friends. I had the opportunity to do it but i didnt. Nobody got hurt, i pulled before some real monney was engaged but its not me who wanted to do this. They are people i lived with for years im still in contact with them but im not doing any project with them anymore. And im still on this position since the beginning, selling crypto as an investement cannot work. And can only ends in scammy scheme and people loosing monney. Which is why i didnt do an ico. And still have no intention to do one more unless i find a good manner to represent an investement as a share/ stock or something. But for the moment the only scheme that can really work is seeing crypto currency as a paiment system, not some investement, store of value asset shinny gold to sell a bubble or whatever. But it is a bit off topic if you want to discuss this project go in the proper thread |
|
|
|
i do understand your anger.
its obvious that your jealous, upset, resentful that you didnt get rich from PoS ICO scams, and though that experience set your narrative for what you think crypto economics is like. you now turn to an actual working economic model of bitcoin, but seem to not like the fact that bitcoin has a proper economic structure, or not understand bitcoins economic structure.. and so want to flame war silly stories of how bitcoin must be pyramid, commodity, useless. purely out of spite that you cant get rich for low cents per day cost like you were promised on PoS ICO scam promotions
sorry but bitcoin is nothing like ICO's or PoS coins
You dont understand anything and make wild assumptions based on not much more than bitcoin price. You should Google a bit more instead of listenning to the wrong person or the wrong voice in your head. Making ad hominem argument is easy. Making real argument much harder. I never participated in any ico or being advocate for pos. The bitcoin econmic model is as a paiment system. Either its 1$ market cap or 3 billion doesnt change anything. Making it only based on bubble roller coaster for that peope can get rich out nothing but techno babbling and hoarding is not going to lead anywhere. What i would like it to be is a functional paiment system as it was intended to be not a get rich quick scheme based on empty promises, bubble, and techno babble fomo and so on. Otherwise it has zero interest for me but have fun selling your bitcoin bubble scam to relieve yourself from your frustration, looks like someone needs to compensate for something ? |
|
|
|
what you actually find is that. the price is affected by hashrate and also blockhalving(that affect miners costs)
in 2013 when asics first came online the price went __/ shifting the 'value window' up to levels where people thought its worth buying bitcoin at higher prices before previous due to the new higher costs of mining are more expensive/inconvenient to mine.
when hashrate drops and cheaper to mine because less people share bigger parts of the reward the price goes down
in 2021 when china banned mining the hashrate went down from 165exa to 90exa. and the price ---\
..
yes in some expensive hobby mining scenarios of little guys they choose to switch miners off after a price dip(react to price within window). but for the large mining farms. they continue to mine and they affect the window.
all of which fit into the relationship between the speculative price and the value window.
the price within the value window speculates up and down between the min and max value depending on the emotion of individuals. but the value window itself(currently $30k-$70k) is set by the mining cost/cost of acquisition
cheapest mining at 4cent/kwh is $30k bottom value. and most expensive(germany/japan) at 32cent/kwh is $70k
all emotional speculation of price volatility sit within this value window
It would make no sense for miners to expand more energy per block than someone is willing to pay thinking it would increase the value. Bitcoin price will not double if miner decide to buy twice more asics. But the hashrate will surely decrease if bitcoin price fall down. |
|
|
|
The first bitcoins were mined at higher rate than today with 3 cpus. there is no minimum amount of work to pull out to mine a bitcoin, it's only relative to the network economic worth.
and gold in the times of the egyptians, romans and even upto the american wild west, were done via pickaxes finding gold nuggets the size of potato's but now its more gold dust requiring shifting tonnes of dirt per ounce using excavators someone with a pickaxe today will not get the same reward as someone with a excavator and sluice machine today. there is actually minimal work. its called the difficulty. you have to processes trillions of hashes to find a block solution. at todays cost a raspberry pi will take decades to get lucky. a mining farm of 500 asics will find 1 a day. a pool(gold quarry) could combine loads of workers and combine efforts, but a single worker doesnt get the whole reward... its shared based on work done. (division of labour) so a small worker will only get a few sats for his few penny electric work i know your stuck in the PoS narative that the only sole user that signs a block gets the reward, but bitcoins PoW is nothing like PoS solo signing But its the network value who is driving the hashrate up not the otherway around. Bitcoin could work perfectly with a total market cap of 1$ and 3 raspberry pi mining it. You would have exactly the same amount of bitcoin being mined at the same rate. |
|
|
|
But pow is not a production cost, you can mine exactly the same amount of bitcoin at the exact same rate with two rasperry pi for 3 cents a month. Its a proof of work used to solve the byzantine général problem, fondamently bitcoin cost nothing to produce. Therefore it has no bottom value.
The pow adjust with the economic value of the network to avoid 51% attacks not the other way around. That's where you reasoning is fondementally flawed.
Currently clearly its more like a cheap pop star or flacky art rather than gold that has been used a store of value since antiquity.
so much wrong again.. sorry but someone with 55petahash and someone with 110terra hash is not going to get the same bitcoin reward amount. you are not going to earn 6.25bitcoin using a raspberry pi for 3 cent a month. you are going to get a couple sats. and you will calculate the cost:reward as such. where by someone with 55peta is going to get more based on his work EG with gold if you had 2 people in the same quarry digging for gold. the guy with the expensive excavator and sluice machine will earn more gold, than a guy with a pickaxe and a sifting dish The first bitcoins were mined at higher rate than today with 3 cpus. there is no minimum amount of work to pull out to mine a bitcoin, it's only relative to the network economic worth. |
|
|
|
But still, nothing is lost - at the contrary there are reasons to be optimistic.
One of the biggest indicators that the "currency" usage could come back eventually is the adoption of the Lightning Network. It grew very steeply in 2021, now it grows slower but still steadily and much more pronounced than before 2021.
Lightning adoption is bullish for two reasons. First because the main use case is trading goods and services, and not hoarding (for hoarding, on-chain txs are better/safer), and second, because value is frozen in LN channels. These Bitcoins can of course be unfrozen but they will probably stay there longer than in a "normal" UTXO and thus unavailable to "hoard and sell" speculation.
Then there is the movement of states adopting it as legal tender, with El Salvador, which also should boost "currency" usage.
There is also no reason to "not" spend Bitcoins if you think it will go up more. Simply spend it and re-buy, you will be strengthening its ecosystem and network effect.
The best case scenario would be that Lightning/currency usage would continue to rise and eventually (most likely in a couple of years, not in 2022) become the main use case for Bitcoin again. Speculation will always exist, but if currency usage increases, this should result in a more stable price, even more so if eventually "fixed prices in Bitcoin" become a thing so you can anchor the value of a BTC to certain goods or services.
So a virtuous cycle could evolve: Bitcoin becomes more stable but still attractive as an investment, and as it stabilizes, it becomes also gradually more usable as a currency.
Well lightning network is different than bitcoin its not to put a coin in the franky box, but its much more complicated than bitcoin, bitcoin is fundementally simple, 3 people in the world can install a node, and they will be able to run the network, have an address, mine it and make paiment in a secure manner. Nobody needs to be tech savy, have any preeixisting fund, nothing needs to be locked or anything. And you could have roughly the same functionality with an spv wallet or such. Plus LN wouldnt change much to the problem of volatlity and speculation games. And i dont think the "scaling problem" is the issue at least for e commerce a delay of even 1h is still mangeable, even paypal can have similar delay. Its not likely the order is going to be processed in the minute on an online platform and some internal token can be used with bulk paiment if you really want to attract compulsive buyers. I dont think its really the deal breaker here. For real shops maybe more and still there is also an old thread where satoshi talked about the soda machine where this kind of problem is issued. The vendor could check on the main's mining pool to see if the transaction is in their memory pool, in theory there should be relatively safe way to prevent double spend and work around confirmation time, especially for small paiments. |
|
|
|
this is where again value and price need to be realised as different measures.
golds bottom line value is ~$900. no one wants to sell below this because the cost of mining gold is higher then this. and years of buying gold has raised its current owners acquisition costs to also be over $900
same with bitcoin its bottomline support value is about $30k.
the premium (point no one wants to buy above) is gold:$2.5k and bitcoin $70k
the PRICE. of gold sits somewhere in the middle of $0.9k-$2.5k.. and yea the volatility of the ups and downs within this window where the price bounces up and down is the market sway of emotion.
but thats not to say gold has no underlying value either economic value or utility value
the PRICE. of bitcoin sits somewhere in the middle of $30k-$70k.. and yea the volatility of the ups and downs within this window where the PRICE bounces up and down is the market sway of emotion.
but thats not to say bitcoin has no underlying value either economic value or utility value
bitcoin has more utility than many crapcoins(utility) and also because its PoW instead of PoS, bitcoin has economic value.
i would agree your assertions of pure emotional sway of markets and things going to zero apply more to crap-PoS coins. but bitcoin is different to those. for many many reasons
what you need to realise is.. the store of VALUE (value) is not the current $43k. its store of VALUE (value) is $30k+
where at the moment the extra $13k is yes speculative emotional premium, speculating the store of VALUE(value) will eventually reach more then their early purchase of $43k
stop imagining the PRICE as an equal VALUE line. and realise there are differences.
EG milk, each week it can go up and down in price at a retail store.. in the UK we have it going from £1-£1.50($1.37-$2.06)
what is deemed as value to an end users is when its near to the £1($1.37). and when its premium its nearer the £1.50($2.06)
this by itself, this swing in current retail prices regularly is not enough to call milk a pyramid, your thinking: because a farmer sold it for £0.40 to a pasteurising factory, who sold it for £0.47 to a distribution centre/wholesaler who sold it for £0.57 to a retailer. who sold it to a customer for £1-£1.50
a pyramid is where when things are sold at the bottom the money moves up the levels.
EG customer pays retailer who then pays wholesaler who then pays pasteuriser who then pays farmer(in backward reward)
a pyramid is also from top down. 1 recruit 3 who recruits 9 who recruits 27
there is no 1 3 9 27 split of different people who benefit from a sale.
with anything sold in retail. its just money between buyer to seller.
and also, art is an asset..
art is not a commodity. nor a pyramid
seems. you are not yet willing to consider things.
you want to call bitcoin a pyramid (backward paying reward program scam)
you want to call bitcoin a ponzi (share investment treasury scam)
you want to call bitcoin a commodity (raw material used to make products)
you want to call bitcoin flaky art (asset)
can you atleast make your mind up on one?
But pow is not a production cost, you can mine exactly the same amount of bitcoin at the exact same rate with two rasperry pi for 3 cents a month. Its a proof of work used to solve the byzantine général problem, fondamently bitcoin cost nothing to produce. Therefore it has no bottom value. The pow adjust with the economic value of the network to avoid 51% attacks not the other way around. That's where you reasoning is fondementally flawed. Currently clearly its more like a cheap pop star or flacky art rather than gold that has been used a store of value since antiquity. |
|
|
|
again you say "commodity"
a commodity is a raw material used to create other products
oil=fuel/plastic, beef=burgers/steak, wheat=bread/cereal
gold is yes a commodity but its also an asset. gold sits on 2 markets.
dont confuse golds mining/currency reserve/investment (asset class) with its jewellery/electronics(commodity class)
bitcoin fits similarly to golds asset definition.. but bitcoin no way fits into golds commodity definition
Well its satoshi who said its like a commodity for many reasons, he must know something about it, he made it no ? I can try to pull all the substance of the several 20+ pages thread ive read that contain discussion with satoshi hal finney and other people at the origin of bitcoin. The global conclusion is that either its supposed to be used as a currency, either its just a bullshit scheme for pseudo investors to scam each others in a null sum game out of empty promises. And sound monney is aligned with gdp, commodity stream. Its not an asset class store of value, gold reserve or whatever. At best like some flacky art piece sold anywhere from 1$ to 100$ depending on the mood and amount of monney to launder. as for saying its a pyramid scheme(facepalm) well your listening to the wrong 2 people. whichever one calls it a pyramid scheme. stop listening. and instead learn:
no one gets recurring income from the sell of bitcoin.
there is no bunch of investors all depositing into a central pot that paying out monthly interest/dividends
there is no 'team' of downstream or upstream lineage of investors getting paid by a downstream seller
its not like when someone sells coin. he then has to pay 10% to his supervisor, and 8% to their supervisor
who ever owns the coin and sells the coin keeps the funds for the sell. there is no pyramid 'sharing' of revenue structure in bitcoin.
Yeah you are right its what is called a pyramid scheme, but what meant is more like greater fool scheme, where the same things is sold over and over again at higher price each time someone being ripped off a bit more.
early adopters/hoarders (not selling) have no impact on the price because they are not the ones making offers.
bitcoins price is only from those selling at the price they want to sell at and only they get the income of that sale
If its a one time thing ok, then if everyone is only buying it to hoard it and only wait for the best time to buy / sell all the time waiting for some hype campaign to make insane profits of course its going to have an impact on the price. And it can only ends in constant price rouler coaster, while people start to hoard then play greater fool scheme 2, 3 , 4 ,5 times until the price crash and here we go again, its the same loop for 10 years. With almost zero legit use in commerce as a currency, while its this same thing sold each time as the future source of profit, that its going to be world currency, replacing fiat etc etc Fear greed in crypto.plot https://www.carnfieldwebdesign.co.uk/category/bitcoin-fear-and-greed-index/The digital asset market is largely driven by emotion (hence the term “market sentiment”). This fact contributed to the creation of special indexes that help to understand which situation you need to be more careful in and when you can act more boldly. A market mostly driven by emotion in a constant roller coster cannot be told to be a good asset / store of value. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
