Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[NotHatinJustTrollin]

Buterin is right.
Distributed ledgers can be useful, cryptocurrencies, not really.

Only in a proof-of-work/proof-of-stake system you need a coin (that doesn't have a point as a currency and brings more problems than it tries to solve) to secure a distributed network.



Regarding scarcity: bitcoin's scarcity is 100% artificial. If you want to compare it to gold:

-Gold as a material is not replaceable, bitcoin is theoretically replaceable by any shitcoin.
-Gold has intrinsic value (Jewellery industry), bitcoin has no intrinsic value at all.



I'm far from being a gold bug (I don't give two shits about gold/silver or austian economics in general, actually), but I just can see that the comparison doesn't make sense.

[1714203333]

1714203333

[1714203333]

1714203333

[1714203333]

1714203333

[NotHatinJustTrollin]

One chart says it all. Bitcoin transaction volume in USD:


https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume-usd?timespan=2year&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=7&show_header=true&scale=0&address=


Lowest level since may 2014.

Not used for (legal) uses as a currency, but mostly as a speculative get rich quick instrument.

[brg444]

Buterin is right.
Distributed ledgers can be useful, cryptocurrencies, not really.

Only in a proof-of-work/proof-of-stake system you need a coin (that doesn't have a point and brings more problems than it tries to solve) to secure the network.

Also, bitcoin's scarcity is 100% artificial. If you want to compare it to gold:

-Gold as a material is not replaceable, bitcoin is theoretically replaceable by any shitcoin.
-Gold has intrinsic value (Jewellery industry), bitcoin has no intrinsic value at all.



I'm far from being a gold bug (I don't give two shits about gold/silver or austian economics in general, actually), but I just can see that the comparison doesn't make sense.

• Distributed ledgers are not possible without a native token. At least not in a desirable, decentralized way.
• It does have a point. The point being to solve the Byzantine Consensus problem.
• Mathematically enforced scarcity ­is much better than physical scarcity.
• People wear gold around their neck because it is valuable, not the other way around. There was once a time were king's crowns were made out of aluminium
• There is no such thing as "intrinsic value"

[Maximum_Overderp!]

Intersting thread! It's so much nicer in here than the wall observer. I might be able to learn something from the seniors here. go bitcoin!

[cypherdoc]

Intersting thread! It's so much nicer in here than the wall observer. I might be able to learn something from the seniors here. go bitcoin!

thanks.  i try to keep it level-headed, technical, and intellectual.  takes alot of work and time but it is well worth it.  most of the guys in here have been around from the beginning, know their stuff, and have the ability to engage in abstract thought.

unfortunately we have to put up with the likes of NJHJT and NLC from time to time.

[cypherdoc]

you can see that we formed a proper, highly capitulative bottom on 1/14.  the long term MACD continues to strengthen:

[NotHatinJustTrollin]

Buterin is right.
Distributed ledgers can be useful, cryptocurrencies, not really.

Only in a proof-of-work/proof-of-stake system you need a coin (that doesn't have a point and brings more problems than it tries to solve) to secure the network.

Also, bitcoin's scarcity is 100% artificial. If you want to compare it to gold:

-Gold as a material is not replaceable, bitcoin is theoretically replaceable by any shitcoin.
-Gold has intrinsic value (Jewellery industry), bitcoin has no intrinsic value at all.



I'm far from being a gold bug (I don't give two shits about gold/silver or austian economics in general, actually), but I just can see that the comparison doesn't make sense.

• Distributed ledgers are not possible without a native token. At least not in a desirable, decentralized way.
• It does have a point. The point being to solve the Byzantine Consensus problem.
• Mathematically enforced scarcity ­is much better than physical scarcity.
• People wear gold around their neck because it is valuable, not the other way around. There was once a time were king's crowns were made out of aluminium
• There is no such thing as "intrinsic value"

• The ripple network using the consensus protocol doesn't need an overpriced token to secure the network. Same for Hyperledger and others. The bitcoin network claims to be decentralised but mining centralisation (for example the possibility of mining cartels and not knowing if the same entities own different mining pools) issues undermine such narratives. Also, 100% decentralisation is preferable only by bitcoin cultists
• can be solved in ways that don't force you to adopt a volatile, irreversible, unusable currency only paranoid libertarians, get rich quick schemers and drug dealers need.
• and why is that? It just makes it 100% arbitrary and artificial
• Sure, when the earth will be a wasteland and mankind is over gold won't be valuable. But right now gold has intrinsic value for the Jewellery industry, people use it for itself not just as medium of exchange, a unit of account, or a store of value. Bitcoin has literally less intrinsic value than baseball cards or beanie babies
• yes there is, if people use it for itself and not just as medium of exchange, a unit of account, or a store of value

[NotHatinJustTrollin]

you can see that we formed a proper, highly capitulative bottom on 1/14.  the long term MACD continues to strengthen:

1. It's high volume only because price is lower (1k BTC at $1200 ≠ 1k BTC at $250). Check the volume on USD and poof, no difference:




2. Last time the 1 week MACD shifted to green, it was at $650-$680 right before the crash.

[brg444]

Buterin is right.
Distributed ledgers can be useful, cryptocurrencies, not really.

Only in a proof-of-work/proof-of-stake system you need a coin (that doesn't have a point and brings more problems than it tries to solve) to secure the network.

Also, bitcoin's scarcity is 100% artificial. If you want to compare it to gold:

-Gold as a material is not replaceable, bitcoin is theoretically replaceable by any shitcoin.
-Gold has intrinsic value (Jewellery industry), bitcoin has no intrinsic value at all.


I'm far from being a gold bug (I don't give two shits about gold/silver or austian economics in general, actually), but I just can see that the comparison doesn't make sense.

• The ripple network using the consensus protocol doesn't need an overpriced token to secure the network. Same for Hyperledger and others. The bitcoin network claims to be decentralised but mining centralisation issues undermine such narratives. Also, 100% decentralisation is preferable only by bitcoin cultists

Ripple, hyperledger are centralized schemes. They do not compare to Bitcoin. Mining centralization, despite "narratives" by less-than-honest individuals, has yet to be a "problem" or cause any harm to the system. In reality it can be argued that the network & mining is increasingly decentralized.

• can be solved in ways that don't force you to adopt a currency only paranoid libertarians and drug dealers need.

Prove it

• and why is that? It just makes it 100% arbitrary and artificial

Because asteroids mining etc.

• Sure, when the earth will be a wasteland and mankind is over gold won't be valuable. But right now gold has intrinsic value for the Jewellery industry, people use it for itself not just as medium of exchange, a unit of account, or a store of value

"intrinsic value for the jewellery industry" lulz

• yes there is, if people use it for itself and not just as medium of exchange, a unit of account, or a store of value

whatever, that has nothing to do with the portrayed value of gold. its malleability or the fact that its shiny does not make it better money. "intrinsic value" if such a thing exist, is not a requirement of sound money.

[NotHatinJustTrollin]

-I repeat, 100% decentralisation (even tho bitcoin is not) is preferable only by bitcoin cultists. RL can't force transactions on anyone on the network and the network can be run by other individuals with a network of validators even if RL were to fail tomorrow, that's as much decentralisation as you need. The rest is cultists stuff.
-See above.
-doesn't change the fact that is artificial and 100% replacable by any shitcoin. Gold is not.
-It is used for itself, what more do you need me to say?
-In case you didn't get it, I don't give a shit about "sound money" austrian economics bullshit, I don't give a shit about gold and I don't think gold is better money (lol) than fiat currencies. I just can see that the comparison bitcoin-gold doesn't make sense.

[cypherdoc]

you can see that we formed a proper, highly capitulative bottom on 1/14.  the long term MACD continues to strengthen:

1. It's high volume only because price is lower (1k BTC at $1200 ≠ 1k BTC at $250). Check the volume on USD and poof, no difference:




2. Last time the 1 week MACD shifted to green, it was at $650-$680 right before the crash.

price is strengthening.  no two ways about it.

[cypherdoc]

-I repeat, 100% decentralisation (even tho bitcoin is not) is preferable only by bitcoin cultists. RL can't force transactions on anyone on the network and the network can be run by other individuals with a network of validators even if RL were to fail tomorrow, that's as much decentralisation as you need. The rest is cultists stuff.
-See above.
-doesn't change the fact that is artificial and 100% replacable by any shitcoin. Gold is not.
-It is used for itself, what more do you need me to say?
-In case you didn't get it, I don't give a shit about "sound money" austrian economics bullshit, I don't give a shit about gold and I don't think gold is better money (lol) than fiat currencies. I just can see that the comparison bitcoin-gold doesn't make sense.

no one cares what you repeat.  no one's listening to you.

Ripple is a failure.  just a couple of months ago all the gatesways had to defer to one centralized gateway b/c of network problems.  nothing that catastrophic has ever happened to Bitcoin.  plus it's all based on debt, another huge problem.

[NotHatinJustTrollin]

-I repeat, 100% decentralisation (even tho bitcoin is not) is preferable only by bitcoin cultists. RL can't force transactions on anyone on the network and the network can be run by other individuals with a network of validators even if RL were to fail tomorrow, that's as much decentralisation as you need. The rest is cultists stuff.
-See above.
-doesn't change the fact that is artificial and 100% replacable by any shitcoin. Gold is not.
-It is used for itself, what more do you need me to say?
-In case you didn't get it, I don't give a shit about "sound money" austrian economics bullshit, I don't give a shit about gold and I don't think gold is better money (lol) than fiat currencies. I just can see that the comparison bitcoin-gold doesn't make sense.

no one cares what you repeat.  no one's listening to you.

Ripple is a failure.  just a couple of months ago all the gatesways had to defer to one centralized gateway b/c of network problems.  nothing that catastrophic has ever happened to Bitcoin.  plus it's all based on debt, another huge problem.

Last time I checked gateways worked just fine and they can't undermine the trust-less nature of the transactions. "Trust" comes into play because gateways hold your fiat currencies in the network for you, which solves the irreversibility problem of bitcoin. Irreversibility is a BIG problem, and makes bitcoin perfect for scammers.
For the record, I am not endorsing or shilling for ripple, I just take it as an example that you CAN have distributed ledger technology without being forced to adopt an overpriced cryptocurrency.
I would use Hyperledger as an example more, but they are still working on it.

"plus it's all based on debt, another huge problem."
^Your idea of an alternative is a fairy tale that can't work in today's world.

[NotHatinJustTrollin]

If I may: isn't the interesting part of this the coordinated fud attacks?

Yes, very interesting indeed. It's clear that bankers are organising FUD attacks on this forum and want to convince you that bitcoin is shit while they accumulate and send it to the moon while you're not watching.
It's obvious.

Go now, buy your BTCeanies BTCitcoinz before they do!





PS: Sorry guize, carry on  

[rpietila]

The amount of bitcoins the banksters have been able to coerce out from my hand since a year ago:

[size=600pt]0[/size]

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

The amount of bitcoins the bankstersbitcoiners have been able to coerce out from my hand since a year ago:

[size=600pt]0[/size]

Well then we will all just sit here and you can think about what you've done

[smooth]

Buterin is right.
Distributed ledgers can be useful, cryptocurrencies, not really.

There is no way to do a decentralized ledger without a currency. Satoshi invented a way to do one with a currency, and no one has come up with a way to remove that element and still have a viable system.

Distributed != decentralized though.

Google can build a distributed system supporting search and web applications by putting servers all over the world, but that is not decentralized. It is all controlled by Google.

You may argue that a decentralized ledger is not even useful, but that remains to be seen. It has never been tried before.

[sidhujag]

you can see that we formed a proper, highly capitulative bottom on 1/14.  the long term MACD continues to strengthen:

Man that looks like a sexy macd

[79b79aa8d5047da6d3XX]

In reality, there's no need ever to add more Bitcoins. It would make far more sense to add more decimal places to better facilitate micro payments as more and more economic energy piles into Bitcoin

There is no adding more decimal places. However, there is a proposal to move the period six columns to the right, ending up with two decimal places instead of eight. The resulting unit is to be called a bit, composed of a hundred satoshi. 1.00000000 BTC (one Bitcoin) = 1,000,000.00 bits (one million bits and 0 satoshi) = 100,000,000 satoshi (one hundred million satoshi).

Thus, if you have a total balance of, say, 7.05893808 BTC, that is equivalent to 7,058,398.08 bits (seven million, fifty eight thousand, 398 bits with 8 satoshi, which is something you can actually pronounce).

Note that, if we switched to speaking about bits, the current exchange rate would be around 4,000 bits per USD (if we assume $250 USD/BTC). As in, right now you could buy yourself over 40,000 bits for $10.

Also note that, if 1 bit were worth 1 dollar, or equivalently, if 1 satoshi were worth 1 penny, then 1 BTC = 1 million USD.

One of the reasons to increase the total number of coins is to remove the long-term deflation pressure. That is one of the issues possibly affecting Bitcoin that is pointed out by Varoufakis.

If you have come to the conclusion that long-term deflation is an issue for Bitcoin, you are free to join Varoufakis in staying away from it. Fixed money supply is a central and deliberate aspect of the protocol, well-thought out, and effectively unchangeable in the foreseable future.

blockchains are a friggin database technology, 5 years down I doubt any users will care what the underlying network token is.

Not inclined to take predictions for the next 5 years by someone born in 1994 and who has an obvious stake in one particular outcome.

[hdbuck]

FED regular BS sponsored by coindesk:

Boston Fed Researchers: We’re Bullish on Bitcoin as a Technology

http://www.coindesk.com/boston-fed-bullish-bitcoin/

Sometimes i wonder what the heck is going on at coindesk.
Promoting scams, craving regulation, and all the insipid piece of article they can come up with..