You are comparing a copycat to an innovation, of course it took Bitcoin a while to get to 1USD there was an extremely tiny user base and it was totally unknown. Look at coins bringing tons of new things to the table like Ether or Lisk.
Hell Lisk hasn't even launched and is trading at right under $2 usd per lisk and has a close to 5 times the size of this coin. When a coin brings something truly innovative or groundbreaking to the community then it earns value but when it clones itself to a name (bitcoin), adds one thing (POS) and then we see it being taken off exchanges in less then a month. If you want to argue and say it is groundbreaking and truly innovative you don't call me a troll, you prove it with your technology and then I am sure the exchange value will follow.
You really do not understand the current landscape. The only reason Bitcoin took off in the first place is because it allowed criminals to pay for things such as guns and drugs anonymously i.e silk road. It was nothing to do with the blockchain or innovation, it was an anonymous medium of financial transaction which gave it its value. In that sense Bitcoin is the SAME AS cash, it is "as long as they are stolen" anonymous. Given a signfiicant proportion of Bitcoin have been stolen, changed hands illegally, exchanges liquidated, a large amount of Bitcoin are already tainted and thus people are "transacting using stolen goods", that is against the law itself!
You are also placing "your value" or a "inferred market value" based on a handful of investors. Private equity investor capital is itself a ponzi scheme. We have seen over the last two years how a number of IPO's which INCLUDE ETHEREUM have
lost investors large amounts of money, Lisk will follow the same pattern, the very reason being there is insufficient natural community within the sector. Exchange values are completely innacurate and you should know this, they are inflated based on technology that is not needed, and as software cannot be patented it can easily be copied.
Bitcoin 21 though already has an exchange value (Yobit price)
higher than 97 coins established on Bittrex of which some have been there for two years, so criticising the exchange price or value within one month of launch is a pointless endeavour. Money is money, it doesn't matter what bells and whistles you put on it, ultimately its what the general public (consensus) decide.
It does NOT MATTER what technology or innovation ANY digital currency provides in the sector because you are still using fiat money, which;
- is restricted in its upper ceiling to never be enough to serve the worlds population
- is stored in centralised banks and will never ben invested in broad digital currency (thats why the BoE has made their own)
- there is plenty of it however the Rothschilds are said to own $500 trillion (i suspect that most of that is in property)
- fiat money was issued by a few people supported and aided by powerful people whom benefit from the ponzi scheme
- the freemasonry controls money in the modern world, including providing promotions and awards to people for supporting the fiat ponzi/pyramid scheme
If you are still absorbing fiat money you are participating in a ponzi/pyramid scheme which benefits the people higher up the pyramid. Would you be a doctor to other people for free, no you want paid, it does not matter what country you are in whether it is a democracy, republic, communist, dictatorship, you have no choice but to use the native currency for payment.
The question then occurs, if every country (bar about 4) uses Rothschild banking, which by the way fiat money also pays national and international law, politicians, united nations staff, world bank staff, any digital currency that uses fiat CHANGES NOTHING, they are still all tools at the disposal of the banking cartels. Digital currencies are not disrupting banking, it's a lie, digital currencies are supporting banking.
What's to stop the banks buying up Bitcoin, Ethereum, Lisk as a majority stakeholder and then creating a private blockchain (destroying the value from existing chains and importing book value)? Nothing.
So I wouldn't talk to me about innovation, every single digital currency is fiat money in another form, it is digital fiat. There is no innovation there.
It also doesn't matter about the value of Bitcoin 21 on exchanges because here is why, and listen carefully,
- Bitcoin does not create new wealth
- Bitcoin will not attract the investment of the Rothschild banking infrastructure
- Bitcoin is poorly governed
- Bitcoin is not distributing wealth to participants in the sector (it is a naturally occurring ponzi scheme)
- Bitcoin exchange coin values are poorly valued deliberately against Bitcoin
Currency Of LightIf you havn't seen my other innovations yet you might want to look at the following;
www.currencyoflight.com www.virtualgold.org www.treasuryoftheuniverse.comwww.theblockchainparty.com Perhaps you would criticise these as not being innovations?
I have also established a number of currencies on the NXT platform, Bitshares platform and soon will be on the Horizon platform, you may also look at Twitter for Iocoinwallets. So when you make a claim that "Bitcoin 21 offers no innovation" you have no concept of who is behind such a project, what their skillset is, or indeed how innovative they are. You should apologise.
Light provides life, light is the energy source that enables us to grow crops, light enables life to flourish in the seas, light also has intrinsic financial value as it is now turned from solar energy into electricity. Yet the world still runs a poor financial economy based on oil and a countries GDP (of course it does so it can still keep people in poverty). A countries GDP can be easily manipulated, one way of doing this is an "economic crisis" which can simply be caused by not getting money to people who spend it. It's not rocket science, its a reason it is called an eCONomy.
Banks make money from people being alive, light is the source of value that keeps people alive, however why are we then not using light as an infinite source of wealth? Businesses and governments make profit from food grown by light energy? So why is light not a source of currency or imported into the blockchain?
Exactly. You have absolutely no idea what you are assessing here. When you use your car, do you know you are using the blood of the earth, that oil is created by a process known as "serpentization". Can you shine light through oil? Why not? Once again you have no idea what you are assessing here.
I created the Currency Of Light on the blockchain, you have been notified that Bitcoin 21 is a dual currency, that exists in duality, it's primary purpose is not to exist as Bitcoin's younger brother, it is designed to be one way of "burning" fiat in favour of creating infinite wealth to cure global poverty with a secondary economy.
According to Unicef 18,000 people die unnecessarily of poverty and disease every day around the world, that's over 4 million every year, thats over 21 million since Bitcoin was created, so what is Ethereum, Bitcoin or Lisk doing to cure extreme poverty, to create new wealth? NOTHING! There is no innovation, just meagre technology that nobody really needs and at the end of the day, is further automation of jobs, the banking industry is one of the highest employers in the world.
So if you want to call innovation - losing jobs, automating processes that keep people busy, not curing poverty, not changing life for the better - then who wants to innovate???
Example :- TCP/IP V6 is not an innovation of TCP/IP V4, they are the same thing just adDRESSED differently (defined purely by the need for a better addressing system there is no new tech there) and that's what Ethereum and Lisk are.
Your only way to create change in the world is to create NEW money not to recycle fiat money, and to do that you have to refuse to use fiat money, it's that simple, and that's from experience. What are you prepared to sacrifice for others?
I am not interested in working with projects that;
- unnecessarily automate procedures
- reduce employment opportunities for people
- reduce a nations GDP (which reduces policing, healthcare, and other social benefits)
- damage a stable world economy (destroy centralised banking which ultimately would increase civilian robbery)
- cause unrest and ultimately war (the first three will do this)
So you should think before you label something with "innovation" when actually if scaled up is hugely disruptive, I will continue to do my own thing unperterbed by insult or criticism, quite frankly though I strongly feel you own me an apology. Do you have any other questions?
