Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 09:58:18 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 ... 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 [891] 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1806128 times)
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 09:19:44 PM
 #17801

a single Blockchain is a single point of failure.

The problem from an investment perspective is that this requires active asset management, and if I choose the wrong chain to allocate some of my wealth to I lose when it fails (assuming the 2wp is also lost). I like spin-offs because if you have a 1% stake in the ledger now, you have a 1% stake in all the spin-offs as well (assuming spin-offs have the same inflation schedule as Bitcoin) by default, without having to do anything. No matter what chains win, your stake in the ledger is always and automatically preserved. With sidechains, you have to be a masterful investor to ensure net zero change to your stake in the total operational ledger.

spin-offs is inflationary (you have N x amount)  but SC is not inflationary b/c you CAN use BTC only in 1 chain at the same time.
1481191098
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481191098

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481191098
Reply with quote  #2

1481191098
Report to moderator
1481191098
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481191098

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481191098
Reply with quote  #2

1481191098
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481191098
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481191098

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481191098
Reply with quote  #2

1481191098
Report to moderator
1481191098
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481191098

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481191098
Reply with quote  #2

1481191098
Report to moderator
1481191098
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481191098

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481191098
Reply with quote  #2

1481191098
Report to moderator
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 09:22:22 PM
 #17802

Not sure who put "Legendary" on my name  Cheesy
I'm just supporting the crypto economy not NXT specifically. The NXT idea is similar to out current Fiat system, if Bitcoin succeeds we all succeed.

My support is to take a whack a mole approach to Alts. Bitcoin is the pilot people in the alt space work for Bitcoin, the stupid ones sell it.


I had to sell some, Gavin talking about a fork not an evolution, and this this is devastating IMO.

I've been buying every dip untill the release of this paper my support has switched I'm now a net seller and will be untill there is more clarity.

 Huh

What's confusing? Just look at the market price it was stupid to sell. Hindsight is 20:20,
I'm more referring to the Altcoin proponents that drink there own koolaid. And cash out there Bitcoin.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 09:34:34 PM
 #17803

Not sure who put "Legendary" on my name  Cheesy
I'm just supporting the crypto economy not NXT specifically. The NXT idea is similar to out current Fiat system, if Bitcoin succeeds we all succeed.

My support is to take a whack a mole approach to Alts. Bitcoin is the pilot people in the alt space work for Bitcoin, the stupid ones sell it.


I had to sell some, Gavin talking about a fork not an evolution, and this this is devastating IMO.

I've been buying every dip untill the release of this paper my support has switched I'm now a net seller and will be untill there is more clarity.

 Huh

What's confusing? Just look at the market price it was stupid to sell. Hindsight is 20:20,
I'm more referring to the Altcoin proponents that drink there own koolaid. And cash out there Bitcoin.

Sure  Wink I think maybe you got just a little  drunk on your own "sidechains doomsday" koolaid

"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
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 09:54:54 PM
 #17804


I'm a greedy miner too.  Miners have it easy for the next 6 years, there after if they charge high fees they devalue the network if the value of the network drops the status quo change if they don't adapt it degrades it will keep changing until the status quo brings new actors.

It's actually greed that will prevent degeneration, miners who scoop up the transaction fees that are equal to the marginal cost will out compete there competitors. At every halving there will be a disruption and miners will start a new competitive race to discover the marginal cost of business.

SC running on the Bitcoin protocol using SPV proofs change this incentive, this is why I'm skeptical.

I don't have the answers but again this is one concern of mine, I would be able to afford the transaction fees and utilize the network but of course their will be times that a internal wallet service like Coinbase will be used just for convenience.

I am worried about someone like this being able to use BTC in the future without a service like this - http://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/kim-kardashian-paper-cover.jpg?w=814 - which is already changing the landscape.

immigrating to this new world will be hard, there are hostile tribes and wild animals with skeletons that look like dragons. 
weather we get there on the Bitcoin boat is still not guaranteed.

but we plug along concerns and all. I dont know but I've bought a ticket.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 09:56:10 PM
 #17805

yes, offchain tx's take away from mining fees.  but SC's will open up a whole new avenue of risk by not only competing at the mining level for tx fees but also competing for BTC units and competing for new investment fiat that now suddenly has a whole menu of assets from which to choose from when contemplating investing into the "Bitcoin trading platform".

I don't know what you mean by "competing for BTC units" since the chains don't really "get" the BTC units, more like just babysit them (unless the SC breaks).

i view the 2wp as a "pass thru" from which scBTC arise on the other side.  these can then ride the SC themselves or be converted to InflataCoin or whatever.  in that sense, scBTC cannot be harvested for tx fees on MC.
Quote

As far as competing for investment fiat, aside from just the tx fees which are negligible right now, this seems to also apply to Counterparty. A stock, for example, by nature involves investing in a company rather than in bitcoins (or dollars). Someone could buy ASICMiner shares for fiat or buy paper DOW stock certificates for yuan, but I don't know if that's a bad thing for Bitcoin or the dollar, respectively. Sure the money doesn't go into the ledger, but eventually just having a stock market running on the ledger, at bottom, should bring a lot of value to that ledger.

maybe.

i just don't see it.  the other 6 billion just want stable money with SOV.  i know i do.  the deflationary nature of BTC itself means once fiat starts moving into Bitcoin it should send us to the moon.  that is the asymmetric bet most ppl are focused on when they say that.  it is a money thing.  i simply find all these other things incredibly distracting and risky.  and SC's violate "my" definition of the inextricable link.  

It seems you are only interested in profit gains and how rich Bitcoin is going to make you.

Yes, he wrote spin-offs is better than SC. Bribe him and suddenly inflation is not problem. :-) (give him LTC, NXT and he will be alt-coin fan)

Edit:
It is obvious, that SC will end up his pump and dump alt-business. He will do everything to keep gaining profit. "In the name of Bitcoin"
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 10:12:01 PM
 #17806

Sure  Wink I think maybe you got just a little  drunk on your own "sidechains doomsday" koolaid
Sure  Wink I may have overacted, in selling, but by page 5, I was convinced it could do what it said on the box.
in retrospect, it has to be implemented first before it can do what it said on the box.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 10:12:40 PM
 #17807

yes, offchain tx's take away from mining fees.  but SC's will open up a whole new avenue of risk by not only competing at the mining level for tx fees but also competing for BTC units and competing for new investment fiat that now suddenly has a whole menu of assets from which to choose from when contemplating investing into the "Bitcoin trading platform".

I don't know what you mean by "competing for BTC units" since the chains don't really "get" the BTC units, more like just babysit them (unless the SC breaks).

i view the 2wp as a "pass thru" from which scBTC arise on the other side.  these can then ride the SC themselves or be converted to InflataCoin or whatever.  in that sense, scBTC cannot be harvested for tx fees on MC.
Quote

As far as competing for investment fiat, aside from just the tx fees which are negligible right now, this seems to also apply to Counterparty. A stock, for example, by nature involves investing in a company rather than in bitcoins (or dollars). Someone could buy ASICMiner shares for fiat or buy paper DOW stock certificates for yuan, but I don't know if that's a bad thing for Bitcoin or the dollar, respectively. Sure the money doesn't go into the ledger, but eventually just having a stock market running on the ledger, at bottom, should bring a lot of value to that ledger.

maybe.

i just don't see it.  the other 6 billion just want stable money with SOV.  i know i do.  the deflationary nature of BTC itself means once fiat starts moving into Bitcoin it should send us to the moon.  that is the asymmetric bet most ppl are focused on when they say that.  it is a money thing.  i simply find all these other things incredibly distracting and risky.  and SC's violate "my" definition of the inextricable link.  

It seems you are only interested in profit gains and how rich Bitcoin is going to make you.

Yes, he wrote spin-offs is better than SC. Bribe him and suddenly inflation is not problem. :-) (give him LTC, NXT and he will be alt-coin fan)

i did?  where?

and who's looking to capitalize on SC's?  oh, you!:


Cmon man, do your job.

 In JR's scenario, Blockstream would make Billions!

I have no problem. I'll make too !!!!!!!
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 10:18:56 PM
 #17808

yes, offchain tx's take away from mining fees.  but SC's will open up a whole new avenue of risk by not only competing at the mining level for tx fees but also competing for BTC units and competing for new investment fiat that now suddenly has a whole menu of assets from which to choose from when contemplating investing into the "Bitcoin trading platform".

I don't know what you mean by "competing for BTC units" since the chains don't really "get" the BTC units, more like just babysit them (unless the SC breaks).

i view the 2wp as a "pass thru" from which scBTC arise on the other side.  these can then ride the SC themselves or be converted to InflataCoin or whatever.  in that sense, scBTC cannot be harvested for tx fees on MC.
Quote

As far as competing for investment fiat, aside from just the tx fees which are negligible right now, this seems to also apply to Counterparty. A stock, for example, by nature involves investing in a company rather than in bitcoins (or dollars). Someone could buy ASICMiner shares for fiat or buy paper DOW stock certificates for yuan, but I don't know if that's a bad thing for Bitcoin or the dollar, respectively. Sure the money doesn't go into the ledger, but eventually just having a stock market running on the ledger, at bottom, should bring a lot of value to that ledger.

maybe.

i just don't see it.  the other 6 billion just want stable money with SOV.  i know i do.  the deflationary nature of BTC itself means once fiat starts moving into Bitcoin it should send us to the moon.  that is the asymmetric bet most ppl are focused on when they say that.  it is a money thing.  i simply find all these other things incredibly distracting and risky.  and SC's violate "my" definition of the inextricable link.  

It seems you are only interested in profit gains and how rich Bitcoin is going to make you.

Yes, he wrote spin-offs is better than SC. Bribe him and suddenly inflation is not problem. :-) (give him LTC, NXT and he will be alt-coin fan)

i did?  where?



it's funny b/c in my mind i see Peter's proposal as better than Sidechains for now.  but i should reserve judgment until there's more info.  if endentyrell is to be believed, however, there is much complexity involved in setting up Sidechains that could put Bitcoin in jeopardy.  Adam has admitted that there is risk in being caught in a Sidechain during an attack.  this automatically makes those BTC less valuable on the open market than those on the mainchain. 

Spin-offs would be much safer, simpler, and cheaper if it works as a way to deal with altcoins/altschemes.
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 10:24:34 PM
 #17809

Looks like Juan Llanos of BitReserve is losing sight of things: https://bitreserve.org/en/blog/posts/about-bitreserve/with-your-right-hand-on-your-heart-a-recap-of-money20-20-2014 Shame...

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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 10:26:46 PM
 #17810

yes, offchain tx's take away from mining fees.  but SC's will open up a whole new avenue of risk by not only competing at the mining level for tx fees but also competing for BTC units and competing for new investment fiat that now suddenly has a whole menu of assets from which to choose from when contemplating investing into the "Bitcoin trading platform".

I don't know what you mean by "competing for BTC units" since the chains don't really "get" the BTC units, more like just babysit them (unless the SC breaks).

i view the 2wp as a "pass thru" from which scBTC arise on the other side.  these can then ride the SC themselves or be converted to InflataCoin or whatever.  in that sense, scBTC cannot be harvested for tx fees on MC.
Quote

As far as competing for investment fiat, aside from just the tx fees which are negligible right now, this seems to also apply to Counterparty. A stock, for example, by nature involves investing in a company rather than in bitcoins (or dollars). Someone could buy ASICMiner shares for fiat or buy paper DOW stock certificates for yuan, but I don't know if that's a bad thing for Bitcoin or the dollar, respectively. Sure the money doesn't go into the ledger, but eventually just having a stock market running on the ledger, at bottom, should bring a lot of value to that ledger.

maybe.

i just don't see it.  the other 6 billion just want stable money with SOV.  i know i do.  the deflationary nature of BTC itself means once fiat starts moving into Bitcoin it should send us to the moon.  that is the asymmetric bet most ppl are focused on when they say that.  it is a money thing.  i simply find all these other things incredibly distracting and risky.  and SC's violate "my" definition of the inextricable link.  

It seems you are only interested in profit gains and how rich Bitcoin is going to make you.

Yes, he wrote spin-offs is better than SC. Bribe him and suddenly inflation is not problem. :-) (give him LTC, NXT and he will be alt-coin fan)

i did?  where?



it's funny b/c in my mind i see Peter's proposal as better than Sidechains for now.  but i should reserve judgment until there's more info.  if endentyrell is to be believed, however, there is much complexity involved in setting up Sidechains that could put Bitcoin in jeopardy.  Adam has admitted that there is risk in being caught in a Sidechain during an attack.  this automatically makes those BTC less valuable on the open market than those on the mainchain. 

Spin-offs would be much safer, simpler, and cheaper if it works as a way to deal with altcoins/altschemes.

oh wow!  i'm guilty of inflation!  lol!

who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's?  you?  lol!
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 10:28:55 PM
 #17811

yes, offchain tx's take away from mining fees.  but SC's will open up a whole new avenue of risk by not only competing at the mining level for tx fees but also competing for BTC units and competing for new investment fiat that now suddenly has a whole menu of assets from which to choose from when contemplating investing into the "Bitcoin trading platform".

I don't know what you mean by "competing for BTC units" since the chains don't really "get" the BTC units, more like just babysit them (unless the SC breaks).

i view the 2wp as a "pass thru" from which scBTC arise on the other side.  these can then ride the SC themselves or be converted to InflataCoin or whatever.  in that sense, scBTC cannot be harvested for tx fees on MC.
Quote

As far as competing for investment fiat, aside from just the tx fees which are negligible right now, this seems to also apply to Counterparty. A stock, for example, by nature involves investing in a company rather than in bitcoins (or dollars). Someone could buy ASICMiner shares for fiat or buy paper DOW stock certificates for yuan, but I don't know if that's a bad thing for Bitcoin or the dollar, respectively. Sure the money doesn't go into the ledger, but eventually just having a stock market running on the ledger, at bottom, should bring a lot of value to that ledger.

maybe.

i just don't see it.  the other 6 billion just want stable money with SOV.  i know i do.  the deflationary nature of BTC itself means once fiat starts moving into Bitcoin it should send us to the moon.  that is the asymmetric bet most ppl are focused on when they say that.  it is a money thing.  i simply find all these other things incredibly distracting and risky.  and SC's violate "my" definition of the inextricable link.  

It seems you are only interested in profit gains and how rich Bitcoin is going to make you.

Yes, he wrote spin-offs is better than SC. Bribe him and suddenly inflation is not problem. :-) (give him LTC, NXT and he will be alt-coin fan)

i did?  where?



it's funny b/c in my mind i see Peter's proposal as better than Sidechains for now.  but i should reserve judgment until there's more info.  if endentyrell is to be believed, however, there is much complexity involved in setting up Sidechains that could put Bitcoin in jeopardy.  Adam has admitted that there is risk in being caught in a Sidechain during an attack.  this automatically makes those BTC less valuable on the open market than those on the mainchain. 

Spin-offs would be much safer, simpler, and cheaper if it works as a way to deal with altcoins/altschemes.

oh wow!  i'm guilty of inflation!  lol!

who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's?  you?  lol!

they are

"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 20, 2014, 10:32:05 PM
 #17812

here's the part i would focus on.  it shows i've had problems with SC's from the beginning.  it didn't start with Blockstream:


it's funny b/c in my mind i see Peter's proposal as better than Sidechains for now.  but i should reserve judgment until there's more info.  if endentyrell is to be believed, however, there is much complexity involved in setting up Sidechains that could put Bitcoin in jeopardy.  Adam has admitted that there is risk in being caught in a Sidechain during an attack.  this automatically makes those BTC less valuable on the open market than those on the mainchain.

Spin-offs would be much safer, simpler, and cheaper if it works as a way to deal with altcoins/altschemes.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 10:32:11 PM
 #17813


oh wow!  i'm guilty of inflation!  lol!

who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's?  you?  lol!

Yes I said and I can repeat
 - "spin-offs" is not fair scheme. (but I agree, it is profitable for you (and for me too ... only I do not like it b/c I do not scam people))
 - "spin-offs" inflates money.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 10:37:06 PM
 #17814


oh wow!  i'm guilty of inflation!  lol!

who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's?  you?  lol!

Yes I said and I can repeat
 - "spin-offs" is not fair scheme. (but I agree, it is profitable for you (and for me too ... only I do not like it b/c I do not scam people))
 - "spin-offs" inflates money.

 Cheesy

this is too good.

"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
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 10:39:00 PM
 #17815


oh wow!  i'm guilty of inflation!  lol!

who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's?  you?  lol!

Yes I said and I can repeat
 - "spin-offs" is not fair scheme. (but I agree, it is profitable for you (and for me too ... only I do not like it b/c I do not scam people))
 - "spin-offs" inflates money.
spin-offs only allow innovation to percolate through the scam coin cloud.
the ones that survive add value, the ones that dont cause no damage, there is no inflation.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 10:44:27 PM
 #17816


oh wow!  i'm guilty of inflation!  lol!

who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's?  you?  lol!

Yes I said and I can repeat
 - "spin-offs" is not fair scheme. (but I agree, it is profitable for you (and for me too ... only I do not like it b/c I do not scam people))
 - "spin-offs" inflates money.
spin-offs only allow innovation to percolate through the scam coin cloud.
the ones that survive add value, the ones that dont cause no damage, there is no inflation.

It seems to me there absolutely is. Money base is expanded 2x. Ledger is debased.

"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 20, 2014, 10:51:52 PM
 #17817


oh wow!  i'm guilty of inflation!  lol!

who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's?  you?  lol!

Yes I said and I can repeat
 - "spin-offs" is not fair scheme. (but I agree, it is profitable for you (and for me too ... only I do not like it b/c I do not scam people))
 - "spin-offs" inflates money.

 Cheesy

this is too good.

the only thing too much here is your desperation to character assassinate.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 10:52:45 PM
 #17818


oh wow!  i'm guilty of inflation!  lol!

who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's?  you?  lol!

Yes I said and I can repeat
 - "spin-offs" is not fair scheme. (but I agree, it is profitable for you (and for me too ... only I do not like it b/c I do not scam people))
 - "spin-offs" inflates money.
spin-offs only allow innovation to percolate through the scam coin cloud.
the ones that survive add value, the ones that dont cause no damage, there is no inflation.

It seems to me there absolutely is. Money base is expanded 2x. Ledger is debased.

but so are holders holdings.  net effect, zero.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 10:55:01 PM
 #17819


oh wow!  i'm guilty of inflation!  lol!

who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's?  you?  lol!

Yes I said and I can repeat
 - "spin-offs" is not fair scheme. (but I agree, it is profitable for you (and for me too ... only I do not like it b/c I do not scam people))
 - "spin-offs" inflates money.
spin-offs only allow innovation to percolate through the scam coin cloud.
the ones that survive add value, the ones that dont cause no damage, there is no inflation.

It seems to me there absolutely is. Money base is expanded 2x. Ledger is debased.

it seems to me if you make a spin-off that expanded the moneyless 2x with no innovation it'll be deleted in minus and the money supply will balance out at 1x. 2 seconds later.

if it survives, its market cap will be the values the free market gives the innovation. the two market caps combined create a greater whole.  

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 10:58:12 PM
 #17820


oh wow!  i'm guilty of inflation!  lol!

who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's?  you?  lol!

Yes I said and I can repeat
 - "spin-offs" is not fair scheme. (but I agree, it is profitable for you (and for me too ... only I do not like it b/c I do not scam people))
 - "spin-offs" inflates money.
spin-offs only allow innovation to percolate through the scam coin cloud.
the ones that survive add value, the ones that dont cause no damage, there is no inflation.

It seems to me there absolutely is. Money base is expanded 2x. Ledger is debased.

but so are holders holdings.  net effect, zero.

"net effect, zero." =>  
 a) cypherdoc managed to scam $100,000 USD
 b) some newbies lost $100,000 USD
 => $0 USD
Pages: « 1 ... 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 [891] 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 ... 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!