Bitcoin Forum
July 28, 2017, 04:59:35 AM *
News: BIP91 seems stable: there's probably only slightly increased risk of confirmations disappearing. You should still prepare for Aug 1.
 
   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 ... 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 [655] 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1940702 times)
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
October 01, 2014, 04:09:35 AM
 #13081

WTF?  these guys are simply out of hand:

U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-30/u-s-seeks-to-reverse-apple-android-data-locking-decision.html

Quote from: article
“This is a very bad idea,” said Cathy Lanier, chief of the Washington Metropolitan Police Department, in an interview. Smartphone communication is “going to be the preferred method of the pedophile and the criminal. We are going to lose a lot of investigative opportunities.”

Every single one of you is a pedophile or terrorist until proven innocent. Don't you care about the children.


i'm sure Apple, Google and many other tech companies are noticing purchasers are avoiding US products these days and instead doing their buying overseas.  all b/c of gvt intrusive policies.

https://www.blackphone.ch/

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
1501217975
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501217975

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501217975
Reply with quote  #2

1501217975
Report to moderator
1501217975
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501217975

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501217975
Reply with quote  #2

1501217975
Report to moderator
1501217975
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501217975

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501217975
Reply with quote  #2

1501217975
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1501217975
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501217975

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501217975
Reply with quote  #2

1501217975
Report to moderator
1501217975
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501217975

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501217975
Reply with quote  #2

1501217975
Report to moderator
tabnloz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 961


View Profile
October 01, 2014, 04:30:02 AM
 #13082

"So banks could, for example, make intra-banking transfers more efficient and cheaper by using block chain technology at the transport layer, with the SWIFT messaging system on top. (SWIFT is the global organization that each day handles financial transactions such as wire transfers for more than 9,000 banks).

Many are reviewing the technology. Citi says it is evaluating Bitcoin and the block chain. So is Israel’s Bank Hapoalim. “We are starting to think what exactly we can do with this,” says Gigi Ashkenazi, the Israeli bank’s chief technology officer. “We can’t ignore it, but regulation is very strict. It’s a Catch-22.”


http://www.informilo.com/2014/09/banks-can-cash-bitcoin/

The question has changed.

From 'Will Bitcoin become mainstream?' to 'How can banks remain profitable and relevant?'
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
October 01, 2014, 11:49:42 AM
 #13083

there's no way any of the ETF's will allow settlement for retail investors with the underlying, be it gold or BTC.
This is why any retails who buy a Bitcoin ETF are fools.

All they'll accomplish is give Wall Street their money so somebody else can have bitcoins.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
October 01, 2014, 12:29:10 PM
 #13084

there's no way any of the ETF's will allow settlement for retail investors with the underlying, be it gold or BTC.
This is why any retails who buy a Bitcoin ETF are fools.

All they'll accomplish is give Wall Street their money so somebody else can have bitcoins.
Is that what you mean? Not everyone has a lot of cash to buy bitcoins. Instead they have funds locked into tax shelters and a Bitcoin ETF might be a good option.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 01, 2014, 01:56:35 PM
 #13085

Looks like I covered DZZ & ZSL at the right time.  Wink

Glad to see the stock market down. It may in fact be thata  financial dislocation is what it takes to stimulate the next Bitcoin rally.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
October 01, 2014, 02:18:39 PM
 #13086

Not everyone has a lot of cash to buy bitcoins. Instead they have funds locked into tax shelters and a Bitcoin ETF might be a good option.
The truth is they already gave their money to Wall Street a long time ago and have little-to-no hope of ever seeing it again, whether or not they invest in a Bitcoin ETF.
notme
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1750


View Profile
October 01, 2014, 02:54:51 PM
 #13087

WTF?  these guys are simply out of hand:

U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-30/u-s-seeks-to-reverse-apple-android-data-locking-decision.html

Quote
“What concerns me about this is companies marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law,” Comey said.

Roll Eyes

They are marketing it as a privacy feature.  If seeking privacy means you are going "beyond the law", maybe decades of law enforcement overreaching and seeking extensions of the laws into our personal lives is the problem.

Besides, if they take it away from the default install they will only remove if from the average consumer who isn't breaking laws.  The criminals will root their phones and use encryption anyway.  They can't stop this unless they make rooting illegal, and even that will only slow it down slightly.  If it comes to that, I'm fucking out of here.  I won't live in a country where it is illegal to own a general purpose computer that can run software that doesn't have the approval of government and corporate overlords.

https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
While no idea is perfect, some ideas are useful.
12jh3odyAAaR2XedPKZNCR4X4sebuotQzN
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 01, 2014, 03:51:57 PM
 #13088

must listen podcast of Robert Murphy by Tom Woods on Bitcoin and the Regression Theorum.  it's a little past halfway in the podcast:

http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/verticals/archive.jsp

Murphy's Conclusions:

1.  Bitcoin is unique in that it was developed from the start to be a form of money and did not evolve as a commodity.
2.  Bitcoin leapfrogged the barter phase whereby it would have established it's own relative value (intrinsic value) as a commodity in the market place against other items prior to becoming a medium of exchange.
3.  the Regression Theorum is too restrictive as it could not have predicted something as innovative as Bitcoin.

i extend his conclusions to say the Jeffrey Tucker's theory that Bitcoin only has value primarily b/c of it's payment network to be wrong.  Woods alludes to Tucker's theory in the interview but clearly disagrees with it.  Woods makes the correct argument that the reason ppl value the payment network is b/c the Bitcoin currency has value to begin with.  IOW, the payment network would be worthless if Bitcoin the currency was worthless.  this is where Andreas is also wrong when he says Bitcoin the currency is merely the 1st app existing on what is the real value, the blockchain and that they can be separated.  same argument as Tucker's, same wrong conclusion.

also by extension, Konrad Graf's theory that the RT is consistent with Bitcoin's origin is also tenuous, if not wrong, altho not quite as aggregious in its conclusions as Tucker and Andreas.  as far as i'm concerned, Mises is a great economist who was right on just about all things except for the fact that his RT did not, and could not, have been expected to have predicted something like Bitcoin which depends on the Internet and a scale of global communication never before seen in human history.

my final conclusion is the same one i've had since i started with Bitcoin back in 2011, and that is that Bitcoin the currency is inextricably linked to Bitcoin the blockchain and Bitcoin the payment network. 
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
October 01, 2014, 03:55:07 PM
 #13089

3.  the Regression Theorum is too restrictive as it could not have predicted something as innovative as Bitcoin.
Nick Szebo has a theory of money origins that has more explanatory power.
Trader Steve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 825


"How do you eat an elephant? One bit at a time..."


View Profile
October 01, 2014, 04:05:18 PM
 #13090

there's no way any of the ETF's will allow settlement for retail investors with the underlying, be it gold or BTC.
This is why any retails who buy a Bitcoin ETF are fools.

All they'll accomplish is give Wall Street their money so somebody else can have bitcoins.
Is that what you mean? Not everyone has a lot of cash to buy bitcoins. Instead they have funds locked into tax shelters and a Bitcoin ETF might be a good option.

1. Set up a Self-Directed IRA
2. Have the IRA transfer funds to an LLC of which you are the manager
3. Buy bitcoins (take possession on behalf of the LLC)
4. Store securely via your preferred method.

EDIT: For clarification, the IRA would invest in the LLC by buying all the shares/units. The LLC then, in turn, invests in bitcoin and takes possession.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
October 01, 2014, 04:08:48 PM
 #13091

WTF?  these guys are simply out of hand:

U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-30/u-s-seeks-to-reverse-apple-android-data-locking-decision.html

Quote
“What concerns me about this is companies marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law,” Comey said.

Roll Eyes

They are marketing it as a privacy feature.  If seeking privacy means you are going "beyond the law", maybe decades of law enforcement overreaching and seeking extensions of the laws into our personal lives is the problem.

Besides, if they take it away from the default install they will only remove if from the average consumer who isn't breaking laws.  The criminals will root their phones and use encryption anyway.  They can't stop this unless they make rooting illegal, and even that will only slow it down slightly.  If it comes to that, I'm fucking out of here.  I won't live in a country where it is illegal to own a general purpose computer that can run software that doesn't have the approval of government and corporate overlords.

This is less paternalism, and more, I don't know, 14yr old insecure girl syndrome.  "What are they saying?  Are they talking about me?"
This government has gone nuts.  Next they will outlaw envelopes.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596



View Profile
October 01, 2014, 04:13:29 PM
 #13092

must listen podcast of Robert Murphy by Tom Woods on Bitcoin and the Regression Theorum.  it's a little past halfway in the podcast:

http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/verticals/archive.jsp

Murphy's Conclusions:

1.  Bitcoin is unique in that it was developed from the start to be a form of money and did not evolve as a commodity.
2.  Bitcoin leapfrogged the barter phase whereby it would have established it's own relative value (intrinsic value) as a commodity in the market place against other items prior to becoming a medium of exchange.
3.  the Regression Theorum is too restrictive as it could not have predicted something as innovative as Bitcoin.

i extend his conclusions to say the Jeffrey Tucker's theory that Bitcoin only has value primarily b/c of it's payment network to be wrong.  Woods alludes to Tucker's theory in the interview but clearly disagrees with it.  Woods makes the correct argument that the reason ppl value the payment network is b/c the Bitcoin currency has value to begin with.  IOW, the payment network would be worthless if Bitcoin the currency was worthless.  this is where Andreas is also wrong when he says Bitcoin the currency is merely the 1st app existing on what is the real value, the blockchain and that they can be separated.  same argument as Tucker's, same wrong conclusion.

also by extension, Konrad Graf's theory that the RT is consistent with Bitcoin's origin is also tenuous, if not wrong, altho not quite as aggregious in its conclusions as Tucker and Andreas.  as far as i'm concerned, Mises is a great economist who was right on just about all things except for the fact that his RT did not, and could not, have been expected to have predicted something like Bitcoin which depends on the Internet and a scale of global communication never before seen in human history.

my final conclusion is the same one i've had since i started with Bitcoin back in 2011, and that is that Bitcoin the currency is inextricably linked to Bitcoin the blockchain and Bitcoin the payment network. 



Yes, people need to accept the duality of bitcoin's value origination. I don't think it's fair to say that either one originates the value; they both have value because of the other, and are really the same thing: a distributed ledger, which gets us back to money as memory, and bitcoin as an ideal societal memory facilitator. It's perhaps easier to try and think of things separately, because humans like to think linearly, but the reality is that the currency/network should be viewed is a single atomic unit, or two units that can't be separately discussed (which is equivalent and therefore a mostly useless definition).

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
Trader Steve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 825


"How do you eat an elephant? One bit at a time..."


View Profile
October 01, 2014, 04:13:55 PM
 #13093

must listen podcast of Robert Murphy by Tom Woods on Bitcoin and the Regression Theorum.  it's a little past halfway in the podcast:

http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/verticals/archive.jsp

Murphy's Conclusions:

1.  Bitcoin is unique in that it was developed from the start to be a form of money and did not evolve as a commodity.
2.  Bitcoin leapfrogged the barter phase whereby it would have established it's own relative value (intrinsic value) as a commodity in the market place against other items prior to becoming a medium of exchange.
3.  the Regression Theorum is too restrictive as it could not have predicted something as innovative as Bitcoin.

i extend his conclusions to say the Jeffrey Tucker's theory that Bitcoin only has value primarily b/c of it's payment network to be wrong.  Woods alludes to Tucker's theory in the interview but clearly disagrees with it.  Woods makes the correct argument that the reason ppl value the payment network is b/c the Bitcoin currency has value to begin with.  IOW, the payment network would be worthless if Bitcoin the currency was worthless.  this is where Andreas is also wrong when he says Bitcoin the currency is merely the 1st app existing on what is the real value, the blockchain and that they can be separated.  same argument as Tucker's, same wrong conclusion.

also by extension, Konrad Graf's theory that the RT is consistent with Bitcoin's origin is also tenuous, if not wrong, altho not quite as aggregious in its conclusions as Tucker and Andreas.  as far as i'm concerned, Mises is a great economist who was right on just about all things except for the fact that his RT did not, and could not, have been expected to have predicted something like Bitcoin which depends on the Internet and a scale of global communication never before seen in human history.

my final conclusion is the same one i've had since i started with Bitcoin back in 2011, and that is that Bitcoin the currency is inextricably linked to Bitcoin the blockchain and Bitcoin the payment network. 

Sounds like something I read a while back:

Bitcoin: A New Commodity Created To Serve Market Demand
http://economicsandliberty.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/bitcoin-a-new-commodity-created-to-serve-market-demand/

and

Bitcoin and Why Mises’ Regression Theorem is Wrong
http://economicsandliberty.wordpress.com/2012/10/30/mises-regression-theorem-is-wrong/

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 01, 2014, 04:32:20 PM
 #13094

trying to make Bitcoin consistent with the RT is like trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.

it'll go in eventually if you hammer it hard enough.
oda.krell
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316



View Profile
October 01, 2014, 04:32:42 PM
 #13095

must listen podcast of Robert Murphy by Tom Woods on Bitcoin and the Regression Theorum.  it's a little past halfway in the podcast:

http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/verticals/archive.jsp

Murphy's Conclusions:

1.  Bitcoin is unique in that it was developed from the start to be a form of money and did not evolve as a commodity.
2.  Bitcoin leapfrogged the barter phase whereby it would have established it's own relative value (intrinsic value) as a commodity in the market place against other items prior to becoming a medium of exchange.
3.  the Regression Theorum is too restrictive as it could not have predicted something as innovative as Bitcoin.

i extend his conclusions to say the Jeffrey Tucker's theory that Bitcoin only has value primarily b/c of it's payment network to be wrong.  Woods alludes to Tucker's theory in the interview but clearly disagrees with it.  Woods makes the correct argument that the reason ppl value the payment network is b/c the Bitcoin currency has value to begin with.  IOW, the payment network would be worthless if Bitcoin the currency was worthless.  this is where Andreas is also wrong when he says Bitcoin the currency is merely the 1st app existing on what is the real value, the blockchain and that they can be separated.  same argument as Tucker's, same wrong conclusion.

also by extension, Konrad Graf's theory that the RT is consistent with Bitcoin's origin is also tenuous, if not wrong, altho not quite as aggregious in its conclusions as Tucker and Andreas.  as far as i'm concerned, Mises is a great economist who was right on just about all things except for the fact that his RT did not, and could not, have been expected to have predicted something like Bitcoin which depends on the Internet and a scale of global communication never before seen in human history.

my final conclusion is the same one i've had since i started with Bitcoin back in 2011, and that is that Bitcoin the currency is inextricably linked to Bitcoin the blockchain and Bitcoin the payment network. 



Yes, people need to accept the duality of bitcoin's value origination. I don't think it's fair to say that either one originates the value; they both have value because of the other, and are really the same thing: a distributed ledger, which gets us back to money as memory, and bitcoin as an ideal societal memory facilitator. It's perhaps easier to try and think of things separately, because humans like to think linearly, but the reality is that the currency/network should be viewed is a single atomic unit, or two units that can't be separately discussed (which is equivalent and therefore a mostly useless definition).



Playing devil's advocate, for a moment (2nd time today, I just notice)

Not challenging the 'minimum valuation required to perform as medium of exchange' argument. But why can't the ledger be separated from the currency  function? For a number of imaginable functions in the future, a minimal share of the supply would be enough to perform the ledger function (e.g. contracts).

In order not to gloss over this: there's still the valuation through required security. If contracts on blockchain have a certain total value, the network needs to be at least protected to make an attack economically unfeasible. Since miners are economically motivated as well, this will provide a security-based minimum valuation of Bitcoin in the process.

Still, the two values need not be the same, so the question remains: why can't the 'ledger' function not be separated from the 'currency/money' function?

Not sure which Bitcoin wallet to use? I suggest to take a look at Electrum.
Electrum is an open-source lightweight client: user friendly, fast, and one of the safest ways to store, send or receive bitcoins.
For executables (Windows, OSX, Linux, Android), source code and documentation, see the Electrum homepage.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 01, 2014, 04:42:00 PM
 #13096

$DXY still going up tonite.  sidhuajag, i still don't see how stocks keep rising in the face of this, despite your reasoning:


I think they will wait for usdx retrace... Higher lows for both... Someone ban this lambchop guy seriously offtopic

what's interesting is i have intermediate-term sell signals this past week on the S&P, NDX, Wilshire 5000, the $DJT and even the Dow Jones World Index.

Intermediate-term sell signals were also triggered on the French CAC and the German DAX.

the $DJI is the only holdout.

extrapolating forward to the end of week, it looks like we're going to get a weekly (intermediate term) sell signal on the Dow.  that's a significant development as it has been the only holdout from the above indices.  given where we are in the cycles, there is a chance this could be a long term top in the stock mkt.  mind you as i've said before, i don't have the structural evidence yet that this is the case.  former subs will know what i'm talking about.  but i am on high alert.

like i also said, this would be good for Bitcoin, as it would cause a RunToSafety and could also highlight the benefits of non-correlated assets from the general financial world of which there is only one, imo.

impulse
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 151


View Profile
October 01, 2014, 04:43:27 PM
 #13097


Playing devil's advocate, for a moment (2nd time today, I just notice)

Not challenging the 'minimum valuation required to perform as medium of exchange' argument. But why can't the ledger be separated from the currency  function? For a number of imaginable functions in the future, a minimal share of the supply would be enough to perform the ledger function (e.g. contracts).

In order not to gloss over this: there's still the valuation through required security. If contracts on blockchain have a certain total value, the network needs to be at least protected to make an attack economically unfeasible. Since miners are economically motivated as well, this will provide a security-based minimum valuation of Bitcoin in the process.

Still, the two values need not be the same, so the question remains: why can't the 'ledger' function not be separated from the 'currency/money' function?

You could separate the currency from the ledger, but to what end? Seems to me like that would be making the system and incentives needlessly complicated and would still require you to purchase tokens in order to pay your way into the ledger. In some ways, that is exactly what Ethereum has done. Either way the tokens are still required to make the ledger function, so why make them separate? Perhaps someone has an idea as to why this would be desirable?
oda.krell
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316



View Profile
October 01, 2014, 04:47:21 PM
 #13098


Playing devil's advocate, for a moment (2nd time today, I just notice)

Not challenging the 'minimum valuation required to perform as medium of exchange' argument. But why can't the ledger be separated from the currency  function? For a number of imaginable functions in the future, a minimal share of the supply would be enough to perform the ledger function (e.g. contracts).

In order not to gloss over this: there's still the valuation through required security. If contracts on blockchain have a certain total value, the network needs to be at least protected to make an attack economically unfeasible. Since miners are economically motivated as well, this will provide a security-based minimum valuation of Bitcoin in the process.

Still, the two values need not be the same, so the question remains: why can't the 'ledger' function not be separated from the 'currency/money' function?

You could separate the currency from the ledger, but to what end? Seems to me like that would be making the system and incentives needlessly complicated and would still require you to purchase tokens in order to pay your way into the ledger. In some ways, that is exactly what Ethereum has done. Either way the tokens are still required to make the ledger function, so why make them separate? Perhaps someone has an idea as to why this would be desirable?

My mistake... could have phrased that more clearly, I guess:

I don't suggest we "split up" Bitcoin. My question was, "what prevents the rest of the world from adopting Bitcoin, the distributed ledger, but (mostly) ignoring Bitcoin, the currency"?

The usual argument goes "the two functions cannot be separated, so the above is impossible". I'm asking, why? To me it looks like a possibility, and the implications for total valuation in the long term would be drastic.

Not sure which Bitcoin wallet to use? I suggest to take a look at Electrum.
Electrum is an open-source lightweight client: user friendly, fast, and one of the safest ways to store, send or receive bitcoins.
For executables (Windows, OSX, Linux, Android), source code and documentation, see the Electrum homepage.
impulse
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 151


View Profile
October 01, 2014, 04:56:50 PM
 #13099


Playing devil's advocate, for a moment (2nd time today, I just notice)

Not challenging the 'minimum valuation required to perform as medium of exchange' argument. But why can't the ledger be separated from the currency  function? For a number of imaginable functions in the future, a minimal share of the supply would be enough to perform the ledger function (e.g. contracts).

In order not to gloss over this: there's still the valuation through required security. If contracts on blockchain have a certain total value, the network needs to be at least protected to make an attack economically unfeasible. Since miners are economically motivated as well, this will provide a security-based minimum valuation of Bitcoin in the process.

Still, the two values need not be the same, so the question remains: why can't the 'ledger' function not be separated from the 'currency/money' function?

You could separate the currency from the ledger, but to what end? Seems to me like that would be making the system and incentives needlessly complicated and would still require you to purchase tokens in order to pay your way into the ledger. In some ways, that is exactly what Ethereum has done. Either way the tokens are still required to make the ledger function, so why make them separate? Perhaps someone has an idea as to why this would be desirable?

My mistake... could have phrased that more clearly, I guess:

I don't suggest we "split up" Bitcoin. My question was, "what prevents the rest of the world from adopting Bitcoin, the distributed ledger, but (mostly) ignoring Bitcoin, the currency"?

The usual argument goes "the two functions cannot be separated, so the above is impossible". I'm asking, why? To me it looks like a possibility, and the implications for total valuation in the long term would be drastic.

I suppose that is possible if we were primarily using the Bitcoin blockchain for contracts and properties, a la colored-coins or Mastercoin. But it seems to me that the primary use of Bitcoins will still be as an object of value in and of itself, used for the purpose of wealth storage and transfer. If you wanted to use the blockchain as a contract or property ledger only, you would then have to transact the value portion of that contract outside of the Bitcoin system, which then removes the real advantages of using Bitcoin in the first place.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 01, 2014, 05:03:41 PM
 #13100


Playing devil's advocate, for a moment (2nd time today, I just notice)

Not challenging the 'minimum valuation required to perform as medium of exchange' argument. But why can't the ledger be separated from the currency  function? For a number of imaginable functions in the future, a minimal share of the supply would be enough to perform the ledger function (e.g. contracts).

In order not to gloss over this: there's still the valuation through required security. If contracts on blockchain have a certain total value, the network needs to be at least protected to make an attack economically unfeasible. Since miners are economically motivated as well, this will provide a security-based minimum valuation of Bitcoin in the process.

Still, the two values need not be the same, so the question remains: why can't the 'ledger' function not be separated from the 'currency/money' function?

You could separate the currency from the ledger, but to what end? Seems to me like that would be making the system and incentives needlessly complicated and would still require you to purchase tokens in order to pay your way into the ledger. In some ways, that is exactly what Ethereum has done. Either way the tokens are still required to make the ledger function, so why make them separate? Perhaps someone has an idea as to why this would be desirable?

My mistake... could have phrased that more clearly, I guess:

I don't suggest we "split up" Bitcoin. My question was, "what prevents the rest of the world from adopting Bitcoin, the distributed ledger, but (mostly) ignoring Bitcoin, the currency"?

The usual argument goes "the two functions cannot be separated, so the above is impossible". I'm asking, why? To me it looks like a possibility, and the implications for total valuation in the long term would be drastic.

Because there would be no incentives for the miner to secure and maintain that ledger?

Maybe I have your argument wrong but this is how I understand it

"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." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
Pages: « 1 ... 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 [655] 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 ... 1558 »
  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!