Bitcoin Forum
November 24, 2017, 02:17:10 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   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 ... 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 [829] 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2013437 times)
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 11, 2014, 07:21:43 PM
 #16561

Several factors are in play, including transaction fees and goodwill.  Miners know that if they only produce empty blocks it will hurt the very currency they are paid in.  Regardless, this seems like an argument against Gavin's proposal.  I thought you were in favor of it?

That's an assumption that may fall away, it isn't true if you get paid in TX fees on a side chain from MM, you could mine empty Bitcoin blocks all day, and get paid in SC tokens.


Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Join ICO Now Coinlancer is Disrupting the Freelance marketplace!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


View Profile
November 11, 2014, 07:26:30 PM
 #16562

Several factors are in play, including transaction fees and goodwill.  Miners know that if they only produce empty blocks it will hurt the very currency they are paid in.  Regardless, this seems like an argument against Gavin's proposal.  I thought you were in favor of it?

That's an assumption that's may fall away, it isn't true if you get paid in TX fees on a side chain from MM, you could mine empty Bitcoin blocks all day, and get paid in SC tokens.



Sure, solving the block propagation issue should be addressed, and can be without a hard fork.  I support Gavin's proposed solution, but I don't want to see it followed up by raising the block size limit.

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

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 11, 2014, 07:43:29 PM
 #16563

where does he get this?:

But 50% per year growth is really good. According to my rough back-of-the-envelope calculations, my above-average home Internet connection and above-average home computer could easily support 5,000 transactions per second today.

That works out to 400 million transactions per day. Pretty good; every person in the US could make one Bitcoin transaction per day and I’d still be able to keep up.

After 12 years of bandwidth growth that becomes 56 billion transactions per day on my home network connection — enough for every single person in the world to make five or six bitcoin transactions every single day. It is hard to imagine that not being enough; according the the Boston Federal Reserve, the average US consumer makes just over two payments per day.


Using 5,000 tps and an average transaction size of 512 bytes (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability#Network), that is 2.44 MB/s, which would require a 19.53 megabit/s connection, which is indeed reasonable.  Signature verification can be handled by a 2.2GHz i7 at a rate of 4k tps, so 5k isn't too far out of the water for a high end CPU.

So yes, he's right that his computer can handle the throughput.  What he doesn't mention is that this amount of data fills up ~206 GB of hard drive space per day while it is also saturating your bandwidth and CPU throughput.

I may have a ridiculous setup with 6 hard drives and way more storage than I need, but even I can't handle 1TB of information every 5 days without laying out serious cash on a network storage solution for my mining computer to utilize to store the blockchain.

I agree and I would like to add.
You cannot store 20 years old unspent output into archive. You need to have instant access to those bitcoin if you are miner.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
November 11, 2014, 07:54:03 PM
 #16564

I think committed UTXO sets will eventually be secure enough that not even miners will store the full, unpruned history all the way back to the genesis block.

Once that objection has been answered, and once price discovery for bandwidth has been achieved, there won't be any credible reasons to have an explicit transaction rate cap.
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
November 11, 2014, 07:59:42 PM
 #16565

where does he get this?:

But 50% per year growth is really good. According to my rough back-of-the-envelope calculations, my above-average home Internet connection and above-average home computer could easily support 5,000 transactions per second today.

That works out to 400 million transactions per day. Pretty good; every person in the US could make one Bitcoin transaction per day and I’d still be able to keep up.

After 12 years of bandwidth growth that becomes 56 billion transactions per day on my home network connection — enough for every single person in the world to make five or six bitcoin transactions every single day. It is hard to imagine that not being enough; according the the Boston Federal Reserve, the average US consumer makes just over two payments per day.


Using 5,000 tps and an average transaction size of 512 bytes (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability#Network), that is 2.44 MB/s, which would require a 19.53 megabit/s connection, which is indeed reasonable.  Signature verification can be handled by a 2.2GHz i7 at a rate of 4k tps, so 5k isn't too far out of the water for a high end CPU.

So yes, he's right that his computer can handle the throughput.  What he doesn't mention is that this amount of data fills up ~206 GB of hard drive space per day while it is also saturating your bandwidth and CPU throughput.

I may have a ridiculous setup with 6 hard drives and way more storage than I need, but even I can't handle 1TB of information every 5 days without laying out serious cash on a network storage solution for my mining computer to utilize to store the blockchain.

I agree and I would like to add.
You cannot store 20 years old unspent output into archive. You need to have instant access to those bitcoin if you are miner.

Don't be so sure that you won't be able to store 20 years of UTXO dust 15 years from now.  You'll probably be able to do it in a $5 chip the size of a postage stamp.

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/6815/sandisk-ulltradimm-ddr3-400gb-ssd-enterprise-review/index.html

Storage density is EXCEEDING Moore's law for the last 10+ years...
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 11, 2014, 08:04:23 PM
 #16566

http://uk.businessinsider.com/raoul-pal-on-bitcoin-2014-11?r=US

this guy can see it coming. interesting insight on the oncoming loss of confidence in fiat money

"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
November 11, 2014, 08:09:22 PM
 #16567

1. it is unnecessary (there are other ways to solve scalability that do not involve a hard fork)

but the whole pt of SC's is to bring the innovation back onto MC which then will require a hard fork anyway


Maybe in your mind... in my opinion the whole point of SC is to allow innovation in the crypto space without diluting bitcoin.  Bitcoin doesn't need to be a timestamping service or a distributed computing platform, but both are valid uses cases of sidechains.

in brg444's mind as well.  and i agree with his preference, if i were to call it that, b/c MM'ing SC's forever is inherently wasteful as well in terms of data
Quote
Quote
Quote

2. it increases the required resources for all miners

but i thought brg444 said ALL miners would end up MM'ing SC's?

I disagree with him on this point and so I won't argue in support of him here.

Quote

Quote

3. it reduces the value of transaction fees by increasing the supply of block space

maybe, maybe not if tx #'s grow significantly

Possibly, but the initial increase will cause a devaluation.  It may well establish a sound equilibrium after some time, but we won't know unless we try.  And if it fails, we're fucked because you insisted on doing it on the main chain instead of testing things on a segregated sidechain.

me?  why, thank you.  i had no idea.
Quote
Quote
Quote

4. any hardcoded limit will just be hit again and any algorithmic limit has a lot of questions about proper incentives to answer

true
Quote

5. there is no genuine proposal for how to adjust the limit (Gavin's proposal merely addresses the issues with block transmission latency that are a prerequisite to raising the limit.  It should probably be done even if we leave the limit since it is a soft-fork change and currently miners who fill blocks to the limit are putting themselves at a disadvantage over empty blocks that propagate quicker)

why didn't the 0 tx block Mystery Miner take over a coupla yrs ago?

Several factors are in play, including transaction fees and goodwill.  Miners know that if they only produce empty blocks it will hurt the very currency they are paid in.  Regardless, this seems like an argument against Gavin's proposal.  I thought you were in favor of it?

i am in favor of it.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 11, 2014, 08:10:15 PM
 #16568

where does he get this?:

But 50% per year growth is really good. According to my rough back-of-the-envelope calculations, my above-average home Internet connection and above-average home computer could easily support 5,000 transactions per second today.

That works out to 400 million transactions per day. Pretty good; every person in the US could make one Bitcoin transaction per day and I’d still be able to keep up.

After 12 years of bandwidth growth that becomes 56 billion transactions per day on my home network connection — enough for every single person in the world to make five or six bitcoin transactions every single day. It is hard to imagine that not being enough; according the the Boston Federal Reserve, the average US consumer makes just over two payments per day.


Using 5,000 tps and an average transaction size of 512 bytes (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability#Network), that is 2.44 MB/s, which would require a 19.53 megabit/s connection, which is indeed reasonable.  Signature verification can be handled by a 2.2GHz i7 at a rate of 4k tps, so 5k isn't too far out of the water for a high end CPU.

So yes, he's right that his computer can handle the throughput.  What he doesn't mention is that this amount of data fills up ~206 GB of hard drive space per day while it is also saturating your bandwidth and CPU throughput.

I may have a ridiculous setup with 6 hard drives and way more storage than I need, but even I can't handle 1TB of information every 5 days without laying out serious cash on a network storage solution for my mining computer to utilize to store the blockchain.

I agree and I would like to add.
You cannot store 20 years old unspent output into archive. You need to have instant access to those bitcoin if you are miner.

Don't be so sure that you won't be able to store 20 years of UTXO dust 15 years from now.  You'll probably be able to do it in a $5 chip the size of a postage stamp.

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/6815/sandisk-ulltradimm-ddr3-400gb-ssd-enterprise-review/index.html

Storage density is EXCEEDING Moore's law for the last 10+ years...

I'm playing with SD card as a storage ... capacity is god but it is getting slower and slower every day.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 11, 2014, 08:16:49 PM
 #16569

http://uk.businessinsider.com/raoul-pal-on-bitcoin-2014-11?r=US

this guy can see it coming. interesting insight on the oncoming loss of confidence in fiat money

also refreshing to see someone dismiss the Bitcoin with the B and concentrate on the bitcoin currency

"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
November 11, 2014, 08:23:37 PM
 #16570

i see about 10 guys commenting on about 5 different ways to do this.  what happens when you don't get a consensus?  do nothing?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 11, 2014, 08:25:57 PM
 #16571

Moon?  i lol'ed:

"So I said OK well let's assume it's something like gold—There's a finite amount of it," Pal said in an interview with Grant Williams on Real Vision Television. "There's a finite amount that's been mined. The rest is underground. We kind of know how long it's going to take before all the gold is mined or before all the bitcoins. Put them in the same kind of equation we get a value of bitcoin and that value is a million dollars. Now, you'll never hear an analyst say this—but I don't mind this—I could be wrong by 90%, and it's still worth $100,000."

http://uk.businessinsider.com/raoul-pal-on-bitcoin-2014-11?r=US
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 11, 2014, 08:43:01 PM
 #16572

Moon?  i lol'ed:

"So I said OK well let's assume it's something like gold—There's a finite amount of it," Pal said in an interview with Grant Williams on Real Vision Television. "There's a finite amount that's been mined. The rest is underground. We kind of know how long it's going to take before all the gold is mined or before all the bitcoins. Put them in the same kind of equation we get a value of bitcoin and that value is a million dollars. Now, you'll never hear an analyst say this—but I don't mind this—I could be wrong by 90%, and it's still worth $100,000."

http://uk.businessinsider.com/raoul-pal-on-bitcoin-2014-11?r=US

I suggest you watch the video at the end of the article if you haven't already. Much more interesting than the article.

Only at the end does he drifts into nonsense suggesting gold will be improved to allow for currency use. It seems he hasn't accepted yet that Bitcoin is effectively gold's replacement but he definitely understand its value proposition

"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
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


View Profile
November 11, 2014, 08:45:38 PM
 #16573

where does he get this?:

But 50% per year growth is really good. According to my rough back-of-the-envelope calculations, my above-average home Internet connection and above-average home computer could easily support 5,000 transactions per second today.

That works out to 400 million transactions per day. Pretty good; every person in the US could make one Bitcoin transaction per day and I’d still be able to keep up.

After 12 years of bandwidth growth that becomes 56 billion transactions per day on my home network connection — enough for every single person in the world to make five or six bitcoin transactions every single day. It is hard to imagine that not being enough; according the the Boston Federal Reserve, the average US consumer makes just over two payments per day.


Using 5,000 tps and an average transaction size of 512 bytes (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability#Network), that is 2.44 MB/s, which would require a 19.53 megabit/s connection, which is indeed reasonable.  Signature verification can be handled by a 2.2GHz i7 at a rate of 4k tps, so 5k isn't too far out of the water for a high end CPU.

So yes, he's right that his computer can handle the throughput.  What he doesn't mention is that this amount of data fills up ~206 GB of hard drive space per day while it is also saturating your bandwidth and CPU throughput.

I may have a ridiculous setup with 6 hard drives and way more storage than I need, but even I can't handle 1TB of information every 5 days without laying out serious cash on a network storage solution for my mining computer to utilize to store the blockchain.

I agree and I would like to add.
You cannot store 20 years old unspent output into archive. You need to have instant access to those bitcoin if you are miner.

Don't be so sure that you won't be able to store 20 years of UTXO dust 15 years from now.  You'll probably be able to do it in a $5 chip the size of a postage stamp.

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/6815/sandisk-ulltradimm-ddr3-400gb-ssd-enterprise-review/index.html

Storage density is EXCEEDING Moore's law for the last 10+ years...

What's your source, because my source (Computer Architecture: A Quantiative Approach 5th edidion, 2012), says that magnetic storage has been growing at about 40% per year since 2004:


Even flash is doubling every 2 years, not the 18 month timeline for moore's law.

Edit: not sure why my image is choking the proxy, http://yrral.net/storage_growth.png

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

Activity: 2324


View Profile
November 11, 2014, 09:27:01 PM
 #16574

where does he get this?:

But 50% per year growth is really good. According to my rough back-of-the-envelope calculations, my above-average home Internet connection and above-average home computer could easily support 5,000 transactions per second today.

That works out to 400 million transactions per day. Pretty good; every person in the US could make one Bitcoin transaction per day and I’d still be able to keep up.

After 12 years of bandwidth growth that becomes 56 billion transactions per day on my home network connection — enough for every single person in the world to make five or six bitcoin transactions every single day. It is hard to imagine that not being enough; according the the Boston Federal Reserve, the average US consumer makes just over two payments per day.


Using 5,000 tps and an average transaction size of 512 bytes (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability#Network), that is 2.44 MB/s, which would require a 19.53 megabit/s connection, which is indeed reasonable.  Signature verification can be handled by a 2.2GHz i7 at a rate of 4k tps, so 5k isn't too far out of the water for a high end CPU.

So yes, he's right that his computer can handle the throughput.  What he doesn't mention is that this amount of data fills up ~206 GB of hard drive space per day while it is also saturating your bandwidth and CPU throughput.

I may have a ridiculous setup with 6 hard drives and way more storage than I need, but even I can't handle 1TB of information every 5 days without laying out serious cash on a network storage solution for my mining computer to utilize to store the blockchain.

I agree and I would like to add.
You cannot store 20 years old unspent output into archive. You need to have instant access to those bitcoin if you are miner.

Don't be so sure that you won't be able to store 20 years of UTXO dust 15 years from now.  You'll probably be able to do it in a $5 chip the size of a postage stamp.

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/6815/sandisk-ulltradimm-ddr3-400gb-ssd-enterprise-review/index.html

Storage density is EXCEEDING Moore's law for the last 10+ years...

What's your source, because my source (Computer Architecture: A Quantiative Approach 5th edidion, 2012), says that magnetic storage has been growing at about 40% per year since 2004:


Even flash is doubling every 2 years, not the 18 month timeline for moore's law.

Edit: not sure why my image is choking the proxy, http://yrral.net/storage_growth.png

I've been fiddling with computers since the early 80's.  The magnetic capacities reasonably available to me as a relatively interested enthusiast are falling off a cliff.  I posted about it in this thread earlier.  So when it comes to Moore's Law, 'show me the beef', but don't lead me to NASA's supercomputer cluster to do so.  Anyway, Bitcoin is in it's tiny head-of-the-pin phase and already it has already gone through significant phases of struggle.

I will also say that people who not have actually tried transferring big wads of data around the global internet should keep their mouth's shut.  That includes transferring said data chunks from outfits like Amazon through very high-end connectivity to outfits like {very large tech company here.}  Even very experienced engineers who had not tried it were shocked when theory and practice didn't come anywhere close to meeting.  It comes down to basic physics and how TCP/IP works.  Yes, there are tricks to make the problems somewhat diminish but there are no silver bullets here...or at least ones which are very applicable to lower end users.  Maybe there will be, or they will develop, but absent a market demand it is not likely.  Opening 10.000 sockets is not going to be very welcome by one's ISP (even if they do have an OS and router and modem which handles it with grace.)

I once asked Gavin if he thought about trying to get the testnet up to maximum capacity.  Blank stare followed.  I shit you not!  That was back in 2011.  To bad nobody ever did try it or the emergency hard fork for the BDB mis-config (NOT 'bug') might not have been such a shocker.  At the very least one should try to run the 10-year out capacities (adjusted for a realistic effect of Moore's Law') as a test and make sure they can get it working before inserting the exponential system growth that Gavin promotes.  Not holding my breath for that one.  I expect that TBF's party line will be 'Don't worry, code will improve.'

edits: minor

NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 11, 2014, 09:33:30 PM
 #16575

I think other corde devs can keep core devs in Blockstream in check.  And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin.  Frankly, if you have a problem with it, then shut up and put up.  Put up BTC (and/or encourage others to do so) to fund a core dev.  You don't need permission.  Just start paying a great developer and he'll become a core dev once he proves his worth.

And there's another thing that I like about sidechains.  Lately, I hear about cool technologies... for example maidsafe distributed storage, and the zen-something public supercomputer... and get excited.  And then I hear about their stupid pump and dump alt-coin that you have to use and its a pretty big letdown.  

look at the JLevin article i just put up.  he's moving in the opposite direction as you, it appears, in regards to "tokens".
Quote

Sidechains would give no excuses to create these app-specific coins -- or what I mean is that an honest company would create a Sidechain with pegged currency to take advantage of blockchain technology but avoid accusations and temptations to pump and dump.  And also, a Sidechain will avoid the likely SEC inquiry as issuing the coin before it has any use whatsoever (before your product is done) starts to make it look a lot like a security.



so what's the financial incentive for a company to create a SC with 2wp w/o a token?

Yes, the concept of a blockchain is great.  A single, open, universal unit of account is great, and Bitcoin will likely out-compete all others simply due to network effect -- causing alt-scam anguish in these app-coins even if that wasn't the original intention.  But the blockchain as defined by Bitcoin is overly limited.  Its been obvious since early 2012 that the bitcoin blockchain has a serious problem and that is it can only do trustless transfer, not trustless exchange.  Therefore all the Bitcoin 2.0 stuff.

Sidechains give us Bitcoin the currency, and the blockchain without locking us to one particular blockchain implementation.


Financial incentive:  Exactly!  We can't determine the financial incentive without knowing what the company does.  In other words, the financial incentive is going to be getting paid for whatever real value that company delivers, not due to appreciation or speculation of some app-coin token.  

Trivial example: you could create a document registration company.  Company creates a registrar sidechain with some modifications to add document registration data fields and retention time.  To use it every transaction has to transfer .0001 scBTC to the company, per year retained.  And as a bonus no BTC dev is whining about BTC blockchain spam.  Company makes additional $ with related services like testifying in court.  Sounds like not much money?  But e-bank statements have always been bullsh*t.  "Click here" to see the bank statement today, click tomorrow and you may see something completely different because the company's web server serves the statement.  Every e-statement worldwide should move to a blockchain based validation system.  Those .0001 BTCs would add up pretty quickly.  But if on the Bitcoin blockchain it would seriously hamper Bitcoin scalability -- note my registrar sidechain has a retention time -- old blocks can be forgotten.

re: scalability.  but this is what Gavin's block size expansion proposal is supposed to address.

Gavin's block size expansion is a hard forking change that will splinter the community.... I don't see how you could possibly think that is preferable to a soft fork change that solves the same problem while also opening up many other exciting possibilities (such as the document timestamping service of thezerg, or a proof of storage chain, or a chain for distributed computing, or. ...).

who is against increasing block size and why?  

I've been pretty vocally against Gavin's proposal.
In this thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=815712.0
and in Gavin's thread.

And in more public forums
http://www.bizforum.org/Journal/www_journalJVP018.htm

And on LetsTalkBitcoin
http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/the-bitcoin-game-3-joseph-vaughn-perling

And in private emails with Gavin.
And other places that I have probably forgotten about.

For many very good reasons. (I think)

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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 11, 2014, 10:29:11 PM
 #16576

Moon?  i lol'ed:

"So I said OK well let's assume it's something like gold—There's a finite amount of it," Pal said in an interview with Grant Williams on Real Vision Television. "There's a finite amount that's been mined. The rest is underground. We kind of know how long it's going to take before all the gold is mined or before all the bitcoins. Put them in the same kind of equation we get a value of bitcoin and that value is a million dollars. Now, you'll never hear an analyst say this—but I don't mind this—I could be wrong by 90%, and it's still worth $100,000."

http://uk.businessinsider.com/raoul-pal-on-bitcoin-2014-11?r=US

I suggest you watch the video at the end of the article if you haven't already. Much more interesting than the article.

Only at the end does he drifts into nonsense suggesting gold will be improved to allow for currency use. It seems he hasn't accepted yet that Bitcoin is effectively gold's replacement but he definitely understand its value proposition

he even uses the words "gold collapses"!  is he here? Wink
SmoothCurves
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 379


View Profile
November 11, 2014, 10:34:56 PM
 #16577

Moon?  i lol'ed:

"So I said OK well let's assume it's something like gold—There's a finite amount of it," Pal said in an interview with Grant Williams on Real Vision Television. "There's a finite amount that's been mined. The rest is underground. We kind of know how long it's going to take before all the gold is mined or before all the bitcoins. Put them in the same kind of equation we get a value of bitcoin and that value is a million dollars. Now, you'll never hear an analyst say this—but I don't mind this—I could be wrong by 90%, and it's still worth $100,000."

http://uk.businessinsider.com/raoul-pal-on-bitcoin-2014-11?r=US

I suggest you watch the video at the end of the article if you haven't already. Much more interesting than the article.

Only at the end does he drifts into nonsense suggesting gold will be improved to allow for currency use. It seems he hasn't accepted yet that Bitcoin is effectively gold's replacement but he definitely understand its value proposition


Yeah, that is a kick ass interview.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 11, 2014, 10:35:35 PM
 #16578

Moon?  i lol'ed:

"So I said OK well let's assume it's something like gold—There's a finite amount of it," Pal said in an interview with Grant Williams on Real Vision Television. "There's a finite amount that's been mined. The rest is underground. We kind of know how long it's going to take before all the gold is mined or before all the bitcoins. Put them in the same kind of equation we get a value of bitcoin and that value is a million dollars. Now, you'll never hear an analyst say this—but I don't mind this—I could be wrong by 90%, and it's still worth $100,000."

http://uk.businessinsider.com/raoul-pal-on-bitcoin-2014-11?r=US

I suggest you watch the video at the end of the article if you haven't already. Much more interesting than the article.

Only at the end does he drifts into nonsense suggesting gold will be improved to allow for currency use. It seems he hasn't accepted yet that Bitcoin is effectively gold's replacement but he definitely understand its value proposition

he even uses the words "gold collapses"!  is he here? Wink

ask him for a shoutout on twitter, he'll probably get you even more views than me  Cheesy

"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
November 11, 2014, 10:37:08 PM
 #16579

Moon?  i lol'ed:

"So I said OK well let's assume it's something like gold—There's a finite amount of it," Pal said in an interview with Grant Williams on Real Vision Television. "There's a finite amount that's been mined. The rest is underground. We kind of know how long it's going to take before all the gold is mined or before all the bitcoins. Put them in the same kind of equation we get a value of bitcoin and that value is a million dollars. Now, you'll never hear an analyst say this—but I don't mind this—I could be wrong by 90%, and it's still worth $100,000."

http://uk.businessinsider.com/raoul-pal-on-bitcoin-2014-11?r=US

I suggest you watch the video at the end of the article if you haven't already. Much more interesting than the article.

Only at the end does he drifts into nonsense suggesting gold will be improved to allow for currency use. It seems he hasn't accepted yet that Bitcoin is effectively gold's replacement but he definitely understand its value proposition

he even uses the words "gold collapses"!  is he here? Wink

ask him for a shoutout on twitter, he'll probably get you even more views than me  Cheesy

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 11, 2014, 10:37:52 PM
 #16580

looks like he was on CNBC Fast Money a couple of an hour or so ago. wondered if he repeated his prediction, would be bullish

"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 ... 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 [829] 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 ... 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!