Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Yeah, that's part of the point ... they aren't really shares in the traditional sense either nor money. They are totally new forms for representing value in a myriad of traditional ways simultaneously that the digital technology allows to do easily. They have some of the capital appreciation properties of shares, some of them have a coin allocation mechanism in proportion to current holders that is effectively the same as dividends. I'm sure there will be a lot more innovations too for hybrid, debt/stock convertible tokens that can be earned or bought or traded ... and sophisticated smart wallets that negotiate between users holding a range of digital assets to effect exchanges of value that are mutually beneficial to both parties. Like (digital barter)^2

[1714198630]

1714198630

[Carlton Banks]

Now consider Storjcoin as a share and I think we end up with a contradiction.  If I hold x% of the Storjcoins(shares), should I not earn x% of the revenue from the Storj network?  If they were shares then I should.  But I don't: the revenue flows to the nodes providing the service.  The nodes are the shareholders!  So Storjcoin is not a share.

What is Storjcoin then? 

Exactly, Storjcoin is not intrinsic to the Storj system at all. This can only end badly for the Storj developers, either they quietly phase out Storjcoin and make the system competitive against distributed storage networks that are frcitionless, or the system loses out to an unencumbered design.

[Peter R]

Now consider Storjcoin as a share and I think we end up with a contradiction.  If I hold x% of the Storjcoins(shares), should I not earn x% of the revenue from the Storj network?  If they were shares then I should.  But I don't: the revenue flows to the nodes providing the service.  The nodes are the shareholders!  So Storjcoin is not a share.

What is Storjcoin then? 

Exactly, Storjcoin is not intrinsic to the Storj system at all. This can only end badly for the Storj developers, either they quietly phase out Storjcoin and make the system competitive against distributed storage networks that are frcitionless, or the system loses out to an unencumbered design.

My thoughts exactly (and I agree with your previous comment too). 

But MoA is a smart guy.  He thinks we're missing something.  Are we? 

[marcus_of_augustus]

Now consider Storjcoin as a share and I think we end up with a contradiction.  If I hold x% of the Storjcoins(shares), should I not earn x% of the revenue from the Storj network?  If they were shares then I should.  But I don't: the revenue flows to the nodes providing the service.  The nodes are the shareholders!  So Storjcoin is not a share.

What is Storjcoin then? 

Exactly, Storjcoin is not intrinsic to the Storj system at all. This can only end badly for the Storj developers, either they quietly phase out Storjcoin and make the system competitive against distributed storage networks that are frcitionless, or the system loses out to an unencumbered design.

My thoughts exactly (and I agree with your previous comment too). 

But MoA is a smart guy.  He thinks we're missing something.  Are we? 

I haven't looked into specifics of the StorJcoin economic model at all.

Like any division of ownership/labour/incentive structure if they don't get that right it will be a failed venture.

The ones that do and the analysts that dig in and find the right ones will make the right bets ...  focusing on one failed application you might be missing the wider possibilities? Maybe fork the open source StorJcoin and bolt on the correct economic model and you'll have a winner?

[l3mmy]

Now consider Storjcoin as a share and I think we end up with a contradiction.  If I hold x% of the Storjcoins(shares), should I not earn x% of the revenue from the Storj network?  If they were shares then I should.  But I don't: the revenue flows to the nodes providing the service.  The nodes are the shareholders!  So Storjcoin is not a share.

What is Storjcoin then? 

Exactly, Storjcoin is not intrinsic to the Storj system at all. This can only end badly for the Storj developers, either they quietly phase out Storjcoin and make the system competitive against distributed storage networks that are frcitionless, or the system loses out to an unencumbered design.

My thoughts exactly (and I agree with your previous comment too). 

But MoA is a smart guy.  He thinks we're missing something.  Are we? 

I haven't looked into specifics of the StorJcoin economic model at all.

Like any division of ownership/labour/incentive structure if they don't get that right it will be a failed venture.

The ones that do and the analysts that dig in and find the right ones will make the right bets ...  focusing on one failed application you might be missing the wider possibilities? Maybe fork the open source StorJcoin and bolt on the correct economic model and you'll have a winner?

Hey guys,  Ryan here Storj Community President.

Caught the discussion happening figure I would help you out and give some answers
l
Storjcoin is not equity in storj.

Storjcoin is the token used to purchase storage on the decentralized cloud network

People running the application Driveshare(in development github.com/storj) will be able to sell excess hard drive space
The whitepaper describing this process is being reviewed right now and adjustments to it.

If you want to store something on the network you will use a metadisk node
Current public nodes
(note without drive share running these are early demos and not a decentralized application)
node1.metadisk.org

you can read the metadisk whitepaper here
metadisk.org/metadisk.pdf

People using metadisk will purchase space that they need using storjcoin

So therefore storjcoin will have value as it has a commodity directly attached to it.

This is a brief summary and there is lots of more information on the Storjtalk.org forums

Hope to see you there or send a reply here and I will do what I can to answer

[justusranvier]

You can reduce the argument right down when you look at the broader economic context. Namely, why even use a service, however well it provides that service at a mechanistic level, that needs it's own special tokens? Unless the service fails as a concept without a built in currency, then the developers are adding friction to information services instead of continuing in satoshi's spirit of liberation as they claim to. It's all wrong from a plain information theory perspective, either you're a distributed TLD system or you're a currency. If you want to be both, expect inefficiency, confusion or conflict. Put another way, imagine if we all did this in commerce now? Shoecoin at footwear stores, foodcoin when you buy food but don't forget to keep some beercoin just in case you buy that at the same time. No beercoin? Hey, we convert at great rates! Doesn't take alot to see where that would end up... everyone who's not profiteering agreeing on something universal.

There will be a natural recognition that schizophrenic designs don't benefit users, and so Namecoin and Maidsafe will survive in their overall purpose as differentiated from bitcoin, but the token component cannot. If the tokens are not made optional or allow for direct access to the bitcoin protocol, then they won't compete well against rival systems that employ bitcoin as money and stick to addressing the actual problem they purport to solve.

Maybe all this appcoin insanity is a good thing.

It keeps Bitcoins out of the hands of people who've shown a lack of discernment, therefore they'll control a smaller fraction of the future economy.

Well, except for the developers who sell their scamcoins for Bitcoins.

You'd think the fact that the developers prefer to hold bitcoins over appcoins would be a giant red flag for potential investors...

[cypherdoc]

Naval said it himself in the video.  devs can "sell" premined coins and the dev can hold back a % as a funding mechanism. 

so in fact, the coins should represent shares in the company. 

[cypherdoc]

You can reduce the argument right down when you look at the broader economic context. Namely, why even use a service, however well it provides that service at a mechanistic level, that needs it's own special tokens? Unless the service fails as a concept without a built in currency, then the developers are adding friction to information services instead of continuing in satoshi's spirit of liberation as they claim to. It's all wrong from a plain information theory perspective, either you're a distributed TLD system or you're a currency. If you want to be both, expect inefficiency, confusion or conflict. Put another way, imagine if we all did this in commerce now? Shoecoin at footwear stores, foodcoin when you buy food but don't forget to keep some beercoin just in case you buy that at the same time. No beercoin? Hey, we convert at great rates! Doesn't take alot to see where that would end up... everyone who's not profiteering agreeing on something universal.

There will be a natural recognition that schizophrenic designs don't benefit users, and so Namecoin and Maidsafe will survive in their overall purpose as differentiated from bitcoin, but the token component cannot. If the tokens are not made optional or allow for direct access to the bitcoin protocol, then they won't compete well against rival systems that employ bitcoin as money and stick to addressing the actual problem they purport to solve.

Maybe all this appcoin insanity is a good thing.

It keeps Bitcoins out of the hands of people who've shown a lack of discernment, therefore they'll control a smaller fraction of the future economy.

Well, except for the developers who sell their scamcoins for Bitcoins.

You'd think the fact that the developers prefer to hold bitcoins over appcoins would be a giant red flag for potential investors...

it's not a good thing.  Bitcoins are the only thing they can monetize with.  they are a drag on Bitcoin b/c of all the scams and failures.  they suck out valuable capital away from Bitcoin.  they are means of getting something for nothing.  much like POS which involves no work.

alas, most investors in cryptocurrencies will lose money.  c'est la vie.

[STT]

^^^^
Thanks for the info! So at what price do you see silver to likely bottom out, and when?  Just curious.

single digits.

Theres often a really harsh spike down, where people are having to sell because they have no choice.   That is a perfect opportunity, like a fire sale.  Buy when people dont even want to sell and its obviously too cheap but they got no choice anymore.  
A large part of modern market is hot money or leveraged to speculate.  When people get that wrong is when you see the sharpest moves occur.   Really this doesnt mean silver is bad to hold but on that day or period of time however long, it'll be cheap from that flood or flush out of speculators.   All the people who never wanted to own just bid for price rise then now are selling

It can go the opposite way such as when VW was shorted before a takeover. 

What spawned the silver rally in 2011?  And where do you see the silver price by end of 2014?

The crash jpm always seemed a bit silly.   Who really needs silver so where it'll spike naturally.  Im not sure but I think quite alot of consumption of silver declined with photography switching to digital.
So 2011 followed the QE2 autumn announcement by the Fed.  I would guess it was related to that as alot of bubbles seem to circulate fed or gov policy such as Fannie mae.

I think 10 to 20 for silver this year, I dont think it'll really take off.  I do see silver as a bull market eventually as it is a monetary metal and we have an avalanche waiting when or if there is a reversion away from debt to solid trade again.  Today still the world favours politics over business but since the net effect of government is self depreciation not profit for its backers, its a cost and an increasing one.  If that is true we'll see this endless debt eventually collapse.
 I would rather say 2015 as a guess and they will maneuver onwards in 2014.  Increasingly the arguments will be hollow and fail, the only other alternative is war and a giant state control as in ww2

[cypherdoc]

Now consider Storjcoin as a share and I think we end up with a contradiction.  If I hold x% of the Storjcoins(shares), should I not earn x% of the revenue from the Storj network?  If they were shares then I should.  But I don't: the revenue flows to the nodes providing the service.  The nodes are the shareholders!  So Storjcoin is not a share.

What is Storjcoin then? 

Exactly, Storjcoin is not intrinsic to the Storj system at all. This can only end badly for the Storj developers, either they quietly phase out Storjcoin and make the system competitive against distributed storage networks that are frcitionless, or the system loses out to an unencumbered design.

My thoughts exactly (and I agree with your previous comment too). 

But MoA is a smart guy.  He thinks we're missing something.  Are we? 

I haven't looked into specifics of the StorJcoin economic model at all.

Like any division of ownership/labour/incentive structure if they don't get that right it will be a failed venture.

The ones that do and the analysts that dig in and find the right ones will make the right bets ...  focusing on one failed application you might be missing the wider possibilities? Maybe fork the open source StorJcoin and bolt on the correct economic model and you'll have a winner?

Hey guys,  Ryan here Storj Community President.

Caught the discussion happening figure I would help you out and give some answers
l
Storjcoin is not equity in storj.

Storjcoin is the token used to purchase storage on the decentralized cloud network

People running the application Driveshare(in development github.com/storj) will be able to sell excess hard drive space
The whitepaper describing this process is being reviewed right now and adjustments to it.

If you want to store something on the network you will use a metadisk node
Current public nodes
(note without drive share running these are early demos and not a decentralized application)
node1.metadisk.org

you can read the metadisk whitepaper here
metadisk.org/metadisk.pdf

People using metadisk will purchase space that they need using storjcoin

So therefore storjcoin will have value as it has a commodity directly attached to it.

This is a brief summary and there is lots of more information on the Storjtalk.org forums

Hope to see you there or send a reply here and I will do what I can to answer

how is Storjcoin secured and who holds the ledger?

[Peter R]

Storjcoin is not equity in storj.  Storjcoin is the token used to purchase storage on the decentralized cloud network.

Right, it is just a token to be paid to the nodes for their work storing the data.  Storjcoin pays no dividends and makes no promises to the user about how much storage each token will purchase.  I cannot fathom why anyone buys them (outside of the greater fool theory and outside of actually using the service).  

Naval said it himself in the video.  devs can "sell" premined coins and the dev can hold back a % as a funding mechanism.  

so in fact, the coins should represent shares in the company.  

Yes, they should but they don't.

Appcoins are aether.

[l3mmy]

Now consider Storjcoin as a share and I think we end up with a contradiction.  If I hold x% of the Storjcoins(shares), should I not earn x% of the revenue from the Storj network?  If they were shares then I should.  But I don't: the revenue flows to the nodes providing the service.  The nodes are the shareholders!  So Storjcoin is not a share.

What is Storjcoin then? 

Exactly, Storjcoin is not intrinsic to the Storj system at all. This can only end badly for the Storj developers, either they quietly phase out Storjcoin and make the system competitive against distributed storage networks that are frcitionless, or the system loses out to an unencumbered design.

My thoughts exactly (and I agree with your previous comment too). 

But MoA is a smart guy.  He thinks we're missing something.  Are we? 

I haven't looked into specifics of the StorJcoin economic model at all.

Like any division of ownership/labour/incentive structure if they don't get that right it will be a failed venture.

The ones that do and the analysts that dig in and find the right ones will make the right bets ...  focusing on one failed application you might be missing the wider possibilities? Maybe fork the open source StorJcoin and bolt on the correct economic model and you'll have a winner?

Hey guys,  Ryan here Storj Community President.

Caught the discussion happening figure I would help you out and give some answers
l
Storjcoin is not equity in storj.

Storjcoin is the token used to purchase storage on the decentralized cloud network

People running the application Driveshare(in development github.com/storj) will be able to sell excess hard drive space
The whitepaper describing this process is being reviewed right now and adjustments to it.

If you want to store something on the network you will use a metadisk node
Current public nodes
(note without drive share running these are early demos and not a decentralized application)
node1.metadisk.org

you can read the metadisk whitepaper here
metadisk.org/metadisk.pdf

People using metadisk will purchase space that they need using storjcoin

So therefore storjcoin will have value as it has a commodity directly attached to it.

This is a brief summary and there is lots of more information on the Storjtalk.org forums

Hope to see you there or send a reply here and I will do what I can to answer

how is Storjcoin secured and who holds the ledger?

The coin itself is actually a counterparty asset so it exists on the counterparty protocol

[justusranvier]

The coin itself is actually a counterparty asset so it exists on the counterparty protocol

Remember when Wall Street started making synthetic derivatives composed of mortgage-backed security derivatives?

[cypherdoc]

Now consider Storjcoin as a share and I think we end up with a contradiction.  If I hold x% of the Storjcoins(shares), should I not earn x% of the revenue from the Storj network?  If they were shares then I should.  But I don't: the revenue flows to the nodes providing the service.  The nodes are the shareholders!  So Storjcoin is not a share.

What is Storjcoin then?  

Exactly, Storjcoin is not intrinsic to the Storj system at all. This can only end badly for the Storj developers, either they quietly phase out Storjcoin and make the system competitive against distributed storage networks that are frcitionless, or the system loses out to an unencumbered design.

My thoughts exactly (and I agree with your previous comment too).  

But MoA is a smart guy.  He thinks we're missing something.  Are we?  

I haven't looked into specifics of the StorJcoin economic model at all.

Like any division of ownership/labour/incentive structure if they don't get that right it will be a failed venture.

The ones that do and the analysts that dig in and find the right ones will make the right bets ...  focusing on one failed application you might be missing the wider possibilities? Maybe fork the open source StorJcoin and bolt on the correct economic model and you'll have a winner?

Hey guys,  Ryan here Storj Community President.

Caught the discussion happening figure I would help you out and give some answers
l
Storjcoin is not equity in storj.

Storjcoin is the token used to purchase storage on the decentralized cloud network

People running the application Driveshare(in development github.com/storj) will be able to sell excess hard drive space
The whitepaper describing this process is being reviewed right now and adjustments to it.

If you want to store something on the network you will use a metadisk node
Current public nodes
(note without drive share running these are early demos and not a decentralized application)
node1.metadisk.org

you can read the metadisk whitepaper here
metadisk.org/metadisk.pdf

People using metadisk will purchase space that they need using storjcoin

So therefore storjcoin will have value as it has a commodity directly attached to it.

This is a brief summary and there is lots of more information on the Storjtalk.org forums

Hope to see you there or send a reply here and I will do what I can to answer

how is Storjcoin secured and who holds the ledger?

The coin itself is actually a counterparty asset so it exists on the counterparty protocol

since i know not much about Counterparty, except that a bunch of ppl burned their BTC to get Counterparty tokens, again, how is Storjcoin secured and who holds the ledger?

[STT]

The coin itself is actually a counterparty asset so it exists on the counterparty protocol

Remember when Wall Street started making synthetic derivatives composed of mortgage-backed security derivatives?

The main failing was not derivatives but that government backed the funding of questionable mortgage debt.   If wall street or any private company screws up it'll fall over, but when government backs something it becomes a giant that crushes anyone who stands in its way and in the end it trips up anyway

Maybe securitization is bad but if it is questionable then its very likely rated as such.   The problem stems when people dont question or rate debt that could fail realistically

[l3mmy]

since i know not much about Counterparty, except that a bunch of ppl burned their BTC to get Counterparty tokens, again, how is Storjcoin secured and who holds the ledger?

All counterparty assets run currently on the Bitcoin Blockchain
They can fork to a different one if ever needed

So in that sense Bitcoin secures and holds the ledger

[cypherdoc]

The coin itself is actually a counterparty asset so it exists on the counterparty protocol

Remember when Wall Street started making synthetic derivatives composed of mortgage-backed security derivatives?

The main failing was not derivatives but that government backed the funding of questionable mortgage debt.   If wall street or any private company screws up it'll fall over, but when government backs something it becomes a giant that crushes anyone who stands in its way and in the end it trips up anyway

Maybe securitization is bad but if it is questionable then its very likely rated as such.   The problem stems when people dont question or rate debt that could fail realistically

that's not true:

http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201110140001

Fannie Mae entered the fray after the Wall St banks pumped up the CDO market.  Banks are the "out of thin air lenders" and when regs are light and money is cheap, they lend BIG.  money was so cheap and gvt backing so implied, debt instruments were trading just like money.

furthermore, ratings by Moody's, Standard & Poors, Fitch all were bought off to give high ratings. this is well documented.

so no, Wall St was the progenitor.

[Carlton Banks]

Now consider Storjcoin as a share and I think we end up with a contradiction.  If I hold x% of the Storjcoins(shares), should I not earn x% of the revenue from the Storj network?  If they were shares then I should.  But I don't: the revenue flows to the nodes providing the service.  The nodes are the shareholders!  So Storjcoin is not a share.

What is Storjcoin then? 

Exactly, Storjcoin is not intrinsic to the Storj system at all. This can only end badly for the Storj developers, either they quietly phase out Storjcoin and make the system competitive against distributed storage networks that are frcitionless, or the system loses out to an unencumbered design.

My thoughts exactly (and I agree with your previous comment too). 

But MoA is a smart guy.  He thinks we're missing something.  Are we? 

I agree that we could be. These systems can be designed so that shares more directly represent the asset that they signify ownership over, but it can't always be as strongly enforceable as ownership of an all-abstract asset like money. There are already many key forms of ownership that work so well though, and there's bound to be more innovations to come. I still sense that shares will work applied to some businesses and not to others, and that reputation in free markets will still be the only adequate resolution to defrauding shareholders of property in a world running on decentralised crypto systems. And maybe the answer is a crypto based reputation system... I've argued this point before, but it's hard to flesh out in practice.

[Carlton Banks]

You can reduce the argument right down when you look at the broader economic context. Namely, why even use a service, however well it provides that service at a mechanistic level, that needs it's own special tokens? Unless the service fails as a concept without a built in currency, then the developers are adding friction to information services instead of continuing in satoshi's spirit of liberation as they claim to. It's all wrong from a plain information theory perspective, either you're a distributed TLD system or you're a currency. If you want to be both, expect inefficiency, confusion or conflict. Put another way, imagine if we all did this in commerce now? Shoecoin at footwear stores, foodcoin when you buy food but don't forget to keep some beercoin just in case you buy that at the same time. No beercoin? Hey, we convert at great rates! Doesn't take alot to see where that would end up... everyone who's not profiteering agreeing on something universal.

There will be a natural recognition that schizophrenic designs don't benefit users, and so Namecoin and Maidsafe will survive in their overall purpose as differentiated from bitcoin, but the token component cannot. If the tokens are not made optional or allow for direct access to the bitcoin protocol, then they won't compete well against rival systems that employ bitcoin as money and stick to addressing the actual problem they purport to solve.

Maybe all this appcoin insanity is a good thing.

It keeps Bitcoins out of the hands of people who've shown a lack of discernment, therefore they'll control a smaller fraction of the future economy.

Well, except for the developers who sell their scamcoins for Bitcoins.

You'd think the fact that the developers prefer to hold bitcoins over appcoins would be a giant red flag for potential investors...

it's not a good thing.  Bitcoins are the only thing they can monetize with.  they are a drag on Bitcoin b/c of all the scams and failures.  they suck out valuable capital away from Bitcoin.  they are means of getting something for nothing.  much like POS which involves no work.

True, but only bitter experience can force people to make smarter decisions. I say this while reminding myself that maybe this won't be the last new paradigm in money, or even in cryptographic money. We're still waiting for >99% of the world to realise the old paradigm is finished, after all. I'm in "expect the unexpected" mode for the rest of the 2010's.

[zeetubes]

Article linked from ZH. What does bitcoin mean for Austrian Money Theory? Some of the comments are worth reading. Some aren't.

"Bitcoin may yet fail, in which case Mises’ theorem will remain as a powerful argument in favor of the gold standard. If it ends up succeeding, however, an alternate explanation will have to be found."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-22/what-does-bitcoin-mean-austrian-money-theory