Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 10:09:24 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [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 ... 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 1270 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1805263 times)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 05:37:54 PM
 #24381

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).  

This is completely wrong in a large number (most probably a majority) of cases. Altcoin developers have generally been motivated by profit, either BTC or fiat profit, but probably BTC profit more often. This pretty much has to be true for the majority of altcoins that have no significant technological value at all (what else would the motivation be). These developers are certainly not people who don't have BTC or late Bitcoin adopters (of course such a thing doesn't exist now).

You really have to ask more about what is the motivation for altcoin investors than developers. For most of the developers, the motivation flows pretty obviously from that. And again in that case I think you are looking at a group of people (the investors) who for the most part just seek BTC/fiat profit.

It is only in very rare cases do altcoin investors or developers think their technology has merit or their coin could possibly be the next big thing (either bigger than Bitcoin or a coexist with the meaningful value). You can probably count those on one hand. Maybe even with missing digits.

Given the relative immaturity and near-total lack of adoption that cryptocurrencies have seen generally I don't really see anything wrong with having a few contenders at this point. If we ever get to the point where a cryptocurrency is widely adopted and you can rationally say it represents something even vaguely resembling a global ledger, then overturning it would likely be very destructive. That doesn't exist now. The closest thing we have to a global ledger is fiat, and overturning that would indeed be very destructive (using the term in a morally neutral sense as in "creative destruction")
1481062164
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481062164

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481062164
Reply with quote  #2

1481062164
Report to moderator
1481062164
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481062164

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481062164
Reply with quote  #2

1481062164
Report to moderator
1481062164
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481062164

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481062164
Reply with quote  #2

1481062164
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 05:43:19 PM
 #24382

Suppose we have at least a 10 bagger on the way ... I don't see a reverse wealth effect on Bitcoin as viable at this time, and thus if an altcoin rises too fast it will be taken out by profit taking cashing out to Bitcoin...

The arbitrage factor dominates for as long as Bitcoin is growing and the challenging altcoin doesn't appear to have the oomph to cross the chasm.

No altcoin is going to displace Bitcoin's dominance of the masses (at least not in pure crypto-coin market and on this cycle). Bitcoin has won that. But who wants to? That is they dying NWO system. The Winklevosses et al are going to cash out on the big move of the masses in by giving them accounts on the behemoths. They are selling the masses (chattel) to the NWO.

For those who gloat in joining that morass and the BTC gains that are coming from joining forces with the TPTB in enslaving the masses (under the ideological lie of decentralized banking, etc), I would cognizant that this system is a cancer on itself and it will likely find a way to expropriate and clawback those gains.

I will take my chances (hedge against possible negative outcomes with Bitcoin) on the concept that the true knowledge age will adopt a money system that has the ideological qualities to sustain:

1. Freedom to produce

2. Freedom of speech

3. Personal permissionless property

4. Meritocracy free market thus not malinvestment and destruction of capital

Those who follow the true path won't get to gloat in 2017 when you Bitcoin HODLers are stacking your 10+X gains (though we might be stacking better gains than that already because smaller things grow faster), but we might (hopefully if we achieve our technological goals) still be standing with our 100+X gains when you all have potentially fallen into the abyss with the cancer.

Since no one can guarantee the future, this is what makes a market. Place your bets.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 05:51:39 PM
 #24383

banks starting to consume each other.  retail clients are sure to get hit soon:

“HSBC charges banks for deposits they hold with us in currencies where negative interest rates apply,” the UK-based lender said in a statement on Tuesday. “Banks affected have been notified and we continue to monitor the situation.”
The unusual steps come after the European Central Bank became the first big central bank to announce a negative deposit rate — in effect a penalty on banks parking their surplus cash — last year.


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6ad3f99a-fe16-11e4-8efb-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3aaO1u93p
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 05:53:53 PM
 #24384

If your main point is how few "rogues" (~10%) it takes to switch to a new majority ledger, I think you may be neglecting the arbitrage opportunities that would create. Arbitrage seems to undo the cascade effect of the small exchange float, with arbitrageurs profiting from that market inefficiency.

The arbitrage works if enough of the existing holders of the new chain truly believe in the old chain, and are in the new chain only to make money. I don't chastise anyone for thinking this way as there is hardly anyone in the myriads of other alts who believes in their alt more than in BTC, so it's convenient to assume that this is the case universally.

It seems the actual scenario posed is that 10% (or 20%) are convinced to move, and 90% (or 80%) remain convinced to stay. If we introduce the additional premise that the majority (80-90%) actually has major doubts as well, then I agree that something like what you're suggesting could happen (ignoring the spin-off option for now), though it depends on the degree of doubt.

It still all seems to come down to a more mundane conclusion: "If 10-20% are deadset on exiting and the remaining 80-90% are shaky and considering leaving, a mass exodus may well be in the cards." (Though as I've said I think a spin-off is what would actually happen, or just a hard fork-off with forkbitrage on the exchanges.)

Quote
If the new chain starts out empty, there is no one to sell.

Certainly, but I don't see a scenario where even 10% of bitcoiners would switch to an empty chain, as that would imply a chain with no track record. To switch, there must at minimum be a very compelling reason and also a reassuring guarantee that things would be all right. It takes a lot of testing with large amounts of money on the line to know a chain is secure. (One might even argue that those amounts need to be within something like an order of magnitude of the chain being replaced.)

A chain with a track record that was so promising would already have received significant investment from bitcoiners who keep abreast of such things (and in such a crisis scenario this would be most bitcoiners), with that investment corresponding to the chain's perceived chances of taking over on its fundamentals. So then my original point: The surge for no fundamental reason seems like it should incite these people to sell. "1% chance of takeover, so I want it as 1% of my portfolio...but now it's gone up 8x and is ~8% of my portfolio yet still seems to have a 1% chance of takeover. This is just market irrationality, I benefit by selling a bunch at this price."

I also note that Poloniex just opened leverage, which may mean they will allow shorting soon.

Quote
Everyone who exits the old chain, obtains some value in the new chain, and the wealth effect as calculated from the actual net new capital flows, is 4x-10x.

I'm not sure how you're using the term "wealth effect" here. It usually is used to mean "people spend more when their portfolio value rises," but here it sounds like you mean an amplified price effect due to thin markets on exchanges. If that's the meaning, then it seems like it would depend on market depth (relevant if you're generalizing from the CKG example).

Quote
Quote
Insofar as the 90% are mostly strong hands,* not price chasers, they will react by bringing their portfolios back in line. That means they will do the opposite to what the 10% are doing, but with 9x the force: sell their allocations in the minority ledger, now for a giant premium, and buy more BTC at these cheap prices. I believe this negates the "small float" issues of having only a tiny amount of each coin available on exchange at any one time (not to mention that when prices move drastically a lot of coins [and fiat] come out of hiding).

Now you are talking about the spinoff

I'm actually not talking about spinoffs here. I just used the word "ledger" because that's one of my preferred terms for "coin" or "altcoin." I meant that the 90% will sell their allocations in the altcoin and buy more BTC, for the reasons mentioned above, and that I think this negates the small float effect.

Quote
Quote
And any overshoot is yet a further opportunity for arbitrage to further entrench the majority ledger investors who have the strongest hands.
After taking 2 days to think whether this is correct, and if not, how I would refute it, I have reached the conclusion that I don't believe you are correct, and have given anecdotal evidence supporting my viewpoint. Yet I don't hold a great confidence that many would only because of them, change their thinking on the subject. It is a deep matter and my extensive (if anything in cryptosphere can be classified as such Wink ) research has pointed me to think the way I do, and being familiar with the concepts and data is almost a prerequisite for understanding it.

For a more generalized counterargument, presuming I understand what you intend by the term wealth effect, I would say that the scenario you posed relies on an inefficiency in the market, and insofar as we define arbitrage as "rectifying those inefficiencies for profit" we can say the effect should be mitigated/eliminated by arbitrageurs - as long as fairly basic market infrastructure is there.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 05:59:50 PM
 #24385

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.

To reiterate, my answer was that your theory against arbitrage and profit taking back to BTC, required both a positive wealth effect on the altcoin and a negative wealth effect on BTC. I don't see that negative wealth effect being viable, because the masses will be buying what the smartmoney is selling. Your avalanche can only occur under two circumstances:

1. Negative wealth effect possible because the influx of the masses into BTC has peaked after 2017 (or the smartmoney shifts to the altcoin before the masses start flooding back into BTC circa 2016 - 2017).

2. Negative wealth effect unnecessary because the altcoin drives a new market of mass adoption that is orthogonal to the one Bitcoin already claims (and will dominate because of Coinbase, Paypal, Circle, Facebook, etc) and this market has no desire/utility to arbitrage to Bitcoin.

Btw, I am aiming for a combination of the two.

justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
May 19, 2015, 06:10:50 PM
 #24386

If we ever get to the point where a cryptocurrency is widely adopted and you can rationally say it represents something even vaguely resembling a global ledger, then overturning it would likely be very destructive.
There exists in society people whose interests are threatened by the existence of a universal, neutral, and incorruptible ledger.

Those of them who are aware of attempts to form one have very strong incentives to prevent that from happening by any means necessary.

Encouraging the development of multiple competing ledgers, either by investing in them directly, or investing in companies that produce them, or investing in propaganda to promote economic anti-knowledge, or investing in disruption tactics to slow down the development of the universal ledger are all actions such people could be expected to take.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:11:15 PM
 #24387

I don't know what your psychological problem is, but I am here to work on a serious solution to a very serious global problem. You may think I am up to some kind of gimick but you are sadly mistaken.

What I am doing now is a combination of:

1. Education (also for those who are lurking)
2. Demonstrating I have a grasp of concepts.

The only gimick you could rightfully claim is that I am making sure that the people who are with me can see clearly that I have a grasp of the issues and can retort or clarify. And correct, at some point one has to shut up if they expect to get any real work done.

It seems this discussion reached a crucial juncture wherein we are clarifying the fundamental differences that could apply to any crypto that is not Bitcoin. That is why I am participating.

I don't think you can claim that the posts I made today were vacuous.

This account is a blatant parody/caricature of "babbling deluded bitcoin loser with an inferiority complex", and I know I'm not the only person who perceives it that way. I will not tolerate any attempted association with me or anything I say. Get out (I realise it won't leave, but someone has to say something unambiguous every now and then, and attempting to talk to me is where I draw the line).

Carlton just let him go. Its not worth a second of your time. As far as I can tell 100% of his posts are statements on how brilliant he is, yet lack any content at all. He is the only one I've put on ignore, and the thread has been a lot cleaner since. Ignore him and he'll go away to the next shinny object.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:13:23 PM
 #24388

If we ever get to the point where a cryptocurrency is widely adopted and you can rationally say it represents something even vaguely resembling a global ledger, then overturning it would likely be very destructive.
There exists in society people whose interests are threatened by the existence of a universal, neutral, and incorruptible ledger.

Those of them who are aware of attempts to form one have very strong incentives to prevent that from happening by any means necessary.

Encouraging the development of multiple competing ledgers, either by investing in them directly, or investing in companies that produce them, or investing in propaganda to promote economic anti-knowledge, or investing in disruption tactics to slow down the development of the universal ledger are all actions such people could be expected to take.

Or likewise trying to suppress potentially-successful solutions to that problem by focusing attention and investment on the one least likely to succeed.

Who are you really working for Justus? Smiley




rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:15:27 PM
 #24389

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 think the best argument for one ledger is network effects. Network effects for money are very very strong. In order to enable a switch to a new money, there has to be a significant improvement over the existing money. Network effects are so strong that people continue to use fiat even though it has been inferior for decades. To me this is the main reason why Monero and other alts will not win, even if they offer some advantages (which I think is debatable), the advantages are not enough to overcome the network effects that are already behind bitcoin (which itself may not be able to beat the network effects of the dollar).
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:16:32 PM
 #24390

so arguably we shouldn't expect to see a serious spinoff until the eleventh hour.

When it will be too late to do anything. The Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc will already own Bitcoin by then and you will not have the means to fork away. The smartmoney will have been long gone into the anonymous altcoin (assuming one can present the necessary oomph of network effects soon enough). And you may find you've missed most of the wealth effect by that juncture. Who would want to trade back to BTC from an anonymous coin when the wealth effect is headed in the other direction and they would have to comply with KYC by that juncture.

Investing is about foresight. Place your bets now. Religious desire for safety and continuity is not the function of an astute speculator.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:20:38 PM
 #24391

I think the best argument for one ledger is network effects. Network effects for money are very very strong. In order to enable a switch to a new money, there has to be a significant improvement over the existing money. Network effects are so strong that people continue to use fiat even though it has been inferior for decades. To me this is the main reason why Monero and other alts will not win, even if they offer some advantages (which I think is debatable), the advantages are not enough to overcome the network effects that are already behind bitcoin (which itself may not be able to beat the network effects of the dollar).

I agree. This is another factor that prevents altcoins from reaching escape velocity instead of profit taking arbitrage back to BTC.

This is why I say new markets are critical if you want your altcoin to reach critical mass.

rpietila
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Crypto Kingdom (Creator)


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:22:20 PM
 #24392

Quote
Everyone who exits the old chain, obtains some value in the new chain, and the wealth effect as calculated from the actual net new capital flows, is 4x-10x.

I'm not sure how you're using the term "wealth effect" here.

Positive wealth effect = increase in marketcap : net virgin demand

In CKG case, there was $50k new money wanting in, which ended up raising the marketcap to $500k, making the wealth effect coefficient of 10x.

Quote
I'm actually not talking about spinoffs here. I just used the word "ledger" because that's one of my preferred terms for "coin" or "altcoin." I meant that the 90% will sell their allocations in the altcoin and buy more BTC, for the reasons mentioned above, and that I think this negates the small float effect.

Yes, you are talking about spinoffs, because in an exit situation to a new ledger, the 90% does not have any allocations in the new ledger that they could sell unless they buy them first, negating your point instead.

Quote
we can say the effect should be mitigated/eliminated by arbitrageurs - as long as fairly basic market infrastructure is there.

I agree that if the old chain survives the initial crash without it causing a descent to abyss (BTC has many examples of survival!), then in the long term the valuations of the chains adjust to represent market perceptions. Yet as the science of determining a correct valuation for a cryptocoin is completely unestablished even in the best minds, not only in the markets, it may well be that in a "successful" 10% exit, the end state is much different than 90/10. I don't claim any reasonable powers to forecast, even after more research on the subject than most.

There is however the case that the old chain is destroyed by the initial exodus of capital and market crash, and the general loss of confidence that results. Just see what has happened to shitcoins.

Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:23:48 PM
 #24393

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.

Yep, while gold is also art, display of wealth, a superb electrical conductor, tooth filler, historic money... bitcoin is nothing but pure money. It will nail the money value problem, that gold enthusiasts have quarreled over since the event of fiat.

justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
May 19, 2015, 06:25:55 PM
 #24394

Or likewise trying to suppress potentially-successful solutions to that problem by focusing attention and investment on the one least likely to succeed.

Who are you really working for Justus? Smiley
I really don't feel like I owe any answers to people who have done less work than I to improve economic understanding and financial privacy.

What have you done to make either situation better?
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:29:24 PM
 #24395

If we ever get to the point where a cryptocurrency is widely adopted and you can rationally say it represents something even vaguely resembling a global ledger, then overturning it would likely be very destructive.
There exists in society people whose interests are threatened by the existence of a universal, neutral, and incorruptible ledger.

Those of them who are aware of attempts to form one have very strong incentives to prevent that from happening by any means necessary.

Encouraging the development of multiple competing ledgers, either by investing in them directly, or investing in companies that produce them, or investing in propaganda to promote economic anti-knowledge, or investing in disruption tactics to slow down the development of the universal ledger are all actions such people could be expected to take.

Or likewise trying to suppress potentially-successful solutions to that problem by focusing attention and investment on the one least likely to succeed.

Bitcoin could succeed at being the NWO ledger and an anonymous solution could succeed at being the free market's ledger. But what if the free market doesn't want to give too much power to one ledger because it decides that true decentralization is competing options? What if unit-of-account is less important than meritocracy in this new knowledge era?

It seems you all are fixated on the concept that we need a global revolution into a single ledger. Why? What advantages would it offer to humanity? If the goal is simply to get crypto-currency spread out to most of humanity, we can not presume that the gridlock of "one size fits all" pooling of capital into groupthink catfights is the most efficient.

I really don't feel like I owe any answers to people who have done less work than I to improve economic understanding and financial privacy.

Nobody cares. What software did you write that we are using? Results are measurable. Claims on education are not.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:31:28 PM
 #24396

I think the best argument for one ledger is network effects. Network effects for money are very very strong. In order to enable a switch to a new money, there has to be a significant improvement over the existing money. Network effects are so strong that people continue to use fiat even though it has been inferior for decades. To me this is the main reason why Monero and other alts will not win, even if they offer some advantages (which I think is debatable), the advantages are not enough to overcome the network effects that are already behind bitcoin (which itself may not be able to beat the network effects of the dollar).

This is a better argument than what we usually see here since it focuses on might happen as a result of network effects, rather than you picking a winner and declaring that everyone else should support the winner you picked "because network effect". So, well presented, rocks.

Not sure about fiat being inferior for decades though.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:38:15 PM
 #24397

Note I predicated my assumption against a negative wealth effect on Bitcoin at this time with the assumption that TPTB are not stupid enough to cause a stampede into an anonymous coin too soon. I expect they won't ramp up the draconian shit until after the masses are already into Bitcoin. After 2017, the negative wealth effect can occur with the masses (majority) taking the losses. That is why I say you can gloat for a while then be left standing there arms-in-arms with the greater fools.

By that time it might be too late for those who might want an anonymous solution to gain critical mass and reach network effects. The TPTB would have won and can drag the world into a Dark Age global Technocracy. I am not asserting that is the only possible scenario.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:38:59 PM
 #24398

Bitcoin could succeed at being the NWO ledger and an anonymous solution could succeed at being the free market's ledger. But what if the free market doesn't want to give too much power to one ledger because it decides that true decentralization is competing options? What if unit-of-account is less important than meritocracy in this new knowledge era?

It seems you all are fixated on the concept that we need a global revolution into a single ledger.

Huh

I'm pretty sure I said the same thing on rpteilla's altcoin thread a year ago. It was clear to me then and is now that the advantages of a single unit-of-account are far lower in the information age with the ability to do near-frictionless conversions and automated accounting than they have ever been in history. Whether the advantage is now low enough for unit-of-account to fall away as an essential role of money is unclear. There are factors pushing in the other direction, such as globalization (a larger economy benefits more from a common unit-of-account than a smaller one).



Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:40:03 PM
 #24399

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

Private keys are the authority to spend your money. And because they're just random numbers, the ability to store your money safely is intangible to both the owner and everyone else. The actual storage itself depends on something tangible (mining & computer hardware), but we're working under an assumption that all the self interest mechanisms built into the satoshi design will protect and preserve the current blockchain from being destroyed or overpowered (and that's worked well so far).

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.

Exactly, it's not the fact that it's golden, but that some critical mass of people chose to use it (and a majority of that critical mass must have understood why). Money is an abstraction, plain and simple. The trouble always was that the original form of recording/processing abstract values or concepts (the animal brain) was not necessarily reliable. Cryptocurrency isn't 100% intangible, but it does get right that money should be represented as an abstraction only (fiat was essentially a hybrid commodity/abstraction money, whereby you could choose to observe the commodity value while the coins were still high purity, or the face value when they were 98% copper)

Vires in numeris
rpietila
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Crypto Kingdom (Creator)


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:44:15 PM
 #24400

I really don't feel like I owe any answers to people who have done less work than I to improve economic understanding and financial privacy.

Yeah, you have a very small bunch of people you owe answers to  Cheesy

Even I have a few less messages in BCT than you, and bought my coins a few months later a few dollars higher.

Whether you only refuse to answer or also close yourself to new information from others, is certainly up to you.

I am nevertheless grateful for your contributions so far.

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1270 ... 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!