Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice?

[iamnotback]

I also am wondering why the Chinaman mining cartel is so brave to challenge MP. 200 million yuan ($29 million) is peanuts for MP. Perhaps the Chinese government has committed to provide as much funds as is necessary. I would love to see MP defeated and bankrupted. Would be a good lesson for him about relative size of economies (China is a not an overleveraged, vacuous fiat house of cards yet like the West).

That's certainly possible.

That is not possible. Why would the Chinese government support and provide funds to the Chinese mining cartel? They are then indirectly supporting a currency they so very much detest because of its uncensorable nature.

How can you regulate a decentralized PoW currency unless have control/influence over 51% of the hashrate.

Arguably China is already subsidizing the miners with cheap hydroelectric power, taking electricity away from other needs in the society and capex (and environmental impacts) for dams are huge.

[1714794411]

1714794411

[1714794411]

1714794411

[1714794411]

1714794411

[1714794411]

1714794411

[zimmah]

It's funny how people rather be controlled by banks than by miners.

Guess there's too many noobs to bitcoin who don't even understand what bitcoin is.

[iamnotback]

You are apparently only thinking about those who already must transact (because you think miners have no long-term focus). What about all those who sour on Bitcoin because they hear the fees suck and always increasing. It squelches the growth of Bitcoin.

My idea is that sooner or later, bitcoin's growth has to stop.  A greater fool game always comes to an end, but of course, there is still a whole planet of greater fools to be taken.

Readers I swear that @dinofelis and I have not colluded to make this point. He and I are genuinely debating/discussing. He and I often have different viewpoints.

If you had a system that scaled to any level of transactions on chain, and the world was going to end up doing all of its transactions on that blockchain (including all the database transactions that are currently done on centralized databases not just related to payments, e.g. StackExchange must die) then the growth could go on indefinitely. That is what my project is about. Steem/Ark (Graphene DPoS) is probably the other closest to what I am working on, but DPoS is controlled by the whales. Ethereum also in the similar field of innovation, yet it seems to encourage apps to make their own token and ICO (which I think is not the ideal funding model for apps). Yet it is alleged those were fraudulently distributed, e.g. an ICO enables the issuers to borrow BTC and buy the ICO from themselves and Steem had a sneaky stealth mine so 80% of the supply is concentrated in a few whales. Note Ark.io's ICO apparently failed (or I am not really sure what happened there). I hear Dan Larimer is preparing to issue another ICO soon. I wasn't talking about near-term speculation. Near-term it looks like all the quality small caps are being pumped round-robin since Bitcoin started to have this existential crisis. And Ethereum allegedly has USG.MIT as backers so we'll see a lot of mass media greater fool news for it and there are some important developments such as Raiden, the clone of LN.

I hope the gravity of the prior paragraph is not lost on readers. I'm talking about replacing all the centralized databases on the Internet, e.g. Facebook, Twitter, etc..

However, bitcoin's on chain design doesn't allow for orders of magnitude upscaling in the near future.

Well with centralization of the miners into a tightly organized cartel, it could scale as much as Visa scales. But it still couldn't scale to putting every database transaction from the Internet on a blockchain. I don't know if readers understand that Visa's infrastructure is entirely inadequate for the level of scale that some of us are thinking about. We want to change the world. (Okay I am hyping a bit yet serious)

And most people don't know (apparently Blockstream doesn't even know, lol) Sidechains are insolubly flawed and can never be secure (you can find a debate about that between @ArticMine and myself recently).

If you go to off-scale, in other words banking (with eventually, unavoidably, fractional reserve banking) you:
...
2) you will get effective coin IOU creation offline (fractional reserve banking) that will stop the individual coin price pump.

So even if the whole planet were using "bitcoin" as a reference, there would be so many IOU bitcoin that the VALUE of an individual on chain bitcoin wouldn't rise accordingly.  Like in the fiat system: 95% of bank dollars are not FED dollars but bank IOU.  This is NOT cheating, contrary to what naive monetary theories claim.  The issuing of IOU that are not entirely covered by originals, but are so by debt, is not cheating, and it the origin of fractional reserve banking.

But without a FED backstopping the banking system, we'll have bank runs like we did in the 1800s with private banking and periodically have Bitcoin depressions. The Bitcoin economy could not survive this. Thus the banksters probably intend to fold LN into a world bank fiat system. This is why I have always stated that Bitcoin was created by Rothschild (and Wikileaks is also controlled by Rothschilds, just look at where Assange slept in the UK before he went to the Ecuadorian embassy).

As I wrote about a deflationary crypto-currency (which is where I think we are headed), afaics the knowledge age is not going to support a debt-based economy. The debt-based economy was for the fixed capital industrial age. Given those assumptions are correct, I conclude Bitcoin is the wrong paradigm.

So at a certain point, if there are secondary layers on top of bitcoin, fractional reserve banking WILL emerge, and what people are then using as a currency is denominated in bitcoin, but is not bitcoin, but rather partially covered IOU from institutions that use bitcoin on the lower layer to *settle their differences* --> reserve currency.

A reserve currency without a central bank can't support a widespread (overly indebted) debt-based economy such as the one we have now. (Which is a good thing since we no longer need the socialism governance model that we required when laborers were fungible and capitalists could replace workers with cheaper workers)

However, on-chain bitcoin OWNERS are the guys they want to milk somewhat more.  In as much as these on-chain owners are exactly the banks issuing fractional reserve bitcoin-collateral IOU, they will HAVE TO settle on-chain between them.  But then, the current volume is already enough (SWIFT).  So if there is any hope to squeeze that fee market, blocks mustn't be larger than today.  Those to be milked, are the whales who need to transact.  And honestly, they won't mind too much: if you have to settle 10000 BTC with another bank twice a day, you don't mind paying 10 BTC for the transaction, do you ?

...

Ironically, bitcoin is a dream for bankers !

1. The whales might be the banksters.

2. I explained upthread that the whales can be their own miners and prevent non-whales from mining (if the whales are sufficiently organized).

It's funny how people rather be controlled by banks than by miners.

Guess there's too many noobs to bitcoin who don't even understand what bitcoin is.

We already explained upthread that the miners can't take control if the whales are sufficiently organized.

And even if they could, then they could do evil such as mint a billion tokens and gouge us for fees.

[Darkbot]

It's funny how people rather be controlled by banks than by miners.

Guess there's too many noobs to bitcoin who don't even understand what bitcoin is.

Nobody got a problem with that..only BU shills. But uber NOOBS like you dont know that Blockstream only got a few Core dev on there payroll while those miners are in control by 1 guy; Jihan. Jihan forces them to use his ASICS to run HIS BU...dont you get it NOOB? When BU gets adopted (very unlikely) this dictator Jihan controls not only the mining but also the protocol. How centralised is that you dumbass! You and all those idiotic shills are even to dumb to understand that. But no.... NOOBS like YOU prefer a HF asap while BU software is buggy... WTF man, BU NOOBS are even more stupid than i thought.

[Searing]

Well perhaps a crack with the fud.

http://bitcoinist.com/bitcoin-unlimited-token-dives/

F2pool also quoted.

We likely are always going to see 30% of btc universe in lame ass disarray. We
Will be better off years to come, just ignoring such for the price dumps or other
Stuff expected from such antics. It likely will always be something stirring the pot
May as well learn now at 1k btc. The fud will even be more desparate at 5k coin.  Imho

The bigger the army. The louder the camp followers and the more rumor fud and trying to
Herd btc to the looney fridge. So expect more of this fake crisis drama and manipulation

Folk are already catching on. You can only cry wolf so many times till it is just noise

[iamnotback]

Here is sort of a summary of the prior two pages of this thread. Please correct me if I have an error...

You guys seem to think the UASF is controlled by the hashrate of the system, but I think I've argued quite convincingly else where, that sufficiently organized whales are superior and are the actual economic majority.

BIP148 UASF will be determined by 1 thing alone, midnight of November 15th 2017.  Nothing to do with hashrate (you're right there) and nothing to do with whales (where you're wrong)

Please don't reply, you're a waste of time and space

Carlton you're a moronmisinformed.

Nodes don't control the outcome, only hashrate does. Well actually the economic majority does. And the sufficiently organized whales are superior when it comes to a hashrate war (this was explained in great detail in the discussion between @dinofelis and myself in the other thread).

The nodes that refuse to mine on the longest-chain will waste their hashrate and bankrupt themselves.

UASF is clearly an effort to re-define what Bitcoin is.

Only the whales (if sufficiently organized) will decide which protocol goes up in price and which one goes to 0.

If the whales are not united, then maybe BIP148 will have some relevancy but it is a power vacuum of democracy thus it will be manipulated or we will have chaos.

We are trying to end voting and democracy, because they don't work. Instead idealistically we want a meritocracy where nobody has control (not even the economic majority), but it is not known if that is feasible (most believe it is not). Satoshi's PoW is flawed and that is why it is devolving like this.

What if BTC with PoW changed has the larger network, the Bitcoin devs, the larger transaction rate, and the larger market cap ?

Read this post and then this page of the thread. I hope you can assimilate all that without me having to write a single post which tries to glue all that together for the reader.

If sufficiently organized, nothing can defeat the control of the whales (other than a larger economic whale such as the Chinese government).

Longest chain has nothing to do with anything in 2017, Bitcoin moved away from longest-chain = valid-chain a long time ago anyway, and given what I've described, even the chain with the most cumulative PoW won't matter.

Bwrahahaha.

Without a longest-chain rule then consensus is impossible and double-spends are trivial. Dude you've entirely forgotten or never learned Bitcoin 101.

Now, stop wasting everyone's time, you've already been told

Talking about Bitcoin doesn't make you important. Especially when you're incompetent.

I wasn't disrespectful to you, nor even frank about your technological incompetence until you started this authoritarian condescending ad hominem. You started this unnecessary and useless acrimony. You don't have any control over my competency and therefor my importance. Democracy and politics is dead or dying. Meritocracy is what wins now.

Everything you're saying is a diversion anyway

Longest chain, most PoW, does not matter once the 2 chains are separate, they're separate coins at that point. And that is the point.

So, saying miners are compelled to follow the longest chain is meaningless. By that logic, there would be no altcoins in existence, as they would all have to observe the chain with the most PoW. Which is demonstratively untrue, to wit: a thousand altcoins.

You made 2 false claims. I've demonstrated them false.

Apologise.

You will need to apologize after you read what you were told to read:

Read this post and then this page of the thread. I hope you can assimilate all that without me having to write a single post which tries to glue all that together for the reader.

If sufficiently organized, nothing can defeat the control of the whales (other than a larger economic whale such as the Chinese government).

And realize that the whales' can kill the fork because they already own tokens in both forks from the inception.

And that is what makes it different from launching an altcoin.

Details matter.

Now I've got important work to do. So please stop putting your foot in your mouth at my expense.

[iamnotback]

Another summary of the what abstractly we learned from the upthread discussion:

The whole theory that selfish material interest and selfish pleasure seeking is ( or should be) the main driving force behind economics and society rules is what make the world in bad situation today.

This is the essence of living, conscious beings.
Consciousness defining pleasure and suffering, and life defining offspring preference, the obvious behaviour of any conscious, living being is what you just stated.

But selfishness is often a prisoner's dilemma, i.e. not the optimum for the actors in the system. If we design a consensus system which removes that dilemma, perhaps we've changed everything.

And I still maintain that bitcoin is built upon sociopathic theories.

https://youtu.be/ImbQwCu5GdM

Jam right!

"What 'dem selling, we're not buyin'"

In fact, Satoshi mixed several totally different things into one, to come up with a system that seemed brilliant, and turns out to be seriously flawed.

He wanted:

1) to adhere to a sound money theory in order to get a monetary belief (illusion) going.  Sound money theory in a setting with monetary competition is an illusion (and suffers from a version of Gresham's law).  Sound money theory only makes sense if that money has the monopoly on money and where people are FORCED to use that money, and no other means of exchange, in other words, only under strict economic totalitarianism.  But as such, he wanted a convergent series of coin emission.

I had argued against that in our past discussion. Humans prefer to rally around one unit-of-account, because otherwise they incur exchange rate risk. Also money has value only because of united public confidence. So due to economies-of-scale inertia, there can only be one global currency because we have a global economy now. Also I explained that humanity will want a deflationary currency in the knowledge age because the new economics is meritocracy and value of non-fungible reputation...

If the whales are not united, then maybe BIP148 will have some relevancy but it is a power vacuum of democracy thus it will be manipulated or we will have chaos.

We are trying to end voting and democracy, because they don't work. Instead idealistically we want a meritocracy where nobody has control (not even the economic majority), but it is not known if that is feasible (most believe it is not). Satoshi's PoW is flawed and that is why it is devolving like this.

As I wrote about a deflationary crypto-currency (which is where I think we are headed), afaics the knowledge age is not going to support a debt-based economy. The debt-based economy was for the fixed capital industrial age. Given those assumptions are correct, I conclude Bitcoin is the wrong paradigm.

...

A reserve currency without a central bank can't support a widespread (overly indebted) debt-based economy such as the one we have now. (Which is a good thing since we no longer need the socialism governance model that we required when laborers were fungible and capitalists could replace workers with cheaper workers)

@dinofelis you are trying to conceptually separate unit-of-exchange from store-of-value and unit-of-account functions of money, but afaics that is inherently impossible if the role of money is to be an accurate information system where utility is rewarded (promoted) and unproductive activity is punished (squelched), c.f. from my prior post Democracy and finance don't mix - the math involved. Per the writings of the Bitcoin billionaire Mircea Popescu, the bankrupt socialistic democracy of the earth is dying and we are entering a WoT-organized, individually sovereign republic wherein all the unproductive masses will perish. Mathematically every exchange and/or hedge between units-of-account is loss (transfer of capital) that accrues to those who base on the least volatile (or let's say most informational in terms of promoting utiilty) unit-of-account. Thus you are correct that greater fool altcoins die out and there can only be one reserve currency. So we don't fix the problem of this thread by denying this math and postulating an ongoing marketplace of altcoins, because there will always be only one dominant reserve currency. Your model only works when there is very little trade between communities, so there is no need for the units-of-account to interact. We actually have to fix the technology of decentralized consensus. Satoshi's work is not yet complete.

Bitcoin is in danger of losing its status as the de facto reserve currency of the coming sovereign republic, if it is soon shown it can be regulated by anyone (including the miners and/or Core). Because top-down control is not maximally informational per the math cited in the prior post. Mircea Popescu better pay attention because maybe his $billionaire computer game will have a reset button and he better not be late to liquidate.

But there is another possible perspective. If value becomes non-fungible wherein it can't even be purchased, then perhaps money dies as concept? The so-called post-scarcity civilization wherein we all survive of donations and we compete for reputation. Then reputation becomes the new money, but it can't be transferred. The higher your reputation, the more attention your projects and efforts get. It is a form of stored capital. Eric S. Raymond referred to this as the gift culture.

(3) it is better to solve the decentralized consensus problem by many stake holders, instead of a few concentrated industrials

(4) digital signatures are cryptographically much, much less wasteful and much, much more secure than proof of work.

You are on the right track, but there are many details to get to a viable system. See my prior post about flaws in your first abstract attempt.

[Carlton Banks]

What iamnotback (aka AnnoyMint) is missing....

• The whales have the BTC & BTU.
• BU has the hashpower.

Hashpower wins. With a combination of the BU design, and >51% nodes (sybil nodes) and >51% hashpower, the BTC price would go to hell, along with the network.



Explain, Annoymint, what difference will it make that BTC whales can shortsell BTU, when the BU chain can just drive the BTC chain into the ground, courtesy of it's design making it like a weaponised blockchain?

With USD/BTC dropping fast, fiat whales can inflate BTU price, while the BU chain can stop the BTC chain dead in it's tracks, killing USD/BTC.



Analysis fail. Give everyone their 9 pages of reading back, IMO

[iamnotback]

I [didn't] know all these things [and I still don't].

Backsplaining.

What you'rey I always failing to appreciate...

Okay it's a Freudian slip...

...is the amount of trust required to handle huge sums of BTC in such fraught circumstances. If you don't own the keys, you don't own the BTC, and depositing thousands of BTC to exchange-owned addresses is not going to be a comfortable move at a time like that.

Oh you mean literally piddling 1000s of BTC otherwise known as less than 0.1% of the whales' capital.

The tail really does wag the dog in your reality.

If there was/is big money in exchanges, the whales own them.

Details do matter.

That's a lot of ifs, so maybe your "important work" should begin with getting a proper sense of perspective

Indeed. The perspective that I am wasting my time talking to a misinformedmoronic person.

Misinformed people recognize when they've been corrected. Stupid people insist.

[iamnotback]

What iamnotback (aka AnnoyMint) is missing....

• The whales have the BTC & BTU.
• BU has the hashpower.

Hashpower wins. With a combination of the BU design, and >51% nodes (sybil nodes) and >51% hashpower, the BTC price would go to hell, along with the network.

Incorrect. You've already been told what to read upthread, and apparently you are incapable of comprehending it or didn't bother to read it.

Explain, Annoymint, what difference will it make that BTC whales can shortsell BTU, when the BU chain can just drive the BTC chain into the ground, courtesy of it's design making it like a weaponised blockchain?

It has already been explained. You've already been told what to read upthread, and apparently you are incapable of comprehending it or didn't bother to read it.

With USD/BTC dropping fast, fiat whales can inflate BTU price, while the BU chain can stop the BTC chain dead in it's tracks, killing USD/BTC.

I guess you can't keep all the game theory options in your head at the same time. You've forgotten apparently the option that the whales have to change the PoW hash (and I've already argued the impacts of that upthread, so don't reply with some bullshit that ignores what was already argued upthread). I am not going to repeat and re-argue all the details that @dinofelis and I have already written in the prior pages. If you are incapable or refuse to understand what was written, that is your problem.

If you continue to write nonsense and attempt to force me to repeat everything, I am going to announce to everyone that I put you on Ignore. You're not on Ignore yet, so this is a warning.

Get a reality check dude. I know you've been here as long or longer than myself, and you probably think you are well informed, so it may be a shock to you but in terms of game theory you are not well informed (not even close to being an expert). Typing less and reading more would be your best option for now.

Analysis fail. Give everyone their 9 pages of reading back, IMO

Jealousy is not a meritocracy. Stop writing nonsense.

[Carlton Banks]

This all started with you claiming that "longest chain wins no matter what", now you're changing your story to "whales win no matter what"....

Which? And why are you replying in the wrong thread, is it to give you and your thread much craved attention, or just trying to confuse the reader? hmmmmm?


Seriously, sort yourself out

[iamnotback]

This all started with you claiming that "longest chain wins no matter what", now you're changing your story to "whales win no matter what"....

Which? And why are you replying in the wrong thread, is it to give you and your thread much craved attention, or just trying to confuse the reader? hmmmmm?


Seriously, sort yourself out

You are confused. I know it is disconcerting. Try reading.

The longest chain wins. Now who controls the longest chain (who ultimately controls the miners because of the complex game theory). Duh.

This stuff is above your pay grade. It is not a set of simple compartmentalized rules that you can just memorize or regurgitate. You actually have to understand.

Don't feel bad for making a mistake. The game theory is complex. Anyone could make mistakes when first learning this stuff. But do please learn that insisting (and adding condescending tone) when you are confused, is quite noisy and impolite.

[Carlton Banks]

You've refuted nothing, not once.

You've simply made a bunch of unbacked assertions, forcefully. Because you're (gasp) wrong


Refute what I've said with something you can actually substantiate

[iamnotback]

You've refuted nothing, not once.

You don't recognize when you've already been refuted. For this reason, it is impossible to argue with a stupid person. If you go think and read and re-read many times, eventually you might figure it out.

...

Carlton I am not going to re-explain what you were told to read.

You're building erroneous strawmen. And I am not going to allow you waste my time on your confusion.

It isn't my job to untangle the recesses of your discombobulated conceptual misunderstandings.

[iamnotback]

My idea is that sooner or later, bitcoin's growth has to stop.

...

However, bitcoin's on chain design doesn't allow for orders of magnitude upscaling in the near future.

...

If bitcoin would have allowed ON-CHAIN world scaling, this would not be the case.  But bitcoin is reaching already right now in order of magnitude, its on chain capacity anyhow, and hence the price rise will be limited to at most an order of magnitude or so

@traincarswreck points out that it is the exodus from fiat to crypto-currency which could drive Bitcoin's price up and Bitcoin being more secure than altcoins, not scaling...

You're refuting your own argument again.  The fractional reserve system is not evil, but the monopoly that governments/central banks on our money systems (traditionally) has caused the system to create it's own busts and recessions.  But fractional banking per se is not the problem, rather the lack of competition is the problem.  Bitcoin as a settlement system would attend to this problem and it also attends to the inefficiencies of the existing solutions.

Incorrect/disagree. Fractional reserve systems can't scale without a central bank and are economically incompatible as we leave the industrial age and march into the knowledge age.

The banksters model of Bitcoin is antiquated and World Bank NWO directed.

But you are correct on the other points you've argued:

High fees are a tax and increases opportunity cost, IT DISCOURAGES USE, simple economics.

That isn't simple economics its a circular argument.  IF bitcoin's most optimal and valuable use case is to transact then we might be able to see a fee increase would negatively affect its utility as such and that this would discourage use.

But bitcoin can serve a different purpose which is a fairly stable value settlement system for meta-players (ie big banks), and this would serve a valuable purpose as well.

Your argument is premised on the former and ignores the possibility of the latter.  In regard to the latter bitcoin's other advantage you are ignoring is that it is far more secure in regard to its value proposition than any other coin.  Ethereum is far from mature in the security sense and they still have to get to PoS which is uncharted water, it hasn't been scientifically tested/proved.

It's not scientific to not consider a different possibly valid perspective.

You just said changing the Bitcoin block size limit would 'destroy its digital gold properties' and 'would tank the system', then I shown you Satoshi had always wanted to increase the block size limit, a long time ago.

So either Satoshi wanted to 'tank the system' himself, or you are wrong, it can't get any more simpler than that.

Satoshi showed how it could be done if we decided to do it, and the subsequent posts were people complaining on how obviously difficult it would be to remove as time went by.  Satoshi never responded but assuming he was smarter than the others its obvious that he realized the truth of this too.  

He gave the people a pacifier, an example of how it COULD be done, it was nothing more, and there is nothing more in the quote to suggest he implied more. He basically said, "You can change it, but you all just have to agree when and how" and he disappeared and choose not to participate in this debate.

The higher BTC price gets, the less people that will pay it transaction fees, not everyone is a US or European Citizen.

The only reason that the fees can be so high is if the network utility is valued high enough to support such use.  So you can't simultaneously say bitcoin will become irrelevant AND the fees will be high.  You would be, again, refuting your own argument. It COULD be true though that many users that use bitcoin for cheap transactions today, would use other currencies (or 2nd layers solutions) for such transactions in the future.  But this doesn't speak to the value of the system, because, and like I quoted Szabo and Finney explaining, bitcoin would be very valuable as a high powered settlement layer, and then for that function the higher fees would be completely acceptable.

The higher fees come from transactions that are sending large value.  You can't claim that the system will be irrelevant when bigger and more wealth players are using it. Its just not a system for the average citizen and it was never meant to be.  

But it is still being adopted because its value is increasing in relation to domestic fiat, which is exactly what fuels adoption, not transaction capacity, and not the cheapness to transact otherwise litecoin etc. would have a billion+ dollar market cap.

Szabo has also laid an extensive argument for bitcoin to function as a settlement system and the purpose and value of it and Finney also discussed this based George Selgins observations and writings/teachings:

I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash. Most Bitcoin transactions will occur between banks, to settle net transfers.~https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2500.msg34211#msg34211

You seem to be unaware that you are citing your own argument and the problem with doing so.  I have already shown Adam Smith directly refutes you, and now Hayek

Did you even read my analysis? Appeals to authority are not valid in a meritocracy.

I posit that Hayek is incorrect and empirically so from the 1800s example in the USA. Also the economy is fundamentally changing, which is what I explained if you dig down into my recursive links starting from the one I provided to you for your timely edification.

We are moving away from a model where labor was fungible. Have you not read the essay at the top of the Economic Devastation thread written by myself Rise of Knowledge, Demise of [Usury] Finance.

Note I've also copied your thesis to the other thread for discussion there with @dinofelis.

Let the banksters have Buttcoin (and their dying usury, industrial age). We'll build something for us (the knowledge age workers and creators).

If you don't believe in basing your argument in accepted economic theory and scientifically/objectively founded thinking, how much time do you think people will spend reading the words you put together?

As if academics could have invented Bitcoin.  

Logic stands on its own. Authority has to rest on valid logic. Refute my logic. Afaics, my logic is consistent with Adam Smith to the extent that his body of work is applicable.

There is always extensive fraud in unregulated fractional reserve banking. The banksters game it and force a default on the nation as they did in the USA. Academics live in glass cathedrals and not in the real world.

[dinofelis]

My idea is that sooner or later, bitcoin's growth has to stop.

...

However, bitcoin's on chain design doesn't allow for orders of magnitude upscaling in the near future.

...

If bitcoin would have allowed ON-CHAIN world scaling, this would not be the case.  But bitcoin is reaching already right now in order of magnitude, its on chain capacity anyhow, and hence the price rise will be limited to at most an order of magnitude or so

@traincarswreck points out that it is the exodus from fiat to crypto-currency which could drive Bitcoin's price up and Bitcoin being more secure than altcoins, not scaling...

No matter how big a financial crisis would occur, and no matter how, for matters of principle, I would love that (although practically, I would hate it because of all the horrors that would happen to me and my kin), I don't believe:
1) that big fiat currencies are going to "fall down"
2) that of all assets, bitcoin is going to be the preferred one.  I rather think that land, real estate, stock, and, in the end, food, is going to be preferred over some digital stuff the Chinese government can lay their hands on any minute or a few wealthy sleazy mobsters with a lot of bitcoin are possessing several percent of.
3) that TPTB will allow this to happen, if it escapes their control (and no, some high-charged maffioso with a filled bitcoin account is not part of TPTB).

However, I do think that the current crack down on everything financial that is not declared, for fiscal and "terrorist" reasons, makes bitcoin somewhat attractive for all that fiat that cannot see the daylight and has more and more difficulties hiding somewhere on planet earth in offshore banks.  However, bitcoin's transparency is maybe more of a problem than it seems at first sight.

So no, apart from some "black fiat money", I don't expect a massive exodus from fiat into bitcoin.  Especially because the way back is through more and more severely regulated exchanges.

And no, bitcoin is not very secure.  The massive PoW that goes into bitcoin is not sustainable with an upscaling (you really imagine wasting 40 billion $$ a year on mining electricity if bitcoin scales up 100 fold ?) and PoW is not cryptographically very secure.  It is just very wasteful. 

So no.  Bitcoin has a future, but not as a place to flee when people escape from fiat.  It has a future in big sleazy business that needs a non-fiat trustless settlement layer for their business.

[iamnotback]

@dinofelis, but what about his argument that unregulated fractional reserve banking without a central bank will be some panacea? He is citing Hayek and I am saying Hayek's theory is nonsense.

...but you are incorrect to state that he is not responding to your arguments with sound logic.

He is an academic who is pointing out some economic theory. He has some valid points, but his mistake is he thinks unregulated fractional reserve banking is not a massive bankster fraud. He doesn't seem to understand how the banksters were able to manipulate the USA economy in the 1800s under the very laissez faire system he is advocating. He thinks competition would somehow violate the power-law distribution of banker power and control.  

He has some valid points, but his mistake is he thinks unregulated fractional reserve banking is not a massive bankster fraud.

Each of the well regarded economic and crypto economic thinkers I quoted and the well founded objective theories they expound on, are based on the premise and implication of the breaking of the monopoly of money supply, and each of them explains an argument that supports each others direction of thinking which is that the ultimate evolution is self regulation of the market and tendency towards Ideal Money.

You cannot point to a time in history pre bitcoin as an example as to why these men's theories don't hold ground, because the theory is predicated on bitcoin as the advent of a money system that breaks the monopoly.

And their theory is complete nonsense for the reasons I stated.

[traincarswreck]

No matter how big a financial crisis would occur, and no matter how, for matters of principle, I would love that (although practically, I would hate it because of all the horrors that would happen to me and my kin), I don't believe:
1) that big fiat currencies are going to "fall down"


So no, apart from some "black fiat money", I don't expect a massive exodus from fiat into bitcoin.  Especially because the way back is through more and more severely regulated exchanges.


So no.  Bitcoin has a future, but not as a place to flee when people escape from fiat.  It has a future in big sleazy business that needs a non-fiat trustless settlement layer for their business.

It is not Nash or Hayek's argument that fiat will fall.  That is a myth called hyperbitcoinization which is perpetuated by people that don't understand or accepted that central banks monetary policies COULD be adjusted to print money of superior quality, but that this is unlikely to happen if there is an existing monopoly on money supply.

Hayek and Nash each give very explicate and well reasoned arguments how the end of the monopoly on money supply could and would force fiat to Idealized not fail.

[iamnotback]

Hayek and Nash each give very explicate and well reasoned arguments how the end of the monopoly on money supply could and would force fiat to Idealized not fail.

Okay but only ultimately with a world central bank. Yes I agree. But not in an unregulated chaos. That short-lived chaos will end up just like what happened to the USA after the 1800s. The banksters will aggregate power as other banks fail with bank runs. The banksters whales can manipulate the public and cause bubbles and busts.

Rothschild created Bitcoin.

[traincarswreck]

Okay but only ultimately with a world central bank. Yes I agree. But not in an unregulated chaos. That short-lived chaos will end up just like what happened to the USA after the 1800s. The banksters will aggregate power as other banks fail with bank runs. The banksters whales can manipulate the public and cause bubbles and busts.

Rothschild created Bitcoin.

Again you use hand waving and opinion to directly refute 20 years of argument as written and lectured about by John Nash one of the greatest and most widely held thinkers of our time.  Someone who already redefined our understanding of economics when he was but a young adult:

However the possibilities with regard to actual establishing a norm of money systems that could qualify as “ideal” are dependent on the political circumstances of the world.  If the world had in fact become a single empire with a central government, that what is now international trade, with shipping on the oceans through areas considered the property of no state, would be replace by the equivalent of domestic commerce withing the United States.  This development would profoundly modify the circumstances relevant to the establishment of “good” or “bad” systems of money.  What I have to suggest is not appropriate for the world empire context.

Your assertion that the chaos must be regulated also goes against each of the philosophers I have quoted an cited already Nash Szabo Hayek Smith and Finney.  Regulation implies such a world government or indirectly a monopoly on the money printing system and such a premise is not inline with any arguments these men give.

Their arguments are clearly and simply that the system must be allowed to self regulate and when it is allowed, then it will self optimize.

Nothing you are assert is accepted theory and it is not based on logic.