Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 10:00:31 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 ... 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 [1219] 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1807049 times)
ssmc2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 02:12:47 PM
 #24361


lmao
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481277631
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481277631

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481277631
Reply with quote  #2

1481277631
Report to moderator
1481277631
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481277631

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481277631
Reply with quote  #2

1481277631
Report to moderator
Perspicacious
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 02:27:23 PM
 #24362

Your tautology is (a case applicable to Gödel's incompleteness theorem because it is) an assumption of the absence of an outside observer...This is why any program run on a Turing-complete machine (i.e. unbounded recursion) can't be proven to halt...

Oh it is no tautology.  In fact, the elementary nature of your response has forced me to question your intellect.  I assure you, your Turing machine and your incomplete theorem will not help you win this war of attrition that you attempt to wage.  I will have no part in your battle of verbosity.  No!  At the call of a bell, my Pavlovian dogs will maul you into submission; and as you lay on the ground begging for mercy, only then will I unleash my Schrodinger's Cat upon you.  She will sharpen her claws on your back before falling asleep on your face, while you question the state of your wave function.  I will then toss your still breathing body into your Turing machine, where you will be tured for an eternity1 until you come to learn the true pain of the halting problem.  

I shall once again leave this forum never to return.  


1Or not, the problem is undecidable.  
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 03:34:59 PM
 #24363

Altcoin investment has always come across to me as pure financial speculation, simply hoping that Altcoin x will rise in price faster than Bitcoin for a given time period. I never get the sense that Altcoin investors want to disrupt the corrupt banking world and replace it with something better, just that it is a way to make a fast buck.

Since this is the hard money thread, I'd like to query the group:

How can one understand that Bitcoin is first and foremost about store of value and still be interested in the idea of an altcoin (alt-ledger) taking over Bitcoin?

To me, accepting the precedent that the ledger gets replaced when the protocol does, means throwing away the entire concept of crypto as a store of value. How would the market value any cryptoledger as a store of value if you had to actively switch out of it every few years (months?) as new protocols came along? Worse, you'd have to pick the winners correctly.*

I'm in the "we don't switch ledgers" club, because I think that's the only one the market will ultimately support. Anything else subverts the entire basis of money. It's pushing the proverbial red button on the whole concept of cryptocurrency. The only time to switch ledgers is when it is absolutely necessary to avoid total catastrophe. It should be a once in several centuries event, or at most once a generation (~30 years).

Perhaps the argument is, "We only do it once, because we just got this bit wrong with Bitcoin. This altcoin is the ideal form. No more changes after that." But to the market, the precedent has been set. Everyone knows what happens when some obscure flaw comes to light requiring another protocol change. Store of value goes *splat* again. The whole concept has been set back decades.

*Lottery ticket investing (Pascal's Mugging investing?) only works when the set of credible lottery tickets (investment candidates) is somewhat limited; if this dynamic takes hold there will be thousands of plausible "next top dogs" because the incentive will be overwhelming to create and cleverly market them.
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 03:46:07 PM
 #24364

Hey Zangelbert,

I kind of suspect that a lot of people don't really grok the spin off idea. I think there would be a lot of value to a dumb proof-of-concept altcoin that spun off the Bitcoin ledger (with some trivial changes like a confirmation rate of 5 minutes). It would be really interesting to see people's reactions to it... first the usual disdain, and then perhaps a kind of curiosity once they realize that they "automatically" have a chunk of this new coin. Anyway, it would help spread the concept, which is what I think would be the most valuable.

Yeah I'd like to see it done, though didn't Stellar already do it? I think there are still some technical kinks to iron out in order to get a more perfect "snapshot" of the Bitcoin ledger at a given time (Peter may be able to comment), but as an experiment and pedagogical tool it would be neat to try.
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 04:00:32 PM
 #24365

This is only a debate because at this point nobody (that we're aware of) has been falsely imprisoned due to mistakes in blockchain analysis. You can mix your coins all you want, but that doesn't mean your money can't be connected to something illegal.

It seems the opposite point is more relevant: no one has yet been caught via blockchain analysis (though someone did put together a plausible-looking connection between DPR and Carl Mark Force IV because he didn't even use a mixer).

This isn't to say that no one will be caught, but that the motivation of the community, investors, devs, etc. to work on and implement more complete/default anonymity is based entirely on conjecture at this point (as, one might add, is the functional anonymity of the anonycoins). You can expect a surge in interest once the first arrest is made using chainalysis, and the problem will likely repair itself through something like JoinMarket.

Ring sigs could end up being a cleaner solution, but again, switching ledgers destroys everything the whole crypto movement is based on (store of value), so if pressed I believe the market will adopt the spinoff solution. Note that a premature spinoff is bad because the snapshot goes out of date, and there is Schelling point consensus to consider, so arguably we shouldn't expect to see a serious spinoff until the eleventh hour.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 04:14:55 PM
 #24366

literately

Quote
infinitesimal pointnothing

Conflating infinitesimal (spacetime) with vacuous is an error in my articulation, but not in my thought process (my visualization was a mathematical point, i.e. with no extent). An infinite speed-of-light would correspond to nothing, i.e. a vacuous spacetime. An undecidable problem is one where there doesn't exist an enumerable answer. An infinite quantity is innumerable.

My point was that without friction nothing can be observed (enumerated) and thus nothing exists:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=690

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat#Objective_collapse_theories


I tell you what I told CoinCube. I am not focused on this right now and it is not informational for you challenge someone who has requested to not delve into that topic right now because he is (I am) single-handedly programming and running a just launched social network, simultaneously taking on this thread, simultaneously redesigning crypto-currency, simultaneously interacting with a significant number of females (try that!). For you to expect that I simultaneously have the capacity to delve into theoretical physics is absurd unless you relish fooling yourself. I didn't even have enough free time to sleep last night. And right now I am supposedly superimposed 5 hours drive from where I actually am because of losing so much time in this thread today. And hoping to make it up by not sleeping and driving. Oh and let's not forget I have Multiple Sclerosis. Sheesh. Fuck off (because you are not interested in having a discussion but rather you want to take advantage when someone has their back turned and hide behind a sock puppet).

I shall once again leave this forum never to return.

Or we can meet for a boxing match. It would be more informational about decoherence into reality. (I could utilize a human punching bag, that would be useful to me to relieve stress and continue my athletic climb out of the M.S.)

Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 04:20:12 PM
 #24367

Hey Zangelbert,

I kind of suspect that a lot of people don't really grok the spin off idea. I think there would be a lot of value to a dumb proof-of-concept altcoin that spun off the Bitcoin ledger (with some trivial changes like a confirmation rate of 5 minutes). It would be really interesting to see people's reactions to it... first the usual disdain, and then perhaps a kind of curiosity once they realize that they "automatically" have a chunk of this new coin. Anyway, it would help spread the concept, which is what I think would be the most valuable.

Yeah I'd like to see it done, though didn't Stellar already do it? I think there are still some technical kinks to iron out in order to get a more perfect "snapshot" of the Bitcoin ledger at a given time (Peter may be able to comment), but just as an experiment it would be neat to try.
Stellar had a small time window, which made it rather impractical for the 99% to claim. This bringing up another debated option how long should the claim window be open. I was open to both options; a claim period and open forever.

But it looks like open forever is the way to go. IMO spin-offs have not been tested to any degree of significance.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 04:31:38 PM
 #24368

here we go again.  will we break the $DJT support once and for all?

a bad sign; gold is turning down again:

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 04:37:18 PM
 #24369

lmao

Were you one of those who said that the 2 times before when BTC was $600s and I said it was going to $300 (first time) and $150 (second time)? If not, get ready to be one of those soon.

Arrogant and correct. Would you prefer kiss ass and wrong? I am as humble as you are. If you want to have a rational, calm discussion, we can. If you want to fight, we can. It is your decision. I am your mirror.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 04:45:40 PM
 #24370

Altcoin investment has always come across to me as pure financial speculation, simply hoping that Altcoin x will rise in price faster than Bitcoin for a given time period. I never get the sense that Altcoin investors want to disrupt the corrupt banking world and replace it with something better, just that it is a way to make a fast buck.

Since this is the hard money thread, I'd like to query the group:

How can one understand that Bitcoin is first and foremost about store of value and still be interested in the idea of an altcoin (alt-ledger) taking over Bitcoin?

To me, accepting the precedent that the ledger gets replaced when the protocol does, means throwing away the entire concept of crypto as a store of value. How would the market value any cryptoledger as a store of value if you had to actively switch out of it every few years (months?) as new protocols came along? Worse, you'd have to pick the winners correctly.*

I'm in the "we don't switch ledgers" club, because I think that's the only one the market will ultimately support. Anything else subverts the entire basis of money. It's pushing the proverbial red button on the whole concept of cryptocurrency. The only time to switch ledgers is when it is absolutely necessary to avoid total catastrophe. It should be a once in several centuries event, or at most once a generation (~30 years).

Perhaps the argument is, "We only do it once, because we just got this bit wrong with Bitcoin. This altcoin is the ideal form. No more changes after that." But to the market, the precedent has been set. Everyone knows what happens when some obscure flaw comes to light requiring another protocol change. Store of value goes *splat* again. The whole concept has been set back decades.

*Lottery ticket investing (Pascal's Mugging investing?) only works when the set of credible lottery tickets (investment candidates) is somewhat limited; if this dynamic takes hold there will be thousands of plausible "next top dogs" because the incentive will be overwhelming to create and cleverly market them.

i agree completely.  

altcoin early adopting devs and their supporters would rather have everyone switch to their "new, improved" altcoin for maximum individual profit at the expense of Bitcoiners losing value from having to be later adopters.  working to improve Bitcoin isn't sexy or motivational enough for most of them despite the fact that any BTC holdings they might have would likely increase in value from their contributions to the Bitcoin protocol.  most of them probably don't even have BTC hence there is no motivation for them to become later Bitcoin adopters (even though it is still EARLY).  

constantly switching to newer altcoins, even if they represent true improvements, is destructive to SOV.  thus, the whole concept of cryptocurrency as a SOV fails miserably.  they fail to see this thus their activities are destructive to the SOV concept.  ideally, they should help Bitcoin improve and keep all innovations on the mainchain so the market can develop confidence.  otherwise, as you say, we could be set back a hundred years.

i think the cryptocurrency market senses this which is why the relative value of all the altcoins to Bitcoin is decreasing.  eventually the losses will pile up and there should be a final capitulation of most altcoin supporters in deference to Bitcoin.

justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
May 19, 2015, 04:55:05 PM
 #24371

Anything else subverts the entire basis of money.
I think you just identified the motive.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 05:03:07 PM
 #24372

i see this as all positive:

"We are now going to use our name, reputation and global index provider stature to provide bitcoin values that the rest of the market can look to," says Tom Farley, who serves as president of NYSE, the venerable financial institution that has come to symbolize Wall Street and capitalism more broadly."

"New technology does not intimidate us, it excites us," Farley says, effectively summing up the new mindset of NYSE. Bitcoin in particular excited him, both because of the interest in the currency and the blockchain technology behind it, which serves as a transaction database. "It was that curiosity and also... let's not wait for this to fully evolve; let's get a seat early on and see how this matures."

http://mashable.com/2015/05/19/new-york-stock-exchange-bitcoin/
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 05:08:35 PM
 #24373

this is actually inspiring that all these divergent opinions still have the maturity and willingness to break bread together in the same room. i'm sure all their differing views were aired and hopefully some positive consensus will arise:

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 05:09:36 PM
 #24374

I must thank all of you for the latest comments. Indeed this explains your angst against altcoins.

Since you have shared frankly. May I also without offending you?

The Knowledge Age cares about meritocracy more than it does for non-active knowledge workers to accumulate stored claims on the knowledge of those workers. The Industrial Age required your stores-of-value due to the economy-of-scale required for large fixed capital mass production. We are moving away from mass production towards individualized production and direct sales of knowledge to consumers of knowledge, thus economic decoupling of production from the requirement for stores-of-value.

Most of you stopped following Armstrong right at the time he told you gold would decline from $1600 to $1150 (as a first stop on the way to < $1000 probably $850ish). That was right about the time he started to ridicule hard money followers as tinfoil hats. You tuned him out because you didn't want to hear that your concept of money is all wrong.

Money is what ever society values most in the quality of money. It has never been the case that there was one exclusive store-of-value in the universe. I don't know in what absurd bubble of unreality you all could even fathom such a hypothesis?

Even the dollar has not been a universal money and store-of-value, although it has been a dominant one (but not forever). The NWO one-world reserve currency will not be the only store-of-value nor money used on earth.

You are conflating store-of-value with legal tender? Or what? Goldbugs spew so much nonsense it is exhausting to disentangle their delusions (especially when I am sleepy).

Edit: a shared unit-of-account is important when liquidity is paramount, profit margins are small, and fixed rates of return dominate. National currencies sufficed because direct B2B and B2C international trade has been insignificant. In a knowledge investing economy, there may be other attributes of money that are more important, such as the inability of money to interfere with freedom-of-production and meritocracy. I assert Bitcoin is losing this fundamental tenet, and as that becomes clear to the knowledge workers, they will leave Bitcoin for money which delivers the qualities they demand.

hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 05:11:30 PM
 #24375

i see this as all positive:

"We are now going to use our name, reputation and global index provider stature to provide bitcoin values that the rest of the market can look to," says Tom Farley, who serves as president of NYSE, the venerable financial institution that has come to symbolize Wall Street and capitalism more broadly."

"New technology does not intimidate us, it excites us," Farley says, effectively summing up the new mindset of NYSE. Bitcoin in particular excited him, both because of the interest in the currency and the blockchain technology behind it, which serves as a transaction database. "It was that curiosity and also... let's not wait for this to fully evolve; let's get a seat early on and see how this matures."

http://mashable.com/2015/05/19/new-york-stock-exchange-bitcoin/

I stop reading @"NYSE, the venerable institution..." Roll Eyes

Seriously why do bitcoiners keeps on sucking up them masters arses?! Bitcoin is not here to save wall street's minions. Its here to bypass them.

PS: i dont want bitcoin to be linked in any sort with their reputation
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 05:14:34 PM
 #24376

The 6-7 properties of money were written thousands of years ago, people. Technology, including "anti-money" technology, has come on a little since then. Privacy is a property of money since at least some point in the 20th century.

Furthermore, cryptocurrency brings a whole new set of (so far) necessary properties. There's no need to compartmentalise "classical money" properties from those which have been added during it's subsequent evolution.

I think it is important to determine what you "have" to have in a money instrument vs. what is "nice" to have vs. what "derives" from other properties. When arguments on which altcoin might be better start, the differences in opinion seem to often come down to this. I don't think the properties of ideal money have changed just because we are using a digital medium now. I also think with the right "have to have" properties, that you can layer on top of that the "nice to have" aspects. Anyway the market will decide.


So, new innovations in anti-money tools don't change the fundamental characteristics of money itself?


My personal view is I do not believe so.

The reason is I have not seen any anti-money tools that are not defeated by the six main properties working together.

Gold was attacked by anti-money tools (bank notes) because it was not very portable, and as a result people stopped using it directly and governments were able to circumvent gold over time. Bitcoin is very portable and perfectly fungible, this makes anti-money tools harder to deploy. For anything I can imagine they will throw at Bitcoin, it seems trivial to layer additional usage mechanisms on top of the protocol as needed. If bitcoin wasn't portable, fungible, divisible, etc this wouldn't be the case.

@ bolded: I would argue that intangibility and being cryptographically driven are far more important properties for cryptocurrencies to counter anti-money technology. Intangibility is definitely a new development in money (people remembering doesn't necessarily count, figuratively and literally Tongue), and it is not derived from the original 7 at all.

It will be interesting to see how the opinions of monetary theorists of this century will eventually settle on this issue (I have no doubt it will become a relevant debate, even if the conclusion is against an expanded group of properties)

I agree with intangibility being a benefit, we might have different definitions here though, how are you defining this?

A problem for gold as money was always that most people did not seem to understand that physical gold was simply a means to a global ledger. Instead many thought gold as money derived it's value through some sort of value gold had in itself (i.e. as jewelry or metal), but this was wrong. An intangible ledger makes it very clear exactly what money is and separates it from any other forms of value. Money is simply and honest stable mechanism to keep score, it has no value other than that which we place on it.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 05:25:25 PM
 #24377

Anything else subverts the entire basis of money.
I think you just identified the motive.

Justus, you are so spiteful and disingenuous. Rather we prefer freedom to choose over "one size fits all". Your 0 entropy world is hell.

The knowledge age is going to kick slavery money to the curb. That is precisely what we are trying get rid of.

Zangelbert, where did you get your concept of the entire basis of money? Yes the basis for money has been to support usury, fixed rates of return, accumulation by capitalists of stored claims on fungible labor and fixed capital infrastructure (which results in an Iron Law of Political Economics collusion with the State, which the masses enjoin because there is no alternative). Isn't that the non-meritocracy the Knowledge Age and non-fungible knowledge production is killing?

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 05:31:39 PM
 #24378

i see this as all positive:

"We are now going to use our name, reputation and global index provider stature to provide bitcoin values that the rest of the market can look to," says Tom Farley, who serves as president of NYSE, the venerable financial institution that has come to symbolize Wall Street and capitalism more broadly."

"New technology does not intimidate us, it excites us," Farley says, effectively summing up the new mindset of NYSE. Bitcoin in particular excited him, both because of the interest in the currency and the blockchain technology behind it, which serves as a transaction database. "It was that curiosity and also... let's not wait for this to fully evolve; let's get a seat early on and see how this matures."

http://mashable.com/2015/05/19/new-york-stock-exchange-bitcoin/

I stop reading @"NYSE, the venerable institution..." Roll Eyes

Seriously why do bitcoiners keeps on sucking up them masters arses?! Bitcoin is not here to save wall street's minions. Its here to bypass them.

PS: i dont want bitcoin to be linked in any sort with their reputation

but why would you want to deny them their rightful participation in a new form of money they might actually believe in?  afaict, they aren't trying to change anything about Bitcoin; they just want in.  that can be beneficial for the space.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 05:35:10 PM
 #24379

For example, even with non-reused addresses, compliant participants may report their addresses to a risk-scoring service. If you go outside that "system", boom your coins risk score goes way up.
This is not sustainable in the long term.

All that's required is that users put one non-reporting entity between every transaction between reporting entities. A non-reporting entity could be anyone or any business.

How are you going to get people to do that? Joe Sixpack either buys coins from Coinbase or gets paid in those coins by his employer using a compliant payroll service, those coins go into his coinbase or circle or other compliant wallet. He spends those coins at Overstock or some other retailer using a compliant payment processors.

There is zero incentive for any of these parties to put a non-reporting entity in the middle of their transactions. At best it adds inconvenience and extra cost for no gain. At worst it impairs the acceptability and therefore the value of their coins, which is actually an incentive to not do it.

Quote
Coinbase et al. may attempt to keep their users inside a walled garden that is only allowed to transact with other people in the same walled garden, but they won't get away with it in the long term.

I'm not so sure. That's certainly now how things are going now.

Here's how to do tainting.  I won't even charge a consulting fee.  Start with a statement like this:

"We (govt), in our long tradition of honoring innovation and freedom, are excited about the possibilities of the revolutionary development of 'smart money'.  In order to overcome some of the deficiencies which hold the solution back, our programs are designed to produce a margin of safety necessary for every citizen to enjoy the benefits Bitcoin with confidence."

UTXO's are considered either tainted or not ('addresses' are meaningless.)  The formula is very simple:  If all inputs were untainted, so will be the output.  The definition of 'taint' is simply that whether a transaction was performed by someone who has properly registered the outputs they control (which can be accomplished automatically by using the services of certain proven entities(e.g., Coinbase.))

We (govt) issue charters to entities who have demonstrated the technical prowess to maintain the information needed.  An entity such as Coinbase already maintains the high precision and legally enforceable identity information and would have a big leg-up.  They also may simply supply this information to a partner entity who maintains a government charter.

A tainting authority has the legal authority to 'untaint' outputs.  They can do so, under procedures subject to the pleasure of the state, as a service to their customers.  Individuals who have a legacy stash can easily untaint it by simply documenting the origin with a reasonable degree of precision.  This service will probably be completely outsourced to chartered entities.

Individuals who wish to deploy Bitcoin autonomously ('dinosaurs') are perfectly free to do so provided that they appropriately account for any outputs they produce.  If they fail to do so their outputs will be considered tainted.  Even by this time a majority of users have evolved from the dinosaur phase into a mammalian form (fluffy, bleating) who run 'lightweight' clients on their smartphones.  Such wallets can be easily adapted to cross-check a proposed 'spend' (collection of inputs) and decide whether the output will be accepted (based on whether the inputs are acceptable) prior to payment.  Since networks are fast this validation only adds a second or two to a transaction.  Most people who would object to such a common sense solution are probably criminals and/or dangerous in other ways.

---

Although a mere mortal like me (tvbcof) shouldn't be challenging the immense wisdom of an economic guru of Justus's caliber, I would submit that an untainted BTC with the flexibility to be used, un-discounted, at a not unheard of site like Coinbase would command a larger value than it's less flexible cousin.  But what do I know?

edit: spelling

rpietila
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400


Crypto Kingdom (Creator)


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 05:36:15 PM
 #24380

Anything else subverts the entire basis of money.
I think you just identified the motive.

Hey guys - you are in my TOP-20 bitcoin theorists. Both. Considering this, the latest replies have been lame.

I have presented a mechanism that may dethrone Bitcoin without asking the majority, the exact same way as it has always happened during monetary transformations in the history (leaving the majority holding the bag), and the same way as Bitcoin gained its valuation, which you and I are not ashamed to enjoy.

I am interested in hearing analytical criticism that could invalidate the theory. What I hear instead is moral criticism that the entire basis of money is subverted if such happens. Fiat subverted the entire basis of gold. Bitcoin subverted the entire basis of fiat. Resisting the change caused losses among the slow adopters, and heaped riches among the early ones. That's the way it goes, and Bitcoin is the archetype of that.

You wish that the world would freeze just because you got it right once and feel entitled to enjoy it forever. I also wished the same up until a year ago, but it is possible to wake up before it is too late.

Moral indignation that the entire basis of my wealth-effect gotten wealth would evaporate the same way it came. Sheesh.

Pages: « 1 ... 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 [1219] 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 ... 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!