Ibian
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278
|
 |
February 23, 2018, 09:19:40 AM |
|
Why are we even entertaining this troll? Slow day?
|
|
|
|
|
|
olumyd
|
|
February 23, 2018, 09:24:22 AM |
|
The ugliest truth of bitcoin is that it just isn't useful in any legal fields.
What ? I... just... huh ? Lol... don't go into a cardiac attack just yet... The guy's got a point, - 'legal'..., there are no current state or federal stamps on BTC codes acknowledging it as a medium of exchange, however, it does suit the masses to do as they please - freedom of... something. If you want to be technical, something does not need to be acknowledged as a medium of exchange in order to create a binding legal obligation. “I agree to trade my goat for two of your sheep” is legally enforceable even if neither sheep nor goats are recognized as mediums of exchange. Quite the contrary, the public opinion of a legal binding obligation requires judicial and legislative stamps (blue, green, red or whatever), they just have to put it into law and recognize it's function as a financial asset; and yes sheep and goats are recognized as a medium of exchange - commodity exchange. And speaking of technical, Bitcoin has been touted as being the 'digital gold' - a form of currency or tradable asset, so there must be some binding or legal (at least from the governing body) attestation to that premise. |
|
|
|
|
Jacques_Bittard
Member
Offline
Activity: 154
Merit: 10
.
|
|
February 23, 2018, 09:28:18 AM |
|
The ugliest truth of bitcoin is that it just isn't useful in any legal fields.
What ? I... just... huh ? Lol... don't go into a cardiac attack just yet... The guy's got a point, - 'legal'..., there are no current state or federal stamps on BTC codes acknowledging it as a medium of exchange, however, it does suit the masses to do as they please - freedom of... something. The main thing I pointed out with this is that bitcoin doesn't actually offer anything practical for doing business. It's not simple, secure, fast or cheap enough to be useful in practical finance. I think that the reason is that being the first, bitcoin is just the most simplistic, general and non-specialized product. New generation of cryptos are built from the ground up to solve specific practical problems and that is why they are a lot more efficient and useful. Bitcoin was trying hard to define itself as a store of value asset. In my eyes this won't work because an asset, that's value is highly dependent on speculation, will never be a good store of value asset. This would be as moronic as to recommend pink sheets as store of value investments. Store of value needs stability and predictability the most. |
|
|
|
|
Last of the V8s
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 4392
Be a bank
|
|
February 23, 2018, 09:32:08 AM |
|
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=521908Really unimpressed with 2012 arguments then, not gonna be engaging them again now. Thought we were at least up to 2013 now with 'privacy and fungibility' the topics. Please Mr Dimon, Sir, won't you send us more entertaining shills? tia
|
|
|
|
|
Jacques_Bittard
Member
Offline
Activity: 154
Merit: 10
.
|
|
February 23, 2018, 09:35:46 AM |
|
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=521908Really unimpressed with 2012 arguments then, not gonna be engaging them again now. Thought we were at least up to 2013 now with 'privacy and fungibility' the topics. Please Mr Dimon, Sir, won't you send us more entertaining shills? tia Arguments ignored since 2012 = success? |
|
|
|
|
Jacques_Bittard
Member
Offline
Activity: 154
Merit: 10
.
|
|
February 23, 2018, 09:37:37 AM |
|
The main thing I pointed out with this is that bitcoin doesn't actually offer anything practical for doing business.
... and another one added to the ignore list. Jesus... At first I read that he put Jesus on the ignore list.. |
|
|
|
|
|
olumyd
|
|
February 23, 2018, 09:39:03 AM |
|
The ugliest truth of bitcoin is that it just isn't useful in any legal fields.
What ? I... just... huh ? Lol... don't go into a cardiac attack just yet... The guy's got a point, - 'legal'..., there are no current state or federal stamps on BTC codes acknowledging it as a medium of exchange, however, it does suit the masses to do as they please - freedom of... something. The main thing I pointed out with this is that bitcoin doesn't actually offer anything practical for doing business. It's not simple, secure, fast or cheap enough to be useful in practical finance. I think that the reason is that being the first, bitcoin is just the most simplistic, general and non-specialized product. New generation of cryptos are built from the ground up to solve specific practical problems and that is why they are a lot more efficient and useful. Bitcoin was trying hard to define itself as a store of value asset. In my eyes this won't work because an asset, that's value is highly dependent on speculation, will never be a good store of value asset. This would be as moronic as to recommend pink sheets as store of value investments. Store of value needs stability and predictability the most. I agree it is the first most simplistic, and it's quite hard for it to deviate from its original consensus plan - a store of value, peer-to-peer electronic cash system that has an in-built decentralised transaction history with high-tech-class security. Nothing more should be expected from it, other than for a scaling function to accommodate mainstream usage; because, I think that's the only thing the developers didn't factor in during the early development phase. But for stability and predictability only a centralised system can achieve such regulatory benchmark. |
|
|
|
|
Last of the V8s
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 4392
Be a bank
|
|
February 23, 2018, 09:42:57 AM |
|
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1066312Coincidentally pops up to discuss things and matters and to debate ideas and opinions. Can you both come clean now and present your shitcoin. Is it better than ETH? and NEO? Will it change crypto fundamentally?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totscha
|
|
February 23, 2018, 09:46:03 AM |
|
I agree it would be crazy to spend $5 billion / year to run a payment network used by 5 million users (that number is pretty low IMO). That's just wasteful. And if you think Bitcoin is just that, you've been reading some funny pamphlets.
It is in fact a decentralized peer 2 peer network that enables any 2 parties in the world to exchange value over the internet without the need for trust and a central authority.
Was email better than regular mail back in 1990? You needed a $5000 computer and it still took a long time, while a stamp only cost a few cents. What a waste of money, right?
In my eyes, the problem is exactly that bitcoin isn't nothing but an expensive payment network. It is often called a "cryptocurrency", but in my eyes it is a gimmick of an currency, when it doesn't have an independent mechanism for value stabilization. As long as it has to use fiat to give it value, then fiat will still be the only currency in the pair and bitcoin is just the temporal solution to transfer fiat. That is why, in my technical point of view, it is the same to hope for bitcoin to replace fiat then to hope for your car to fly to the moon. In this reality these things just don't have the needed mechanics for the job.. Don't take me as a pessimist by this. I think that in the future we will have an cryptoasset that is able to break this currency boundary and will be able to actually offer an predictable value without the need for the support of fiat value. Trying to wish bitcoin to do this isn't just constructive use of energy. All these false hopes and illusions will only make a big mess and the people who profit for it aren't exactly the good kind. I also think that you can't compare the e-mail protocol to bitcoin protocol. One is a communication protocol, you can compare it to IRC if you like. Bitcoin is an financial protocol with a lot more complexities and different rule-sets. As long as you see it as just a payment network, or a financial protocol you will have trouble seeing it's true potential. It is a protocol that enables digital scarcity in a decentralized manner without the need for trust. It allows for hard promises. After a few blocks a transaction is effectively irreversible. So it has to be extremely expensive to 'overwrite history'. I mean overwhelmingly expensive. It's a feature, not a bug. Will this scale to the entire population. Of course not! Nobody is saying it will not change and evolve. The current implementation is great for a settlement layer while the LN would be used as a payment network. We have been running out of IPv4 addresses for the last 30+ years, but things still work. People have been hard at work and incrementally IP was able to handle more and more devices (Address Classes, Classless Inter-Domain Routing, NAT, ...).  |
|
|
|
|
|
olumyd
|
|
February 23, 2018, 09:52:21 AM |
|
Lol... A single coin doesn't have the capacity to change crypto ecosystem, it's more of a r(e)volutionary trend, one crypto will trump the other only to pave way for another to outwit it. The cumulative effect is what we would someday look back and applaud. It's a system; I don't think it's turnkey yet. I don't represent any shitcoin. I believe in 'the system' that's all. ETH and NEO are great cryptos, but without BTC there would not have been a primer to begin with. |
|
|
|
|
Jacques_Bittard
Member
Offline
Activity: 154
Merit: 10
.
|
|
February 23, 2018, 09:54:14 AM |
|
I agree it is the first most simplistic, and it's quite hard for it to deviate from its original consensus plan - a store of value, peer-to-peer electronic cash system that has an in-built decentralised transaction history with high-tech-class security. Nothing more should be expected from it, other than for a scaling function to accommodate mainstream usage; because, I think that's the only thing the developers didn't factor in during the early development phase. But for stability and predictability only a centralised system can achieve such regulatory benchmark.
I think that the development of bitcoin shows genius in software development, but not so much genius in financial implementation. Bitcoin is innovative and complex in the software perspective, but it is childish and silly in financial perspective. Modern economy needs a lot more then bitcoin is able to offer as an practical tool. The system will always be centralized around something. The software development of bitcoin is centralized around specific people, and the financial markets of bitcoin are centralized around specific organizations and people. As long as there are people, there will always be natural centralization of systems around people who can do things that most others can't. This is not something that should be fought by itself. |
|
|
|
|
|
orpington
|
|
February 23, 2018, 10:02:43 AM |
|
I agree it is the first most simplistic, and it's quite hard for it to deviate from its original consensus plan - a store of value, peer-to-peer electronic cash system that has an in-built decentralised transaction history with high-tech-class security. Nothing more should be expected from it, other than for a scaling function to accommodate mainstream usage; because, I think that's the only thing the developers didn't factor in during the early development phase. But for stability and predictability only a centralised system can achieve such regulatory benchmark.
I think that the development of bitcoin shows genius in software development, but not so much genius in financial implementation. Bitcoin is innovative and complex in the software perspective, but it is childish and silly in financial perspective. Modern economy needs a lot more then bitcoin is able to offer as an practical tool. The system will always be centralized around something. The software development of bitcoin is centralized around specific people, and the financial markets of bitcoin are centralized around specific organizations and people. As long as there are people, there will always be natural centralization of systems around people who can do things that most others can't. This is not something that should be fought by itself. honestly, what the fuck are you going on about anyways, and why? |
|
|
|
|
Jacques_Bittard
Member
Offline
Activity: 154
Merit: 10
.
|
|
February 23, 2018, 10:04:11 AM |
|
As long as you see it as just a payment network, or a financial protocol you will have trouble seeing it's true potential. It is a protocol that enables digital scarcity in a decentralized manner without the need for trust. It allows for hard promises. After a few blocks a transaction is effectively irreversible. So it has to be extremely expensive to 'overwrite history'. I mean overwhelmingly expensive. It's a feature, not a bug. Will this scale to the entire population. Of course not! Nobody is saying it will not change and evolve. The current implementation is great for a settlement layer while the LN would be used as a payment network. We have been running out of IPv4 addresses for the last 30+ years, but things still work. People have been hard at work and incrementally IP was able to handle more and more devices (Address Classes, Classless Inter-Domain Routing, NAT, ...). You praise the blockchain technology in general  Bitcoin doesn't equal the blockchain technology. I see that the blockchain technology isn't dependent on bitcoin and bitcoin value isn't guaranteed by the blockchain technology. I think that you are bringing forward first mover advantage with the e-mail comparison. That the e-mail protocols mostly remained the same and this will probably make bitcoin remain dominant also. I think e-mail can't be compared because of the simple nature of the problem they were solving. You can't exactly re-invent something as simplistic as a wheel. This new field of cryptos or financial protocols are a lot more complex and can improved a lot by re-inventive improvement. We have seen radical development with new generation cryptos in terms of speed, costs and practical usability. When comparing software, then cryptos could be compared better to the development of operation systems and other systems as complex. Not vintage communication protocols |
|
|
|
|
babanana
Member
Offline
Activity: 120
Merit: 10
|
|
February 23, 2018, 10:05:54 AM |
|
As long as you see it as just a payment network, or a financial protocol you will have trouble seeing it's true potential. It is a protocol that enables digital scarcity in a decentralized manner without the need for trust. It allows for hard promises. After a few blocks a transaction is effectively irreversible. So it has to be extremely expensive to 'overwrite history'. I mean overwhelmingly expensive. It's a feature, not a bug. Will this scale to the entire population. Of course not! Nobody is saying it will not change and evolve. The current implementation is great for a settlement layer while the LN would be used as a payment network. We have been running out of IPv4 addresses for the last 30+ years, but things still work. People have been hard at work and incrementally IP was able to handle more and more devices (Address Classes, Classless Inter-Domain Routing, NAT, ...). You praise the blockchain technology in general Bitcoin doesn't equal the blockchain technology. I see that the blockchain technology isn't dependent on bitcoin and bitcoin value isn't guaranteed by the blockchain technology. I think that you are bringing forward first mover advantage with the e-mail comparison. That the e-mail protocols mostly remained the same and this will probably make bitcoin remain dominant also. I think e-mail can't be compared because of the simple nature of the problem they were solving. You can't exactly re-invent something as simplistic as a wheel. This new field of cryptos or financial protocols are a lot more complex and can improved a lot by re-inventive improvement. We have seen radical development with new generation cryptos in terms of speed, costs and practical usability. @Jacques_Bittard please post your BTC address. |
|
|
|
|
mymenace
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1061
Smile
|
|
February 23, 2018, 10:12:47 AM |
|
As long as you see it as just a payment network, or a financial protocol you will have trouble seeing it's true potential. It is a protocol that enables digital scarcity in a decentralized manner without the need for trust. It allows for hard promises. After a few blocks a transaction is effectively irreversible. So it has to be extremely expensive to 'overwrite history'. I mean overwhelmingly expensive. It's a feature, not a bug. Will this scale to the entire population. Of course not! Nobody is saying it will not change and evolve. The current implementation is great for a settlement layer while the LN would be used as a payment network. We have been running out of IPv4 addresses for the last 30+ years, but things still work. People have been hard at work and incrementally IP was able to handle more and more devices (Address Classes, Classless Inter-Domain Routing, NAT, ...). You praise the blockchain technology in general Bitcoin doesn't equal the blockchain technology. I see that the blockchain technology isn't dependent on bitcoin and bitcoin value isn't guaranteed by the blockchain technology. I think that you are bringing forward first mover advantage with the e-mail comparison. That the e-mail protocols mostly remained the same and this will probably make bitcoin remain dominant also. I think e-mail can't be compared because of the simple nature of the problem they were solving. You can't exactly re-invent something as simplistic as a wheel. This new field of cryptos or financial protocols are a lot more complex and can improved a lot by re-inventive improvement. We have seen radical development with new generation cryptos in terms of speed, costs and practical usability. @Jacques_Bittard please post your BTC address. ha and here i am thinking bitcoin is a peer to peer currency only been working for about 9 years biggest transparent peer to peer network in the world - still very functional and the bitcoin relies upon solved blockchain transactions. |
|
|
|
|
mymenace
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1061
Smile
|
|
February 23, 2018, 10:17:00 AM |
|
Meanwhile...  go , hope you hit your target |
|
|
|
|
conspirosphere.tk
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2352
Merit: 1064
Bitcoin is antisemitic
|
|
February 23, 2018, 10:17:08 AM Merited by vroom (1), flynn (1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Globb0
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2702
Merit: 2053
Free spirit
|
|
February 23, 2018, 11:19:30 AM |
|
Why do people think you don't reinvent the wheel?
The wheel is reinvented all the time for all sorts of applications.
|
|
|
|
|
mymenace
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1061
Smile
|
|
February 23, 2018, 11:37:51 AM |
|
Why do people think you don't reinvent the wheel?
The wheel is reinvented all the time for all sorts of applications.
satoshi reinvented the wheel, after banks reinvented the wheel and so on and so on shall we say its time to move on and re-invent again it would actually be good to see peer to peer currency succeed first on a truly global scale before i would say the wheel has been reinvented |
|
|
|
|
Torque
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3738
Merit: 5336
|
|
February 23, 2018, 11:52:44 AM |
|
In this reality these things just don't have the needed mechanics for the job..
Don't take me as a pessimist by this. I think that in the future we will have an cryptoasset that is able to break this currency boundary and will be able to actually offer an predictable value without the need for the support of fiat value.
And this so called future cryptoasset would look like what exactly, Mr. Genius? Put up or shut up. Criticize or create. All you fkn idiot trolls are the same. You come with heaps of smarmy handwaving and criticism, but offer zero solutions. |
|
|
|
|
|
Poll
