Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

Derivatives are about to be unleashed on Bitcoin, so the problems gold has will become Bitcoin's. Yes it's becoming a big boy's game, and it'll be manipulated all the same.

The only difference is that investment must be saturated before it's fleeced. Bitcoin will have to go up a very long way until it's no longer the golden child of institutional giants.

I don't think the same games can be played as they are with PMs. Comex gold derivatives take advantage of the difficulty and expense of opting for physical delivery of gold contracts. There is no case to be made for the situation being the same for Bitcoin, and so if the Wall Street exchanges refuse or stall withdrawals, then they'll get tarred with the Gox moniker. Not to say that this won't happen, but I think the problems with Bitcoinica, Mt. Gox and Vicurex will be way too fresh in people's minds to permit recklessly large deposits on an exchange run in Wall Street (of all places, at this point in the history of that institution's reputation). Watch closely the language that gets used to describe their processes, if "withdrawal", "deposit" and "balance" are passed over for some other euphemisms, tread carefully, and deride loudly if necessary.

Any exchange that joins in with Second Market's 'hub and spoke' arrangement can expect to see some very guarded use of their deposit facilities. Sounds like a situation where mutual finger-pointing will replace meaningful responsibility if there was ever an issue.

I am fully anticipating many lolz when the 'wizards' of Wall St. get Goxxed in some way shape form when they show up in Bitcoinia and try their BS-finance crap around here.

i'm sure alot of them already got goxed by gox.

[1714281770]

1714281770

[conspirosphere.tk]

I am fully anticipating many lolz when the 'wizards' of Wall St. get Goxxed in some way shape form when they show up in Bitcoinia and try their BS-finance crap around here.

i'm sure alot of them already got goxed by gox.

in that case mr Karpeles would have jumped out of a window some time ago.

[Adrian-x]

I am fully anticipating many lolz when the 'wizards' of Wall St. get Goxxed in some way shape form when they show up in Bitcoinia and try their BS-finance crap around here.

i'm sure alot of them already got goxed by gox.

in that case mr Karpeles would have jumped out of a window some time ago.

MK won't jump while the coins are temporarily unavailable.

What do you all make of this:

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/blog/?p=677

Gavin stepping down as lead dev scientist ...

[cypherdoc]

I am fully anticipating many lolz when the 'wizards' of Wall St. get Goxxed in some way shape form when they show up in Bitcoinia and try their BS-finance crap around here.

i'm sure alot of them already got goxed by gox.

in that case mr Karpeles would have jumped out of a window some time ago.

MK won't jump while the coins are temporarily unavailable.

What do you all make of this:

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/blog/?p=677

Gavin stepping down as lead dev scientist ...

not a big deal.  Vladimir is just being given control of the Bitcoin Core client to give Gavin more time to deal with other things.  Gavin will continue with the underlying protocol and it's relations with other implementations.

[cypherdoc]

a great article by Daniel Krawisz with which i totally agree:

http://themisescircle.org/blog/2014/03/14/the-coming-demise-of-the-altcoins/

i re-listened to the Coinsumm.it panel with Vitalik Buterin, Johnston, and the NXT guy.  was very disappointed in one of Vitalik's criticisms of Bitcoin as being unfair.   the argument amounted to him complaining he never had a chance to invest in Bitcoin in 2009-10 just b/c he hadn't heard about it.  if Ethereum ever gets off the ground, which it won't, someone could make the same complaint a few years from now that he/she hadn't "heard" of Ethereum today. 

http://ytchannelembed.com/video.php?id=dpwhT63EkZ4&t=

them's the breaks.

[majamalu]

a great article by Daniel Krawisz with which i totally agree:

http://themisescircle.org/blog/2014/03/14/the-coming-demise-of-the-altcoins/

was very disappointed in one of Vitalik's criticisms of Bitcoin as being unfair.   the argument amounted to him complaining he never had a chance to invest in Bitcoin in 2009-10 just b/c he hadn't heard about it.  if Ethereum ever gets off the ground, which it won't, someone could make the same complaint a few years from now that he/she hadn't "heard" of Ethereum today. 

Exactly my thoughts. Made me question the whole buzz around Ethereum.

[bitcoinsrus]

a great article by Daniel Krawisz with which i totally agree:

http://themisescircle.org/blog/2014/03/14/the-coming-demise-of-the-altcoins/

was very disappointed in one of Vitalik's criticisms of Bitcoin as being unfair.   the argument amounted to him complaining he never had a chance to invest in Bitcoin in 2009-10 just b/c he hadn't heard about it.  if Ethereum ever gets off the ground, which it won't, someone could make the same complaint a few years from now that he/she hadn't "heard" of Ethereum today. 

Exactly my thoughts. Made me question the whole buzz around Ethereum.

Do you guys think ethereum will be valuable in a few years (after it comes out)?

[Peter R]

a great article by Daniel Krawisz with which i totally agree:

http://themisescircle.org/blog/2014/03/14/the-coming-demise-of-the-altcoins/

was very disappointed in one of Vitalik's criticisms of Bitcoin as being unfair.   the argument amounted to him complaining he never had a chance to invest in Bitcoin in 2009-10 just b/c he hadn't heard about it.  if Ethereum ever gets off the ground, which it won't, someone could make the same complaint a few years from now that he/she hadn't "heard" of Ethereum today.  

Exactly my thoughts. Made me question the whole buzz around Ethereum.

Do you guys think ethereum will be valuable in a few years (after it comes out)?

I don't think so.  

Cypherdoc often says that "the geeks know not what they hath birthed."  Ethereum, NxT, Ripple, etc., are examples of the geeks missing the point.  Features don't really matter, Turing completeness is a hindrance, proof-of-stake no one cares.  What is important is the global unforgeable ledger known as the blockchain and the efficient distribution of wealth that it has come to represent.  

Over $600,000,000 has been permanently sunken into building this ledger.  Over 5 years, 3 large growth spurts and collapses, and several smaller spikes and crashes, the dynamics of the bitcoin market have been slowly optimizing the distribution of coins in this ledger.  Each new price level attained, both higher and lower, causes some people to divest and others to invest in such a way that the distribution of coins becomes more and more stable and efficient.  

If someone wants to launch an innovative alt-coin, start with the bitcoin blockchain!  Every bitcoin user has the keys to their funds, so if you make the same keys unlock the same distribution of funds in the new coin, then you've already got a captive user base of people who support cryptocurrency!!  The fact that no one does this provides insight into the intent of many alt coin creators.  

Recognizing the importance of the blockchain also shows that bitcoin would survive even a permanent 51% attack.  Since the value is in the ledger, a new network would be birthed that mined the latest bitcoin blockchain using a different PoW algorithm.  Bitcoin users would support this network since they would retain their coins, and miners would mine it since they are guaranteed a huge user base to whom they could sell their mined coins.  

[NewLiberty]

If someone wants to launch an innovative alt-coin, start with the bitcoin blockchain!  Every bitcoin user has the keys to their funds, so if you make the same keys unlock the same distribution of funds in the new coin, then you've already got a captive user base of people who support cryptocurrency!!  The fact that no one does this provides insight into the intent of many alt coin creators.  

Recognizing the importance of the blockchain also shows that bitcoin would survive even a permanent 51% attack.  Since the value is in the ledger, a new network would be birthed that mined the latest bitcoin blockchain using a different PoW algorithm.  Bitcoin users would support this network since they would retain their coins, and miners would mine it since they are guaranteed a huge user base to whom they could sell their mined coins.  

Interesting notion.

[cypherdoc]

a great article by Daniel Krawisz with which i totally agree:

http://themisescircle.org/blog/2014/03/14/the-coming-demise-of-the-altcoins/

was very disappointed in one of Vitalik's criticisms of Bitcoin as being unfair.   the argument amounted to him complaining he never had a chance to invest in Bitcoin in 2009-10 just b/c he hadn't heard about it.  if Ethereum ever gets off the ground, which it won't, someone could make the same complaint a few years from now that he/she hadn't "heard" of Ethereum today. 

Exactly my thoughts. Made me question the whole buzz around Ethereum.

Do you guys think ethereum will be valuable in a few years (after it comes out)?

it looks to me like they're having a hard time with releasing it.

i'm sure it has to do with the initial distribution of ether with the rule set favoring the creators and devs.  their excuse is the time, effort and resources put in to developing the code.  an understandable argument but when one compares this to open source "best practices" of no pre-mine, ala Bitcoin, i'm sure this is a tough sell.

[BldSwtTrs]

a great article by Daniel Krawisz with which i totally agree:

http://themisescircle.org/blog/2014/03/14/the-coming-demise-of-the-altcoins/

was very disappointed in one of Vitalik's criticisms of Bitcoin as being unfair.   the argument amounted to him complaining he never had a chance to invest in Bitcoin in 2009-10 just b/c he hadn't heard about it.  if Ethereum ever gets off the ground, which it won't, someone could make the same complaint a few years from now that he/she hadn't "heard" of Ethereum today. 

Exactly my thoughts. Made me question the whole buzz around Ethereum.

Do you guys think ethereum will be valuable in a few years (after it comes out)?

it looks to me like they're having a hard time with releasing it.

i'm sure it has to do with the initial distribution of ether with the rule set favoring the creators and devs.  their excuse is the time, effort and resources put in to developing the code.  an understandable argument but when one compares this to open source "best practices" of no pre-mine, ala Bitcoin, i'm sure this is a tough sell.

If they make their IPO in a bubble phase, when every one buy anything because every random altcoins increase like crazy, then they will have no trouble whatsoever to raise a lot of money.

But in a calm period, like we are now, it may be more difficult. Maybe that's the reason of the delayed IPO.

[cypherdoc]

a great article by Daniel Krawisz with which i totally agree:

http://themisescircle.org/blog/2014/03/14/the-coming-demise-of-the-altcoins/

was very disappointed in one of Vitalik's criticisms of Bitcoin as being unfair.   the argument amounted to him complaining he never had a chance to invest in Bitcoin in 2009-10 just b/c he hadn't heard about it.  if Ethereum ever gets off the ground, which it won't, someone could make the same complaint a few years from now that he/she hadn't "heard" of Ethereum today. 

Exactly my thoughts. Made me question the whole buzz around Ethereum.

Do you guys think ethereum will be valuable in a few years (after it comes out)?

it looks to me like they're having a hard time with releasing it.

i'm sure it has to do with the initial distribution of ether with the rule set favoring the creators and devs.  their excuse is the time, effort and resources put in to developing the code.  an understandable argument but when one compares this to open source "best practices" of no pre-mine, ala Bitcoin, i'm sure this is a tough sell.

If they make their IPO in a bubble phase, when every one buy anything because every random altcoins increase like crazy, then they will have no trouble whatsoever to raise a lot of money.

But in a calm period, like we are now, it may be more difficult. Maybe that's the reason of the delayed IPO.

i'm sure that plays a part.

but if you're a Bitcoin purist, philosophically these lulls serve a purpose; to kill off competition.  this is what we may be seeing esp. with Ethereum.

[Peter R]

i re-listened to the Coinsumm.it panel with Vitalik Buterin, Johnston, and the NXT guy.  was very disappointed in one of Vitalik's criticisms of Bitcoin as being unfair.   the argument amounted to him complaining he never had a chance to invest in Bitcoin in 2009-10 just b/c he hadn't heard about it.  if Ethereum ever gets off the ground, which it won't, someone could make the same complaint a few years from now that he/she hadn't "heard" of Ethereum today.  

http://ytchannelembed.com/video.php?id=dpwhT63EkZ4&t=

them's the breaks.

Thanks for this, Cypherdoc.  

Vitalik Buterin inflicted serious credibility damage to Ethereum with his comments (to readers: watch from 11:50 onwards).  Here are two telling quotes:

"I never had a chance to do anything with bitcoin in 2009 and 2010.  I never even heard of it." -- Vitalik Buterin

"It's not a matter of whether the system is technically fair; it's a matter of whether it is actually fair." -- Vitalik Buterin

He agrees that bitcoin is technically fair, but claims it is not actually fair since he didn't know about it in 2009 - 2010.  Vitalik: what are you going to say in 2018 when someone says they didn't know about Ethereum in 2014?  Do you not see the problem with your interpretation of fairness?

Over $600,000,000 has been permanently sunken into building the bitcoin blockchain ledger.  Over 5 years, 3 large growth spurts and collapses, and several smaller spikes and crashes, the dynamics of the bitcoin market have been slowly optimizing the distribution of coins in this ledger.  Each new price level attained, both higher and lower, causes some people to divest and others to invest in such a way that the distribution of coins becomes more and more stable and efficient.  

If you want Ethereum to have a chance of success, distribute the coins according to the bitcoin blockchain.  You immediately gain a huge potential user base, and if you personally want to buy coins, I'm sure some large bitcoin holders will sell you their "free" coins for cheap.

[Peter R]

I had an interesting idea:

Consider launching a new alt coin (e.g., Ethereum).  The coins are initially distributed in some manner, the code is open sourced, and the system begins fending for itself in the wild.  The initial distribution of coins is sub-optimal and the user base is small.  

After launch, I make a clone of this alt-coin, but distribute the coins according to the bitcoin blockchain.  Users can prove ownership since they have their bitcoin private keys.  Then I release my clone into the wild.

It seems to me that the blockchain-based clone would always win, because you are starting with a more efficient distribution of coins and immediately have a larger potential user base.  

Bitcoin would eat the work of the alt-coin developers with little regard to their contribution.

[NewLiberty]

Further all the marketing done for the dev alt coin version would equally apply to the bitcoin block chain version, except for what future work they might do (which could then be subsumed as well from the new chain, and so on).

[Peter R]

Further all the marketing done for the dev alt coin version would equally apply to the bitcoin block chain version, except for what future work they might do (which could then be subsumed as well from the new chain, and so on).

Exactly.

This idea actually has me quite fascinated.  We could make a website "Ethereum 2.0" and claim that we will launch our clone 1 month after Ethereum launches.  There is no need to purchase ether, since your bitcoin private keys already control a share of it equal to your share of the blockchain.  Upon release, you may keep your ether 2.0, sell it for bitcoins, or purchase more ether from a seller.  There will be no ether beyond what is in the bitcoin blockchain on the day of launch.  

Why buy ether 1.0 with real bitcoins when your private keys already grant you ether 2.0 for free?  And ether 2.0 is better, since it represents a mature network composed of individuals with a strong commitment to the success of cryptocurrency.

[Adrian-x]

If someone wants to launch an innovative alt-coin, start with the bitcoin blockchain!  Every bitcoin user has the keys to their funds, so if you make the same keys unlock the same distribution of funds in the new coin, then you've already got a captive user base of people who support cryptocurrency!!  The fact that no one does this provides insight into the intent of many alt coin creators.  

Recognizing the importance of the blockchain also shows that bitcoin would survive even a permanent 51% attack.  Since the value is in the ledger, a new network would be birthed that mined the latest bitcoin blockchain using a different PoW algorithm.  Bitcoin users would support this network since they would retain their coins, and miners would mine it since they are guaranteed a huge user base to whom they could sell their mined coins.  

Interesting notion.

I like this train of thought, it incentivises holding ones coins as opposed to leaving them in an exchange, or an EFT.

Can this idea be done with fractional reserve paper gold?

[Peter R]

When Daniel wrote about the coming demise of alt coins, he based his premise on the importance of bitcoin's liquidity and market cap (http://themisescircle.org/blog/2014/03/14/the-coming-demise-of-the-altcoins/).  I think this was an important contribution, as it is waking people up to the reality that most alt coins will collapse.  

But Daniel missed one thing: bitcoin's market cap and liquidity are very important, but the most important thing is the record of wealth distribution encoded in the blockchain itself.  It's taken us 5 years, 3 crashes, and $600,000,000 of unrecoverable mining costs to get the coins distributed as they currently are.  The value of bitcoin is based on our shared agreement that the blockchain is right.  

Since the value is in the blockchain, any promising alt-coin can be cloned with a bitcoin-blockchain based wealth distribution.  Immediately the blockchain-based clone has more users and a more efficient wealth distribution.  Just the credible threat that this can be done will now slow the proliferation of new alts.  

Consider the coming IPO of Ethereum.  

I could create a clone called æthereum which is functionally identical to Ethereum except for the initial distribution of coins.  One month after Ethereum IPOs, the unspent bitcoin outputs of block XXXXXX become the "nucleus" of æthereum.  I publish this nucleus to the æthereum.org website and give the community another month to confirm that the æthereum nucleus has the identical coin distribution to the bitcoin wealth distribution at the agreed-upon point in time.  We correct any mistakes (there shouldn't be any except for maybe weird n-locktime transaction, etc).  

One month later, the "æthereum nucleus" undergoes a big-bang event creating "æther."  Bitcoin users can claim their æther by signing an æthereum address with their bitcoin private key.  The æthereum network cross-checks the nucleus and confirms that the æther is valid.  A new universe is born!

If I can very easily do this, and I see no reason why I can't as all the code is open source, why would anyone purchase ether when they get æther for free?  

If there is any value in Ethereum (and I'm doubtful that Turing completeness is anything other than problematic) then it is in the code.  But the code is freely available.  Yet what you would be buying during the IPO is spots on the "Ethereum ledger."  Why would you do this when you already have a spot on the bitcoin ledger and thus the æthereum ledger too?  

If we want to experiment with Turing completeness, let's just run it off the unspent bitcoin outputs and see what happens.  

[BldSwtTrs]

This is VERY interesting.
But I don't think:

If there is any value in Ethereum (and I'm doubtful that Turing completeness is anything other than problematic) then it is in the code.  But the code is freely available.  

Is necessarily true. Value can come from developpers too. Ethereum team said that everyone can fork the code but it's the devs who bring the value, and the devs cannot be forked. And Ethereum guys plan to keep improving Ethereum with release of new versions: Etherium 2, 3 ,etc.

[marcus_of_augustus]

When Daniel wrote about the coming demise of alt coins, he based his premise on the importance of bitcoin's liquidity and market cap (http://themisescircle.org/blog/2014/03/14/the-coming-demise-of-the-altcoins/).  I think this was an important contribution, as it is waking people up to the reality that most alt coins will collapse.  

But Daniel missed one thing: bitcoin's market cap and liquidity are very important, but the most important thing is the record of wealth distribution encoded in the blockchain itself.  It's taken us 5 years, 3 crashes, and $600,000,000 of unrecoverable mining costs to get the coins distributed as they currently are.  The value of bitcoin is based on our shared agreement that the blockchain is right.  

Since the value is in the blockchain, any promising alt-coin can be cloned with a bitcoin-blockchain based wealth distribution.  Immediately the blockchain-based clone has more users and a more efficient wealth distribution.  Just the credible threat that this can be done will now slow the proliferation of new alts.  

Consider the coming IPO of Ethereum.  

I could create a clone called æthereum which is functionally identical to Ethereum except for the initial distribution of coins.  One month after Ethereum IPOs, the unspent bitcoin outputs of block XXXXXX become the "nucleus" of æthereum.  I publish this nucleus to the æthereum.org website and give the community another month to confirm that the æthereum nucleus has the identical coin distribution to the bitcoin wealth distribution at the agreed-upon point in time.  We correct any mistakes (there shouldn't be any except for maybe weird n-locktime transaction, etc).  

One month later, the "æthereum nucleus" undergoes a big-bang event creating "æther."  Bitcoin users can claim their æther by signing an æthereum address with their bitcoin private key.  The æthereum network cross-checks the nucleus and confirms that the æther is valid.  A new universe is born!

If I can very easily do this, and I see no reason why I can't as all the code is open source, why would anyone purchase ether when they get æther for free?  

If there is any value in Ethereum (and I'm doubtful that Turing completeness is anything other than problematic) then it is in the code.  But the code is freely available.  Yet what you would be buying during the IPO is spots on the "Ethereum ledger."  Why would you do this when you already have a spot on the bitcoin ledger and thus the æthereum ledger too?  

If we want to experiment with Turing completeness, let's just run it off the unspent bitcoin outputs and see what happens.  

... I agree a successful alt-coin would least need to have interchangeable unspent bitcoin outputs ... but would probably need to be merge-mined capable also ... so basically a fork (maybe not even hard), with some new features.