Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Odalv]

Can someone explain to me why this is a 'meme' and by inference of the comments above untrue; I have always thought "its the technology, not the currency" is pretty much on the nose as a precis for BTC.  It's been around for some time now.

Or is this just the cool internet kids thinking that anyone in finance couldn't possibly 'understand' and therefore this must simply be parroted.

Please ... you really do not understand why bitcoin needs to be valuable for a decentralised blockchain to function?

It's just clueless idiots that are saying this, amazingly they seem to be able to get repeated without critique.

Perhaps very few people actually understand the technology and are repeating what other are saying. Since so many are praising the blockchain it's easy to repeat the sentiment. The currency part and the blockchain from a layperson may appear seperate. It doesn't really bother me though as eventually they will have to concede that either they were wrong about blockchains or the currency. I have a feeling it may be the later.

There is blockchain as technology. It is very easy to create as many blockchains as possible.  Blockchain can be POW, POS, DPOS,  cetralized ...  but it can transfer a valuable tokens only if it has valuable tokens. And the most valuable tokens are bitcoins.

[1685851425]

1685851425

[majamalu]

In the meantime, as I've said for years, one of bitcoin's biggest hurdles is education. It's remarkably multidisciplinary, and to *truly* get it, you have to understand tech/cs, as well as monetary theory, some econ and history, and have an open-mind to boot. Not a frequent combo, which is why I'm continually amazed that bitcoin has gotten as far as it has in only 5 years.

I've wondered the same thing. That combo is so rare that one can only conclude that the system of incentives is working.

[brg444]

In the meantime, as I've said for years, one of bitcoin's biggest hurdles is education. It's remarkably multidisciplinary, and to *truly* get it, you have to understand tech/cs, as well as monetary theory, some econ and history, and have an open-mind to boot. Not a frequent combo, which is why I'm continually amazed that bitcoin has gotten as far as it has in only 5 years.

I've wondered the same thing. That combo is so rare that one can only conclude that the system of incentives is working.

Indeed, a masterful job of bootstrapping by Satoshi.

[cbeast]

Bitcoin as it stands today is way undervalued as simply a reserve currency for final settlements. Even if they raise the transaction fee to 20 USD it would still be cheap for an irreversible international wire transfer. Even if they only use it for high finance, it's still way undervalued. This is why we are long in Bitcoin.

[tvbcof]

In the meantime, as I've said for years, one of bitcoin's biggest hurdles is education. It's remarkably multidisciplinary, and to *truly* get it, you have to understand tech/cs, as well as monetary theory, some econ and history, and have an open-mind to boot. Not a frequent combo, which is why I'm continually amazed that bitcoin has gotten as far as it has in only 5 years.

I've wondered the same thing. That combo is so rare that one can only conclude that the system of incentives is working.

I'm not totally convinced of that.  The world abounds with shitty designs and shockingly awful implementations which did extremely well.  Often on the back of a first-mover advantage, but also often enough on more basic accidents of fate.

Microsoft is an outstanding example.  As an operating system, DOS and Windows were both quick-n-dirty hack and well below state-of-the-art even at that time(*).  The legacy of fail is still felt today.  In terms of implementation Gates utterly missed the boat on the Internet and set the operation back by a fair bit yet the software still basically rules the roost anyway all these years later.

I'm not saying that Satoshi(s) didn't get the economics right, and he may well have gotten them amazingly right.  It is debatable however.  Hindsight is 20/20 but I, for one, see some things which I think would have worked better.  All I am saying really is that in the real world amazing success is possible even with some pretty significant defects.

(*)  One could argue that DOS and WFW were the best they could do with the processors and memory available at the time.  Maybe that is true for DOS, but I don't believe it is for NT (much less WFW).  I switched to FreeBSD from NT4.0 (Hardware: 486DX 8MB ram IIRC) and it was all around better.  I never switched back.  One could still argue that legal hassles intervened which is legit.

[nanobrain]

Can someone explain to me why this is a 'meme' and by inference of the comments above untrue; I have always thought "its the technology, not the currency" is pretty much on the nose as a precis for BTC.  It's been around for some time now.

Or is this just the cool internet kids thinking that anyone in finance couldn't possibly 'understand' and therefore this must simply be parroted.

Please ... you really do not understand why bitcoin needs to be valuable for a decentralised blockchain to function?

It's just clueless idiots that are saying this, amazingly they seem to be able to get repeated without critique.

Thanks to those who responded.

As for this gem (above) -- I'm stunned but not surprised.  Everyone else except you is "clueless"; quelle surprise.

Since others seem to have pointed out the massive blind spot in your thinking I won't reiterate.

For those a little more flexible I suggest:
Bitcoin: It’s the platform, not the currency, stupid!
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2014/02/15/bitcoin-platform-currency/1/

Which nailed it back in February.

And of course, all this has happened before with radio, telecoms, the internet and other technology as Tim Wu's "The Master Switch" eloquently describes: the hegemony will strip "bitcoin" of all the useful components it needs to continue its control and leave the libertarians tilting at windmills.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Can someone explain to me why this is a 'meme' and by inference of the comments above untrue; I have always thought "its the technology, not the currency" is pretty much on the nose as a precis for BTC.  It's been around for some time now.

Or is this just the cool internet kids thinking that anyone in finance couldn't possibly 'understand' and therefore this must simply be parroted.

Please ... you really do not understand why bitcoin needs to be valuable for a decentralised blockchain to function?

It's just clueless idiots that are saying this, amazingly they seem to be able to get repeated without critique.

Thanks to those who responded.

As for this gem (above) -- I'm stunned but not surprised.  Everyone else except you is "clueless"; quelle surprise.

Since others seem to have pointed out the massive blind spot in your thinking I won't reiterate.

For those a little more flexible I suggest:
Bitcoin: It’s the platform, not the currency, stupid!
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2014/02/15/bitcoin-platform-currency/1/

Which nailed it back in February.

And of course, all this has happened before with radio, telecoms, the internet and other technology as Tim Wu's "The Master Switch" eloquently describes: the hegemony will strip "bitcoin" of all the useful components it needs to continue its control and leave the libertarians tilting at windmills.

 ... not waving, but drowning.

[justusranvier]

Can someone explain to me why this is a 'meme' and by inference of the comments above untrue; I have always thought "its the technology, not the currency" is pretty much on the nose as a precis for BTC.  It's been around for some time now.

Or is this just the cool internet kids thinking that anyone in finance couldn't possibly 'understand' and therefore this must simply be parroted.

Please ... you really do not understand why bitcoin needs to be valuable for a decentralised blockchain to function?

It's just clueless idiots that are saying this, amazingly they seem to be able to get repeated without critique.

It's the bargaining stage of grief for people who procrastinated about buying Bitcoins.

[brg444]

Can someone explain to me why this is a 'meme' and by inference of the comments above untrue; I have always thought "its the technology, not the currency" is pretty much on the nose as a precis for BTC.  It's been around for some time now.

Or is this just the cool internet kids thinking that anyone in finance couldn't possibly 'understand' and therefore this must simply be parroted.

Please ... you really do not understand why bitcoin needs to be valuable for a decentralised blockchain to function?

It's just clueless idiots that are saying this, amazingly they seem to be able to get repeated without critique.

Thanks to those who responded.

As for this gem (above) -- I'm stunned but not surprised.  Everyone else except you is "clueless"; quelle surprise.

Since others seem to have pointed out the massive blind spot in your thinking I won't reiterate.

For those a little more flexible I suggest:
Bitcoin: It’s the platform, not the currency, stupid!
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2014/02/15/bitcoin-platform-currency/1/

Which nailed it back in February.

And of course, all this has happened before with radio, telecoms, the internet and other technology as Tim Wu's "The Master Switch" eloquently describes: the hegemony will strip "bitcoin" of all the useful components it needs to continue its control and leave the libertarians tilting at windmills.

 

[marcus_of_augustus]

For those a little more flexible I suggest:
Bitcoin: It’s the platform, not the currency, stupid!
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2014/02/15/bitcoin-platform-currency/1/

Which nailed it back in February.

sheesh, i didn't bother to read this link until now. It's just a bunch of VC-titillating fluffy buzzwords, no-one with a serious intention for examining this technology should be taking shit like this seriously.

If that is your "must read" "nailed it" material you are going to lose a lot of dough lady.

[tabnloz]

Thanks to those who responded.

As for this gem (above) -- I'm stunned but not surprised.  Everyone else except you is "clueless"; quelle surprise.

I dont think M of A was trying to be rude to you specifically

But anyway, I think this tweet sums up the line of thinking that says blockchain and currency cant be separated

@gendal: @robustus @Chris_Skinner @jonmatonis If you want decentralisation/censorship resistance/no central control, you need a native currency

[brg444]

For those a little more flexible I suggest:
Bitcoin: It’s the platform, not the currency, stupid!
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2014/02/15/bitcoin-platform-currency/1/

Which nailed it back in February.

sheesh, i didn't bother to read this until now. It's just a bunch of VC-titillating fluffy buzzwords, no-one with a serious intention for examining this technology should be taking shit like this seriously.

If that is your "must read" "nailed it" material you are going to lose a lot of dough lady.

I think his point may be that you ought to have some balance in your opinion of the blockchain vs. bitcoin debate.

Uninformed proponents championing the possibilities made possible by blockchain tech and dismissing the bitcoin money value should not have you ignore such possibilities.

At the same time, it does seem like putting the cart before the horse. All of the concepts in this article are well ahead in the future and can only truly be realized with the foundation of bitcoin the money.

[Adrian-x]

Can someone explain to me why this is a 'meme' and by inference of the comments above untrue; I have always thought "its the technology, not the currency" is pretty much on the nose as a precis for BTC.  It's been around for some time now.

Or is this just the cool internet kids thinking that anyone in finance couldn't possibly 'understand' and therefore this must simply be parroted.

A meme being an evolutionary term, leaves one's lack of understand to a dead end.

While the blockchain is an immutable public ledger preserved for all time it can only preserve information that is equivalent to the value we give the currency. (Or something similar)

If the currency was removed and we just kept the blockchain who would be incentivized to protect it, the currently is the reason miners secure the network, it is the reason attacking the network is economically unsustainable. The value in currency ensures the blockchains existence. You can't have one with out the other.

Well there are the PoS proponents but they too weight the facts in a way that prevents them seeing the wood for the trees.
(All this ignorance means PoS will probably come into favor soonish, and then over time succumb to its shortcomings.)

[brg444]

Can someone explain to me why this is a 'meme' and by inference of the comments above untrue; I have always thought "its the technology, not the currency" is pretty much on the nose as a precis for BTC.  It's been around for some time now.

Or is this just the cool internet kids thinking that anyone in finance couldn't possibly 'understand' and therefore this must simply be parroted.

A meme being an evolutionary term, leaves one's lack of understand to a dead end.

While the blockchain is an immutable public ledger preserved for all time it can only preserve information that is equivalent to the value we give the currency. (Or something similar)

If the currency was removed and we just kept the blockchain who would be incentivized to protect it, the currently is the reason miners secure the network, it is the reason attacking the network is economically unsustainable. The value in currency ensures the blockchains existence. You can't have one with out the other.

Well there are the PoS proponents but they too weight the facts in a way that prevents them seeing the wood for the trees.
(All this ignorance means PoS will probably come into favor soonish, and then over time succumb to its shortcomings.)

PoS being the central bank to Bitcoin's gold, it is only right that incumbents cling on to familiarity in the face of the inevitable crypto revolution

[marcus_of_augustus]

Thanks to those who responded.

As for this gem (above) -- I'm stunned but not surprised.  Everyone else except you is "clueless"; quelle surprise.

I dont think M of A was trying to be rude to you specifically

But anyway, I think this tweet sums up the line of thinking that says blockchain and currency cant be separated

@gendal: @robustus @Chris_Skinner @jonmatonis If you want decentralisation/censorship resistance/no central control, you need a native currency

Yep ... I don't know who is saying this "blockchain not bitcoin" crap but nanobrain has been around long enough you would think, but nothing specific was being levelled at her.

Let's spell it out:

- a distributed consensus needs a database that is protected from cheating by the nodes

- the security for the bitcoin blockchain database is the grinding of the hashing algorithm that guards against cheating

- the P.O.W. hashing is incentivised by the reward provided by the issuance of bitcoin, yes the currency!

- the security of the distributed consensus does NOT function and will get attacked without a sufficiently valuable bitcoin

and at the end of the day what is this amazing blockchain?? It is a sequence of files that have the hash of the previous file included within them ... what? that is it? the true multi-trillion dollar invention here?  

In fact, the distributed global ledger is not the blockchain but the UTXO. The blockchain is merely the journal record of what TX took place ... who owns what is in the UTXO. That is where the innovation that bitcoin 2G tech will get built upon ...

"Blockchain Buzz" is last year now, sidechains is the final nail in the coffin for that BS.

[Adrian-x]

Can someone explain to me why this is a 'meme' and by inference of the comments above untrue; I have always thought "its the technology, not the currency" is pretty much on the nose as a precis for BTC.  It's been around for some time now.

Or is this just the cool internet kids thinking that anyone in finance couldn't possibly 'understand' and therefore this must simply be parroted.

A meme being an evolutionary term, leaves one's lack of understand to a dead end.

While the blockchain is an immutable public ledger preserved for all time it can only preserve information that is equivalent to the value we give the currency. (Or something similar)

If the currency was removed and we just kept the blockchain who would be incentivized to protect it, the currently is the reason miners secure the network, it is the reason attacking the network is economically unsustainable. The value in currency ensures the blockchains existence. You can't have one with out the other.

Well there are the PoS proponents but they too weight the facts in a way that prevents them seeing the wood for the trees.
(All this ignorance means PoS will probably come into favor soonish, and then over time succumb to its shortcomings.)

PoS being the central bank to Bitcoin's gold, it is only right that incumbents cling on to familiarity in the face of the inevitable crypto revolution

I feel the need to quote cypher (he loves being quoted) paraphrasing : "most who invest in cryptocurrency will probably lose money"

[molecular]

In the meantime, as I've said for years, one of bitcoin's biggest hurdles is education. It's remarkably multidisciplinary, and to *truly* get it, you have to understand tech/cs, as well as monetary theory, some econ and history, and have an open-mind to boot. Not a frequent combo, which is why I'm continually amazed that bitcoin has gotten as far as it has in only 5 years.

I've wondered the same thing. That combo is so rare that one can only conclude that the system of incentives is working.

I've understood the potential of bitcoin half way through satoshis paper without knowing anything about economics, not much about how money works and close to nothing about monetary history. I knew some crypto and had thought about "internet money" before. Maybe I had an open mind.

What I'm saying: I think you don't need all of the above. Maybe an open mind is a must, but I think you can scratch at least one of "tech/cs", "econ", "history" or "monetary theory" and still "get bitcoin".

[brg444]

In the meantime, as I've said for years, one of bitcoin's biggest hurdles is education. It's remarkably multidisciplinary, and to *truly* get it, you have to understand tech/cs, as well as monetary theory, some econ and history, and have an open-mind to boot. Not a frequent combo, which is why I'm continually amazed that bitcoin has gotten as far as it has in only 5 years.

I've wondered the same thing. That combo is so rare that one can only conclude that the system of incentives is working.

I've understood the potential of bitcoin half way through satoshis paper without knowing anything about economics, not much about how money works and close to nothing about monetary history. I knew some crypto and had thought about "internet money" before. Maybe I had an open mind.

What I'm saying: I think you don't need all of the above. Maybe an open mind is a must, but I think you can scratch at least one of "tech/cs", "econ", "history" or "monetary theory" and still "get bitcoin".

I think emphasis here is on *truly* get in as in understand all the implications.

I too got hooked fairly quickly but it is not until I educated myself about the history of money as a ledger, by proxy of learning about Bitcoin, that I *truly* got it. 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

And why it matters to truly get Bitcoin comes up in all sorts of contexts:

• Should I invest in altcoins?
• Can governments kill it?
• Does switching to bits mean inflation?
• What would be the effects of sidechains, or of spin-offs?
• Can I be sure the coins will hold value?
• Will mining centralization destroy Bitcoin?
• Can the blockchain be separated from the currency?
• Are premines an acceptable way of funding innovation?
• Does the price drop mean Bitcoin is losing popularity?
• What really gives bitcoins their value?
• Is the sky falling?
• Should I start a business, or invest in a business, doing X?

You can see examples of wrong answers to these questions every day, and how the wrong answers drive misguided decisions (and usually lost money).

[cbeast]

And why it matters to truly get Bitcoin comes up in all sorts of contexts:

• Should I invest in altcoins?
• Can governments kill it?
• Does switching to bits mean inflation?
• What would be the effects of sidechains, or of spin-offs?
• Can I be sure the coins will hold value?
• Will mining centralization destroy Bitcoin?
• Can the blockchain be separated from the currency?
• Are premines an acceptable way of funding innovation?
• Does the price drop mean Bitcoin is losing popularity?
• What really gives bitcoins their value?
• Is the sky falling?
• Should I start a business, or invest in a business, doing X?

You can see examples of wrong answers to these questions every day, and how the wrong answers drive misguided decisions (and usually lost money).

This list needs to go into an FAQ.