Bitcoin Forum
December 07, 2016, 08:51:14 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 ... 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] 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1805443 times)
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
October 01, 2014, 11:49:42 AM
 #13101

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.
1481100674
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481100674

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481100674
Reply with quote  #2

1481100674
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481100674
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481100674

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481100674
Reply with quote  #2

1481100674
Report to moderator
1481100674
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481100674

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481100674
Reply with quote  #2

1481100674
Report to moderator
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
October 01, 2014, 12:29:10 PM
 #13102

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
 #13103

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
 #13104

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
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526


View Profile
October 01, 2014, 02:54:51 PM
 #13105

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
 #13106

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
 #13107

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: 725


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


View Profile
October 01, 2014, 04:05:18 PM
 #13108

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: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
October 01, 2014, 04:08:48 PM
 #13109

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: 1554



View Profile
October 01, 2014, 04:13:29 PM
 #13110

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: 725


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


View Profile
October 01, 2014, 04:13:55 PM
 #13111

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
 #13112

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: 1232



View Profile
October 01, 2014, 04:32:42 PM
 #13113

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 can highly recommend Electrum.
Electrum is an open-source lightweight client: user friendly, extremely fast, and one of the safest ways to store and use your bitcoins.
Executables are available on the Electrum homepage, so you can get a Bitcoin wallet up and running on your own computer in a few minutes.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 01, 2014, 04:42:00 PM
 #13114

$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
 #13115


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: 1232



View Profile
October 01, 2014, 04:47:21 PM
 #13116


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 can highly recommend Electrum.
Electrum is an open-source lightweight client: user friendly, extremely fast, and one of the safest ways to store and use your bitcoins.
Executables are available on the Electrum homepage, so you can get a Bitcoin wallet up and running on your own computer in a few minutes.
impulse
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 151


View Profile
October 01, 2014, 04:56:50 PM
 #13117


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: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 01, 2014, 05:03:41 PM
 #13118


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
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 01, 2014, 05:07:47 PM
 #13119


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.

Moreover, as suggested above, this is another attempt at suggesting other applications of the distributed ledger are more useful than the money application which is patently false.


"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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 01, 2014, 05:11:24 PM
 #13120

good sign.  some idiot tried to trigger a sell off with a 1400 BTC sell/short but has failed:

Pages: « 1 ... 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] 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 ... 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!