Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 06:11:08 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 [552] 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1806901 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 23, 2014, 12:01:49 AM
 #11021

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?
1481263868
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481263868

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481263868
Reply with quote  #2

1481263868
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481263868
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481263868

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481263868
Reply with quote  #2

1481263868
Report to moderator
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
August 23, 2014, 12:04:40 AM
 #11022

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.

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
l3mmy
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 87


View Profile
August 23, 2014, 12:05:52 AM
 #11023

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
August 23, 2014, 12:07:50 AM
 #11024

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 23, 2014, 12:12:08 AM
 #11025

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile WWW
August 23, 2014, 12:14:44 AM
 #11026

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
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 87


View Profile
August 23, 2014, 12:17:40 AM
 #11027


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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 23, 2014, 12:27:20 AM
 #11028

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470



View Profile
August 23, 2014, 12:28:05 AM
 #11029

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.



Vires in numeris
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470



View Profile
August 23, 2014, 12:39:29 AM
 #11030

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.

Vires in numeris
zeetubes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 371


View Profile
August 23, 2014, 02:25:40 AM
 #11031

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

Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
August 23, 2014, 02:57:15 AM
 #11032

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


If bitcoin succeeds, does it necessarily mean that the Mises' Regression Theory is false?  

Quote from: Mises
People will only accept a medium of exchange if they observe that it has value, and can actually be exchanged for things. The only way to observe that is by looking at whether it was so used in a preceding time period. Thus, this chain of observations can be followed back until the first instance in which a particular type of money was used as a medium of exchange, and in order for those first adopters to accept it, it must have had value independent of its use as a medium of exchange, or in other words, be a commodity. Paper money, especially that with no commodity backing, is only adopted when governments force it upon people.
 

Does not an unforgeable global ledger and a method writing information to that ledger via digital signatures have value independent of its use as a medium of exchange?  Does this "save" the regression theory?  Or is it better to sweep it away in favour of the "money is memory" point of view?

I thought this was a useful perspective:

Quote from: Capt_Roger_Murdock (r/bitcoin)
I really like language as an analogy for money. Whereas a typical language like English is a protocol for communicating all kinds of information, money is a protocol for communicating credible information about value given but not yet received. If you go through familiar properties of good money (i.e, scarcity, fungibility, divisibility, portability, etc.) with that analogy in mind, you'll see that there are really only two requirements. First, the protocol must ensure that it facilitates the transmission of credible messages. And second, the protocol should facilitate the efficient transmission of those messages. Gold satisfies the first requirement, but not the second -- at least from the perspective of a modern, global economy. Digital fiat does a pretty good job at satisfying the second requirement, but not the first. The constant creation of new fiat out of thin air is equivalent to the constant creation of false messages that undermine the integrity and usefulness of the system. Bitcoin is exciting because it's the first money that may be able to simultaneously satisfy both requirements. Another obvious parallel between money and language is the importance of network effects. The more people that speak a language, the more useful it is. The more people that use a particular form of money, the more useful and valuable it is.


Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554



View Profile
August 23, 2014, 03:20:10 AM
 #11033

...  
Or is it better to sweep it away in favour of the "money is memory" point of view?
...


Yes.

I thought we got over the Regression TheoremTheory in 2010/2011?

Funny this came up right now... I've been re-reading Kocherlakota's "Money is Memory" (pdf) tonight.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
But Bitcointalk & /r/bitcoin are heavily censored. bitco.in/forum, forum.bitcoin.com, and /r/btc are open.
Best info on Casascius coins: http://spotcoins.com/casascius
Cortex7
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


View Profile WWW
August 23, 2014, 03:51:26 AM
 #11034

If bitcoin succeeds, does it necessarily mean that the Mises' Regression Theory is false?  

Hi,

I think Mises' theory is no longer complete.

Mise wrote the theory in 1912 and he died in 1973.

But in his defense: I don't think he could have possibly imagined an unforgeable virtual token that has controlled and finite issuance.

Just imagine being told to engineer a solution for that in 1973, let alone 1912.

IMHO: Bitcoin is closer in most dimensions to gold than fiat, as we all know fiat is just fancily printed paper, the issuance of which takes a chaotic and inevitably corrupt path.

Quote from: Mise
"Paper money, especially that with no commodity backing, is only adopted when governments force it upon people."

Were Mise still alive then I think he would hold some Bitcoins for sure, alongside his gold of course.





cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 23, 2014, 04:01:06 AM
 #11035

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



look at the comments.

wow, what a change for the better.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 23, 2014, 04:20:49 AM
 #11036


Does not an unforgeable global ledger and a method writing information to that ledger via digital signatures have value independent of its use as a medium of exchange?  Does this "save" the regression theory?  Or is it better to sweep it away in favour of the "money is memory" point of view?


not in Bitcoin's case.

the only reason the ledger is unforgeable is b/c of the embedded monetary units that incentive mining via the POW leading to the blockchain.  they're inextricably linked.

edit: maybe i'm not reading your intentions with that quite right.  but i still think the blockchain may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as money.
zeetubes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 371


View Profile
August 23, 2014, 04:24:14 AM
 #11037

Transnistria to Introduce Plastic Circulation Coins

I'd never heard of trasnsnistria.

http://news.coinupdate.com/transnistria-to-introduce-plastic-circulation-coins-4441/
zeetubes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 371


View Profile
August 23, 2014, 04:26:36 AM
 #11038

U.S. Mint platinum coins bypassed in rush for gold
Platinum sales at the U.S. Mint have all but collapsed as investors continue to favour gold and silver.

So even in the physical world, perhaps there isn't much room for more than one alt coin.

http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/content/en/mineweb-gold-news?oid=250839&sn=Detail
zeetubes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 371


View Profile
August 23, 2014, 04:29:17 AM
 #11039

The world's largest diggers.

That's what I would call some serious POW.

http://www.mining.com/infographic-the-worlds-largest-diggers-79393/
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


View Profile
August 23, 2014, 11:47:22 AM
 #11040

Debt is the one and only real money. Everything else is a (more or less liquid) commodity. (Gold, Gold 2.0, Copper, Grain, Houses etc.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years

"Staat nenne ich's, wo alle Gifttrinker sind, Gute und Schlimme: Staat, wo alle sich selber verlieren, Gute und Schlimme:
Staat, wo der langsame Selbstmord aller – »das Leben« heisst."
Pages: « 1 ... 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 [552] 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 ... 1560 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!