Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 06:41:53 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 ... 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 [1402] 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1808026 times)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
July 01, 2015, 07:48:23 PM
 #28021

i think it's hilarious that /u/nullc has tried to stir up this conspiracy around several of the members in this thread in regards to Spinoffs.

i haven't clicked on that thread in what must be over a year now, yet we got Blockstream supporters tallying up #'s of posts as some sort of evidence.  i think i'll go over there after this just to find out the last time i posted just so i can embarrass them a little more the next time they bring it up.  the first time was /u/nullc when he stopped by here a month or so ago.  i had no idea what he was gabbing about at the time.  i've kinda lost interest in the concept altho i think Peter R had a good concept at the time.  the Blockstream crowd seems to think we're gonna release a spinoff if they get their SC's or LN network up or something.  TBH, i don't even understand the FUD and am not even going to bother trying to.  they're just immature and must be pulling their hair out over there.

What is the context? Just their old comments critical of it, or something new?
1481395313
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481395313

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481395313
Reply with quote  #2

1481395313
Report to moderator
1481395313
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481395313

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481395313
Reply with quote  #2

1481395313
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481395313
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481395313

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481395313
Reply with quote  #2

1481395313
Report to moderator
1481395313
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481395313

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481395313
Reply with quote  #2

1481395313
Report to moderator
1481395313
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481395313

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481395313
Reply with quote  #2

1481395313
Report to moderator
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
July 01, 2015, 08:12:38 PM
 #28022

i think it's hilarious that /u/nullc has tried to stir up this conspiracy around several of the members in this thread in regards to Spinoffs.

i haven't clicked on that thread in what must be over a year now, yet we got Blockstream supporters tallying up #'s of posts as some sort of evidence.  i think i'll go over there after this just to find out the last time i posted just so i can embarrass them a little more the next time they bring it up.  the first time was /u/nullc when he stopped by here a month or so ago.  i had no idea what he was gabbing about at the time.  i've kinda lost interest in the concept altho i think Peter R had a good concept at the time.  the Blockstream crowd seems to think we're gonna release a spinoff if they get their SC's or LN network up or something.  TBH, i don't even understand the FUD and am not even going to bother trying to.  they're just immature and must be pulling their hair out over there.

I think they are waking up to the fact that they have pissed off a large percentage of their user base, and by user base I do not mean reddit accounts or phone wallet users, but the other infrastructure providers who make bitcoin work. (i.e. the developers behind coinbase, bitpay, circle, wallet developers, exchanges, etc).

These developers have put in a tremendous amount of time, effort and money in building toolkits around the open bitcoin protocol. They require that protocol to work. They do not want to see those investments be thrown away and forced into new off chain protocols (LN and SC) which even if they work require extensive effort to transition to (and that ignores philosophical differences). They also do not want the added risk of being forced to rely on unproven technologies for their mainstream offerings and instead favor the proven mainchain behavior.

The core devs have displayed themselves as poor partners to the rest of the bitcoin infrastructure community, because they are acting as if Bitcoin is still a toy for them to play around with as they see fit. This may have been true in 2010, but it's not today. It was one thing for them to dictate fee reductions as the price rose past $10 and the $100, but it is another thing to force the entire software infrastructure off the mainchain. This community wake up is not good for them long term.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
July 01, 2015, 08:25:35 PM
 #28023

From the perspective of a Bitcoin user, every possible thing that can go wrong with Bitcoin can be categorized into one of two failure modes:

  • A payment you belive to be valid, isn't (double spend)
  • You are unable to perform a payment that you want to perform (denial of service)

Exactly, great way to put it.

+1.  Justus, I've been reading some of your work and I really like your push to clearly and precisely define the cryptocurrency terms we're using.  Here's what I had jotted down yesterday, which sort of jives with the two points you made above:

   Bitcoin is decentralized if no entity exists with the ability to costlessly double-spend or bar valid transactions from the blockchain.

Thoughts?

I like your approach to clearly define terms but i don't like your approach of effectively redefining decentralized as a binary term when it has been generally understood to be fuzzy. This sort of redefining of terms can easily lead to confusion or deliberate obfuscation.

For example, by your definition, there being a miner or pool with 50%-1GH of the hash rate would still be considered a decentralized system, but in practice such a miner could trivially increase his hash rate or collude with any other miner and then costlessly double spend or block. Likewise, a 50%+1GH pool that attempts to block might find that some miners leave and the ability to block is lost. By your definition this would not be decentralized but in practice it would be since ability is so fragile.

i prefer to view decentralization more along the lines of a continuous metric such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapley%2dShubik_power_index

The entities with the highest scores not only indicate whether the system is decentralized (your usage) if <1 but also how decentralized (common usage). The approach is not perfect here since there are different kinds of votes. Pool operators control important infrastructure and have some influence but their votes are not measured directly in hash rate.

Further, one can likely construct a single metric along the lines of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herfindahl_index (but not exactly that) which would characterize the presence of entities with relatively high Shapley-Shubik scores.

I like the approach, but a lot depends on how you value various metrics.

For example with mining pools, how few is too few where it starts to be a problem? Is going from 30 major pools to 20 major pools a reduction in Bitcoin's decentralization? I'd argue no because as long as miners have a range of pools to choose from, they will be able to select a pool that reflects their preferences. But when does this start to become an issue and how much of an issue? i.e. Does going from 20 major pools to 10 represent a significant issue or a slight one? When does it start to become a red flag issue? 5? 3? Personally I think 10 is probably enough, 5 is problem and 3 is a real problem. But that's just opinion and we can all make our own models to support various opinions.

So metrics are useful, but I think defining the objectives, as justusranvier did above, are key. The objectives at least puts a framework around what is an opinion based discussion.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
July 01, 2015, 08:28:26 PM
 #28024

i think it's hilarious that /u/nullc has tried to stir up this conspiracy around several of the members in this thread in regards to Spinoffs.

i haven't clicked on that thread in what must be over a year now, yet we got Blockstream supporters tallying up #'s of posts as some sort of evidence.  i think i'll go over there after this just to find out the last time i posted just so i can embarrass them a little more the next time they bring it up.  the first time was /u/nullc when he stopped by here a month or so ago.  i had no idea what he was gabbing about at the time.  i've kinda lost interest in the concept altho i think Peter R had a good concept at the time.  the Blockstream crowd seems to think we're gonna release a spinoff if they get their SC's or LN network up or something.  TBH, i don't even understand the FUD and am not even going to bother trying to.  they're just immature and must be pulling their hair out over there.

I was honored that whoever created the "stopthespinoff" account thought the concept was important enough to concoct a conspiracy theory around.  

A little background: I came up with the "spinoff" concept1 when there was concern in the community that Ethereum would overtake Bitcoin; many people wanted to invest in the Ether presale "just in case."  I wanted to promote the idea that the "ledger of balances" was separate from the "mechanism for updating that ledger."  I wanted to explain that--even in the unlikely case that the Ethereum tech was superior--there was still no reason to switch ledgers as well.  So this was my primary goal with that thread: to build a theoretical defence against an alt-coin with "superior tech."

I received several PMs and other offers of support to take the project one step further and launch a "demo spinoff."  However, the critical mass never quite materialized.  I was busy on what I considered more important work and soon lost interest.  

But a few months ago now, there was a bit of a resurgence in interest for spin-offs.  I considered that maybe it was indeed important enough to launch a "demo spinoff" so that people could more easily grok the concept, as ZB and chriswilmer had suggested.  Adam Back had recently expressed an interest in Aethereum, and so I asked if he was interested in actually launching Aethereum with me.  Perhaps this fact was relayed to Greg and others, and perhaps that is why they think there's work still being done on that project.  

When Greg came here a few weeks ago talking about spin-offs, I wanted to re-iterate that spin-offs aren't really about adding new features, but I was 4 glasses of wine in on a sunny Sunday afternoon Cheesy.  With sidechains, I think Greg wants to bring additional functionality to bitcoin, and perhaps he thinks spinoffs are intended to do the same thing.  They're not.  I always viewed them more as an "academic defence" to discourage scamcoins, and, in a "worst-case/bitcoin-breaking scenario," a technique that could be used to move our current ledger to a new "ledger updating protocol," thereby minimizing the loss of funds and disruptions to Bitcoin holders.  

1The idea was actually named by smooth, and it also appears that others, including thezerg, had had similar ideas in the past and that my idea was not novel--just the most widely read description of an earlier idea.

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 01, 2015, 08:32:17 PM
 #28025

i think it's hilarious that /u/nullc has tried to stir up this conspiracy around several of the members in this thread in regards to Spinoffs.

i haven't clicked on that thread in what must be over a year now, yet we got Blockstream supporters tallying up #'s of posts as some sort of evidence.  i think i'll go over there after this just to find out the last time i posted just so i can embarrass them a little more the next time they bring it up.  the first time was /u/nullc when he stopped by here a month or so ago.  i had no idea what he was gabbing about at the time.  i've kinda lost interest in the concept altho i think Peter R had a good concept at the time.  the Blockstream crowd seems to think we're gonna release a spinoff if they get their SC's or LN network up or something.  TBH, i don't even understand the FUD and am not even going to bother trying to.  they're just immature and must be pulling their hair out over there.

I think they are waking up to the fact that they have pissed off a large percentage of their user base, and by user base I do not mean reddit accounts or phone wallet users, but the other infrastructure providers who make bitcoin work. (i.e. the developers behind coinbase, bitpay, circle, wallet developers, exchanges, etc).

These developers have put in a tremendous amount of time, effort and money in building toolkits around the open bitcoin protocol. They require that protocol to work. They do not want to see those investments be thrown away and forced into new off chain protocols (LN and SC) which even if they work require extensive effort to transition to (and that ignores philosophical differences). They also do not want the added risk of being forced to rely on unproven technologies for their mainstream offerings and instead favor the proven mainchain behavior.

The core devs have displayed themselves as poor partners to the rest of the bitcoin infrastructure community, because they are acting as if Bitcoin is still a toy for them to play around with as they see fit. This may have been true in 2010, but it's not today. It was one thing for them to dictate fee reductions as the price rose past $10 and the $100, but it is another thing to force the entire software infrastructure off the mainchain. This community wake up is not good for them long term.

Let's hope you're right because I'm not entirely sure what's going on behind back doors with these other providers. Because I certainly agree with you.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be getting any better and I believe a fork is necessary.

This latest set of allegations in regards to spinoffs is so delusional and paranoid it'd funny if it wasn't so sad & vicious. It tries to link several posters in this thread together as having some sort of financial conflict simply because we posted in Peter's thread a number of times. Well, anyone paying attention would realize that when Peter first posted it, he cross referenced his thread here so many of us could go over and comment. So by that definition, smooth must be in on the financial conspiracy as well!

Funny thing is, they must have analyzed it and see spinoffs as a threat to SC's and LN. That enough will stimulate me to revisit the concept.

We're dealing with children.
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
July 01, 2015, 08:57:56 PM
 #28026

What is this spinoff controversy? That reminds me that Gmax posted here a while back when I was off doing social things. Worth replying to? I'm not sure how to find his comments without looking through perhaps 100 pages by hand.


--

Meanwhile, relevant to the thread title: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3bsfw3/barry_silbert_the_gold_vs_bitcoin_battle_is_going/
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 01, 2015, 09:02:01 PM
 #28027

i think it's hilarious that /u/nullc has tried to stir up this conspiracy around several of the members in this thread in regards to Spinoffs.

i haven't clicked on that thread in what must be over a year now, yet we got Blockstream supporters tallying up #'s of posts as some sort of evidence.  i think i'll go over there after this just to find out the last time i posted just so i can embarrass them a little more the next time they bring it up.  the first time was /u/nullc when he stopped by here a month or so ago.  i had no idea what he was gabbing about at the time.  i've kinda lost interest in the concept altho i think Peter R had a good concept at the time.  the Blockstream crowd seems to think we're gonna release a spinoff if they get their SC's or LN network up or something.  TBH, i don't even understand the FUD and am not even going to bother trying to.  they're just immature and must be pulling their hair out over there.

I was honored that whoever created the "stopthespinoff" account thought the concept was important enough to concoct a conspiracy theory around.  

A little background: I came up with the "spinoff" concept1 when there was concern in the community that Ethereum would overtake Bitcoin; many people wanted to invest in the Ether presale "just in case."  I wanted to promote the idea that the "ledger of balances" was separate from the "mechanism for updating that ledger."  I wanted to explain that--even in the unlikely case that the Ethereum tech was superior--there was still no reason to switch ledgers as well.  So this was my primary goal with that thread: to build a theoretical defence against an alt-coin with "superior tech."

I received several PMs and other offers of support to take the project one step further and launch a "demo spinoff."  However, the critical mass never quite materialized.  I was busy on what I considered more important work and soon lost interest.  

But a few months ago now, there was a bit of a resurgence in interest for spin-offs.  I considered that maybe it was indeed important enough to launch a "demo spinoff" so that people could more easily grok the concept, as ZB and chriswilmer had suggested.  Adam Back had recently expressed an interest in Aethereum, and so I asked if he was interested in actually launching Aethereum with me.  Perhaps this fact was relayed to Greg and others, and perhaps that is why they think there's work still being done on that project.  

When Greg came here a few weeks ago talking about spin-offs, I wanted to re-iterate that spin-offs aren't really about adding new features, but I was 4 glasses of wine in on a sunny Sunday afternoon Cheesy.  With sidechains, I think Greg wants to bring additional functionality to bitcoin, and perhaps he thinks spinoffs are intended to do the same thing.  They're not.  I always viewed them more as an "academic defence" to discourage scamcoins, and, in a "worst-case/bitcoin-breaking scenario," a technique that could be used to move our current ledger to a new "ledger updating protocol," thereby minimizing the loss of funds and disruptions to Bitcoin holders.  

1The idea was actually named by smooth, and it also appears that others, including thezerg, had had similar ideas in the past and that my idea was not novel--just the most widely read description of an earlier idea.

thanks for refreshing my memory on what happened there and the sequence of events.  makes perfect sense.  and you should be flattered to have them pull out this nutcase conspiracy theory.  there must be something there.

Peter, you have always been intellectually honest and you and several others are the engineers, geeks, and dev types that i do respect and whose opinion i value.  thanks for helping to always keep things in perspective.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
July 01, 2015, 10:27:13 PM
 #28028

+1.  Justus, I've been reading some of your work and I really like your push to clearly and precisely define the cryptocurrency terms we're using.  Here's what I had jotted down yesterday, which sort of jives with the two points you made above:

   Bitcoin is decentralized if no entity exists with the ability to costlessly double-spend or bar valid transactions from the blockchain.

Thoughts?
I honestly think the term "decentralized" has been ruined and I'd rather avoid it as much as possible.

I'd rather express Bitcoin security in terms of:

  • What are the adverse behaviors a user might experience?
  • How does an attacker benefit from bringing about those adverse behaviors, and how much does it cost them to perform the attack?
  • What actions can users take to reduce their risk?

...then express hypothetical changes to Bitcoin in terms of how they affect the answers to the following three questions.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
July 01, 2015, 10:42:34 PM
 #28029

+1.  Justus, I've been reading some of your work and I really like your push to clearly and precisely define the cryptocurrency terms we're using.  Here's what I had jotted down yesterday, which sort of jives with the two points you made above:

   Bitcoin is decentralized if no entity exists with the ability to costlessly double-spend or bar valid transactions from the blockchain.

Thoughts?
I honestly think the term "decentralized" has been ruined and I'd rather avoid it as much as possible.

I'd rather express Bitcoin security in terms of:

  • What are the adverse behaviors a user might experience?
  • How does an attacker benefit from bringing about those adverse behaviors, and how much does it cost them to perform the attack?
  • What actions can users take to reduce their risk?

...then express hypothetical changes to Bitcoin in terms of how they affect the answers to the following three questions.

I think of Bitcoin security as being successful if it can guarantee the following

  • 1 - Are transactions irreversible - Meaning once received is the transaction immutable on the network.
  • 2 - Can anyone, anywhere interact directly with the network to spend or receive funds - Meaning it is censorship resilient and people cannot have their activity suppressed (regardless of legality)
  • 3 - Can individuals maintain sole control over their funds - Meaning mechanisms exist that enable people store and control BTC with zero intermediary risk

Decentralization and everything else is a means to those ends.

What is so frustrating is many of the core devs positions are against these outcomes. For example: A) Artificially limited transaction volume reduces property 2 above (i.e. it limits the # of people who can interact directly with the network. B) Peter Todd's full-RBF proposal reduces property 1 above by largely eliminating the zero-confirm guarantees the P2P network provides today. C) Sidechains reduce property 1 above if they pull transaction fees off the main chain (which reduces the effort required for a miner attack)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 01, 2015, 11:46:44 PM
 #28030

Justus and rocks, I am going to address your two recent posts...but in a whitepaper.

Rocks you brush off centralization due to spamming the mining network without even considering it deeply. I've developed a model of centralization which is more scientific.

From the perspective of a Bitcoin user, every possible thing that can go wrong with Bitcoin can be categorized into one of two failure modes:

  • A payment you belive to be valid, isn't (double spend)
  • You are unable to perform a payment that you want to perform (denial of service)

Users may have other requirements including but not limited to:

  • Anonymity of identity, linkability, traceability, and or value transferred.
  • Expediency of transfer.
  • Protection of store-of-value, which can include decentralized control over debasement, inability to do malfeasance which causes a run on the coins, etc.
  • Protection of fungibility.

Thus you can see your piecemeal model isn't going to work. You need a more general model of decentralization.



+1.  Justus, I've been reading some of your work and I really like your push to clearly and precisely define the cryptocurrency terms we're using.  Here's what I had jotted down yesterday, which sort of jives with the two points you made above:

   Bitcoin is decentralized if no entity exists with the ability to costlessly double-spend or bar valid transactions from the blockchain.

Thoughts?

You are describing one of the effects of decentralization, but not decentralization itself.

justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
July 02, 2015, 12:09:39 AM
 #28031

Factom was having trouble making payroll due to not enough people buying their appcoin, so they've created a passthrough company to buy up the unsold tokens:

http://blog.factom.org/post/122941176349/factom-inc-factom-foundation-partnership
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 02, 2015, 12:18:43 AM
 #28032

You fundamentally do not understand how distributed P2P networks work if you believe that.

If you broadcast two different transactions at the exact same time, then there will be disagreement among peers over which transaction was first. Some of your peers would say transaction a was first and some would say transaction b was first.

In which case you've just broken the 3rd property of well formed transactions that I listed above (i.e. accepted by all of your peers)

This is an oversimplification and thus not true if Bitcoin was decentralized.

If your system is truly decentralized (meaning in Bitcoin's design even the nodes would need to be implausibly mesh networked to avoid Sybil attacks on propagation but I digress because Bitcoin is horridly fragile[1] in so many ways it is pointless to even hope it could be decentralized), then you have a myriad of nodes with widely varying bandwidth, thus there is no way that the recipient can poll all the nodes for a conflict in ordering. It becomes a probabilistic function.

The reason that zero-confirmation works reasonably well in Bitcoin is because Bitcoin is increasingly not diverse from the mining perspective, i.e. it is becoming centralized by necessity.


[1] There is a good reason the core devs don't want to muck too much with constants... have fun Kabooming...this way too far beyond the average pay grade here so I won't even go there...

Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554



View Profile
July 02, 2015, 12:27:30 AM
 #28033

Barry's pushing the debate again:



https://twitter.com/barrysilbert/status/616400276484947968

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
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 02, 2015, 01:00:35 AM
 #28034


Working from Rusty's summary and the abstract at the top of duplex micropayment paper, I presume that lighting networks are all about offloading many consecutive small transactions between a specific spender and recipient by lumping them into one Bitcoin transaction. This is an unpublished concept I also invented last year for handling real-time micropayments between a specific spender and recipient.

As I have stated more than once upthread[1], this is not a general model of micropayments. It means I can only send micropayments to an entity which I am willing tie up some of my funds with over a period of time which encompasses many transactions I will do with that entity. So thus this encourages centralization, because it will require recipients aggregate other recipients and payout those other recipients offchain (e.g. Coinbase -> Coinbase payouts).

Recently I discovered (what I believe to be) how to do general micropayments on a block chain and scale the block chain. So this entirely eliminates the need for Lighting networks (except perhaps in a very real-time scenario wherein the benign latency of my design would be a factor).

So sorry to say, those who are putting all this effort into Lighting Networks are probably wasting their timemay see their effort applicable to Bitcoin which is I guess worthwhile while TheyBitcoin may sooneventually be superceded (subsumed) by a superior paradigm.

So iCe, who is really the CTO of crypto? Who is insane again? Come on, hammer some more nails into your coffin please.

[1]
...If I am not mistaken, the LN paradigm is only for setting up reused payment channels between a spender and a recipient, so it is inapplicable to a myriad of micropayments between all N possible participants in the system, because each setup has to go on the block chain. Thus it really isn't a general solution for micropayments, but rather a very specific solution for REAL TIME payments. I invented LN in 2014 also, and my application for it remains REAL TIME payments.

Side chains don't help you with micropayments unless you accept that micropayments will be done centralized on a special centralized SC. In other words, the decentralization of the consensus network design has to be accomplished no matter if you put it on a SC or in Bitcoin Core...

P.S. I don't believe any one megalomaniac can be the total CTO of crypto (and I am not asserting Adam nominated himself). This is a collaborative effort and we build on the shoulders of each other. I do believe leaders can be instrumental in that process.

OROBTC
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980



View Profile
July 02, 2015, 02:07:31 AM
 #28035

...

"Paper Gold" may indeed drop to $400.  The physical, held in your own possession, will likely do just fine.

Silver, well, I have some doubts.  The Central Banks hold no silver, just gold.

Silver (and platinum & palladium) is used in industry.  Silver DOES have a historical role as money, platinum and palladium do not.

Platinum and palladium perhaps are for optimists (as the world economies do better, so should the platinum group metals).  Silver perhaps as well.  

*   *   *

Note that I do not think that silver will fall into a role again as "money".  In recent hyperinflations (Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe), silver was not used in retail commerce.  What did they use?  Currency.  Sometimes local, sometimes US$, sometimes DM.

Still, if anyone likes precious metals, consider holding more than just gold.  My analysis above could very well be wrong, or a bad prediction of the future.  What you really want is diversification!

Bitcoin counts as diversification...  Perhaps another "coin" will come along and work better than BTC, I know that some here are working on it...  Smiley

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 02, 2015, 03:37:11 AM
 #28036


enjoying watching the debate on Reddit.

no energy to participate, however.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 02, 2015, 03:39:49 AM
 #28037

well, everyone's claiming Greek demand:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-where-some-greeks-are-stashing-their-yanked-cash-in-gold-sovereigns-2015-06-30?mod=mw_share_twitter
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 02, 2015, 03:43:39 AM
 #28038

OROBTC,

I have come to realize that most of the behavior in this thread can be perhaps be explained by fear. (psychology being another of my other autodidact flirtations...they say a "jack of all trades is a master of none")

For example, fear that their investment in Bitcoin can only be safe if they slay all attempts to better it (even if BTC value was safely pegged across chains, because they fear dilution of their "to the moon" expectations).

Similarly I think goldbugs are defending the indefensible because they're trying to convince themselves to ignore the justifiable FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) they sense is creeping up on them.

My problem with precious metals is that the only time I've ever bought and sold any from a person on the street, I got a horrendous exchange rate (roughly double the melt value). And there wasn't enough liquidity available to make viable for anything near to survival. I see lots of buyers stacking but no buyers using, thus in the future this becomes a one-sided market of sellers of hoards and no buyers using. This means you will sell your precious metals only at a dealer who can proxy them off to large liquid investor markets. You are not going to meet up with investors in the streets.

The totalitarianism is going to take control over all these market makers because there will not be any black market in cash to escape from government regulation, because paper cash will be (is being already) eliminated. If you argue that Bitcoin will be that cash, then just buy Bitcoin instead because who would then meet up in the street to trade a good with higher utility and safety for one that risks life and limb every time it is traded? if you argue that Bitcoin could go to zero, I can argue that gold can too because the greatest common denominator between illiquidity and expropriation is the same as zero value.

I think initially there will be a significant rise in precious metals off this coming final low (< $1050, probably $850 or less) because there will be a panic as the sovereign debt contagion dominoes and $200+ trillion of global wealth will finally abandon bonds as  safe haven and run into the dollar, us stocks, gold, and Bitcoin rather indiscriminately. But after the USA tops out in 2017 (due to rising dollar choking off exports and the ingress of those safe haven funds peaking), then we will descend into a totalitarian hell worse than anything in the last 309 years. At that point, it will become clear that gold and paper cash are dead.

Those who think paper cash isn't close to being eliminated in third world countries, I can tell you that I am increasingly surprised how many people pay here in the Philippines with a card (frustrating as hell to go the grocery because it slows the queue considerably). Also what is likely is during the coming contagion, TPTB will turn up the dial on the pressure on cash by refusing to supply sufficient cash thus those with cards will become like kings envied by the rest of the population. Filipinos can emulate and adopt new things incredibly fast. I remember there was a Shell gas station commercial with a Ferrari and the phrase "hey Joe wan Joe". Within days and for months hence, I was called from the distance incessantly where ever I went in the hinterlands with "Hey Joe wan Joe". If you are talking about getting commerce done, filipinos will use the most efficient means available with lightning speed of adoption. They are simply that resourceful and flexible when their basic daily needs are threatened.

So you want to sell out of your diversification into gold in 2017. By that time, you should have the clarity you need on cryptocurrency. I am nearly certain they will be the safe haven for the astute by that time. But we have some seriously intense work that has to be accomplished between now and then. The outcome is far from certain from the current vantage point.

I would just caution you to average down into gold. Don't rush your purchases. The bottom for private assets around October perhaps.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 02, 2015, 03:43:57 AM
 #28039

well, my trusty 'ol mining leaders going straight down the tubes, as i keep repeating:





now, the whole indices are both following.

GDX:



GDXJ-Junior miners:



really just all around fugly.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 02, 2015, 04:12:09 AM
 #28040

My thesis (even when I started this thread under my prior user name) has been that TPTB are intentionally destroying the nation-state central banks in order to make the world dependent on and clamor for one-world political sharing arrangement where the one-world institutions would provide discipline and oversight on the nations which had proven they could not manage their own affairs. But this is the classic Hegelian dialectic diversion, because we know damn well that the same power brokers who control the BIS also control the Fed and the ECB. So this is clearly creative destruction by TPTB:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11704051/The-world-is-defenseless-against-the-next-financial-crisis-warns-BIS.html

The world is defenceless against the next financial crisis, warns BIS
Monetary policymakers have run out of room to fight the next crisis with interest rates unable to go lower, the BIS warns

The world will be unable to fight the next global financial crash as central banks have used up their ammunition trying to tackle the last crises, the Bank for International Settlements has warned.
The so-called central bank of central banks launched a scatching critique of global monetary policy in its annual report. The BIS claimed that central banks have backed themselves into a corner after repeatedly cutting interest rates to shore up their economies.
These low interest rates have in turn fuelled economic booms, encouraging excessive risk taking. Booms have then turned to busts, which policymakers have responded to with even lower rates.
Claudio Borio, head of the organisation’s monetary and economic department, said: “Persistent exceptionally low rates reflect the central banks’ and market participants’ response to the unusually weak post-crisis recovery as they fumble in the dark in search of new certainties.”


Pages: « 1 ... 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 [1402] 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 ... 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!