Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[knightcoin]

Yes he also holds more Lambo's than me.

I notice that you didn't say "more Lambo than my net worth" so you must not be doing too badly 

Check out my lambo....1/10th the price and the manufacturer said its made somewhere in Taiwan so I guess its imported 

I love your lego lambo! I want one too. I'll love you forever if you buy me one, .

lego lambo is for dogecoin users 

[1714300899]

1714300899

[1714300899]

1714300899

[1714300899]

1714300899

[1714300899]

1714300899

[wachtwoord]

remember this?

negative interest rates coming right up:

bottom line:  negative interest rates could become a distinct reality.  keep buying.

And the patient just died.

[World]

positive news 
http://www.coinbuzz.com/2014/05/21/peter-schiffs-euro-pacific-metals-now-accepts-bitcoins/
nice logo 
http://www.europacmetals.com

[cypherdoc]

positive news 
http://www.coinbuzz.com/2014/05/21/peter-schiffs-euro-pacific-metals-now-accepts-bitcoins/
nice logo 
http://www.europacmetals.com

Yeah I've been posting on this on reddit all day.

My bet is he's had an epiphany and is accumulating near a  price bottom trying to not attract attention.

Lol. More people getting out Goat.

[wachtwoord]

positive news 
http://www.coinbuzz.com/2014/05/21/peter-schiffs-euro-pacific-metals-now-accepts-bitcoins/
nice logo 
http://www.europacmetals.com

Yeah I've been posting on this on reddit all day.

My bet is he's had an epiphany and is accumulating near a  price bottom trying to not attract attention.

Lol. More people getting out Goat.

Nah, he also takes gold for Bitcoins (I've seen a post about that). He's just earning money on the spread.

[leopard2]

remember this?

negative interest rates coming right up:

bottom line:  negative interest rates could become a distinct reality.  keep buying.

And the patient just died.

hehe, just what I thought when I saw that. it's a flatliner isn't it? 

no worries though, a little world war or a currency reform, USD 2.0 and the Kondratieff cycle will start again. And then, after every fiat holder got fleeced the hard way, crypto will gain purchase power beyond imagination.

[thezerg]

There really is no comparison between creating diamonds and creating gold.  The former is perfecting a chemical process the latter is nuclear.

Here is my reply in the "Can both Bitcoin and Gold Survive?" thread on the other forum.

Im 85 percent crypto and 10 percent PMs. So im bullish (crypto) now.

but gold is here to stay until we can get enough energy to make lead into gold.

Gold will be around for a while

Yes I completely agree.  At some point you need to diversify for quality sleep. 
I'm happy with having some PMs and seeing them trickle back down to 300 per ounce (or whatever) over the next decade, although I don't think that that will happen.

Its funny, I originally bought BTC with that same reasoning (diversify away from the dollar).

[Melbustus]

positive news  
http://www.coinbuzz.com/2014/05/21/peter-schiffs-euro-pacific-metals-now-accepts-bitcoins/
nice logo  
http://www.europacmetals.com

Yeah I've been posting on this on reddit all day.

My bet is he's had an epiphany and is accumulating near a  price bottom trying to not attract attention.

Lol. More people getting out Goat.

Isn't he now saying there's value in the transfer tech, but not the currency?

Here's the progression of all the gold-bug bitcoin naysayers:

1) 2011: "Bitcoin is a silly nerd fad that'll be dead in a month or two."
2) 2012: "Bitcoin has no intrinsic value."
3) 2013: "The government will never let bitcoin survive."
4) 2014: "Bitcoin as a payments technology has value, but the currency won't have lasting value."

Hasn't Peter been saying #4 a bunch lately? Funny - this current trend of former total naysayers talking about how the network/tech has lasting value but the currency doesn't is really dumb. They're so obviously trying to save a little face by giving some grudging kudos to bitcoin, but can't fully admit how wrong they are/were.

I can't wait 'till we get over the false notion that the network/currency-unit are completely distinct and these guys accept the entangled (and valuable) nature of the whole beast.


Edit: Boom. $500 taken out on Bitstamp as I was typing.

[Pruden]

remember this?

well, Harvard's Ken Rogoff appears to favor that idea:

http://cryptocrimson.com/2014/05/harvard-economics-professor-makes-case-bitcoin/

  i don't quite understand fully the above paragraph as he appears to say that he wants to force ppl to spend by utilizing negative interest rates but yet he says Bitcoin will allow a safe haven to avoid just that.

Of course it's impossible to understand. Remember that poorly-written Excel? That affaire surfaced several very relevant manipulative decisions he and his friend Reinhardt made when analyzing the data, that completely biased their results. The bias was strongly in favour of their thesis, but I'm sure that was pure chance.

That any journalist pays him attention after that shows the state of journalism and, in this particular case, of Bitcoin fanatics. He is warning of complete control of everyone's transactions through the blockchain and a crypto site considers that "making a case for Bitcoin."

[smoothie]

Gold obvously doesnt have such big dips like bitcoin but in the long run bitcoin will win

I agree with this as well, but there is no point in saying gold is down and btc is up when clearly that is not the case.

I have been trading gold/silver since 2002 and btc since 2010. the thing i noticed in that time is that some times it is good to use btc to buy gold, and some times to use gold to buy btc.

btc does not always go up and gold does not always go down. to say that it does every week, esp in 2014 is just well i dont know what it is. i 100% do not understand why it is being done. anyone with access to a 6 month chart of both btc and gold will know that it is just not true.

Trading BTC since 2010? Proof? Lol

[El Cabron]

Gold obvously doesnt have such big dips like bitcoin but in the long run bitcoin will win

I agree with this as well, but there is no point in saying gold is down and btc is up when clearly that is not the case.

I have been trading gold/silver since 2002 and btc since 2010. the thing i noticed in that time is that some times it is good to use btc to buy gold, and some times to use gold to buy btc.

btc does not always go up and gold does not always go down. to say that it does every week, esp in 2014 is just well i dont know what it is. i 100% do not understand why it is being done. anyone with access to a 6 month chart of both btc and gold will know that it is just not true.

Trading BTC since 2010? Proof? Lol

Lol, Smoothie you troll. I guess the 100% correct way to put it would be "HODLing since 2010" I was not actively trading in 2010, just stacking.   

[marcus_of_augustus]

Gold up, bitcoin up ... don't let it blow all your minds all at once.

[impulse]

Isn't he now saying there's value in the transfer tech, but not the currency?

Here's the progression of all the gold-bug bitcoin naysayers:

1) 2011: "Bitcoin is a silly nerd fad that'll be dead in a month or two."
2) 2012: "Bitcoin has no intrinsic value."
3) 2013: "The government will never let bitcoin survive."
4) 2014: "Bitcoin as a payments technology has value, but the currency won't have lasting value."

Hasn't Peter been saying #4 a bunch lately? Funny - this current trend of former total naysayers talking about how the network/tech has lasting value but the currency doesn't is really dumb. They're so obviously trying to save a little face by giving some grudging kudos to bitcoin, but can't fully admit how wrong they are/were.

I can't wait 'till we get over the false notion that the network/currency-unit are completely distinct and these guys accept the entangled (and valuable) nature of the whole beast.


Edit: Boom. $500 taken out on Bitstamp as I was typing.

For some reason they still don't understand exactly why the bitcoin token cannot be separated from the Bitcoin network. I think they believe that there is a way in which to make them separate entities, thus removing value from the token, but they are misinformed.

[cypherdoc]

Isn't he now saying there's value in the transfer tech, but not the currency?

Here's the progression of all the gold-bug bitcoin naysayers:

1) 2011: "Bitcoin is a silly nerd fad that'll be dead in a month or two."
2) 2012: "Bitcoin has no intrinsic value."
3) 2013: "The government will never let bitcoin survive."
4) 2014: "Bitcoin as a payments technology has value, but the currency won't have lasting value."

Hasn't Peter been saying #4 a bunch lately? Funny - this current trend of former total naysayers talking about how the network/tech has lasting value but the currency doesn't is really dumb. They're so obviously trying to save a little face by giving some grudging kudos to bitcoin, but can't fully admit how wrong they are/were.

I can't wait 'till we get over the false notion that the network/currency-unit are completely distinct and these guys accept the entangled (and valuable) nature of the whole beast.


Edit: Boom. $500 taken out on Bitstamp as I was typing.

For some reason they still don't understand exactly why the bitcoin token cannot be separated from the Bitcoin network. I think they believe that there is a way in which to make them separate entities, thus removing value from the token, but they are misinformed.

i hate to say it but it's b/c of Andreas.

i've had to become much more vocal against him saying the Bitcoin the currency is "just" the first app layered over the blockchain protocol implying that we can get rid of the currency yet still retain the value of Bitcoin with just the blockchain.  in his mind, the blockchain is paramount, which is totally wrong.  and you see this attitude has spilled over into many other topics/projects he advocates such as Ethereum and the concept that there will be "thousands of altcoins", etc.

the right way to think of this is that the Bitcoin units are integral and fundamental to the Bitcoin network and can never be separated from the blockchain.  they were designed to function within it.  it is a self contained financial system:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51590.0  if you really think about what Satoshi was trying to do with Bitcoin, it was this:  he started with the inviolable concept of how to design a fixed supply of currency (mimicking gold) and then combined various tools from separate fields and came up with the blockchain technology around the currency units to secure this fundamental principle.  yeah, he mentions things like smart contracts and stuff in a separate post on the forum but he designed the blockchain to ensure the fixed supply currency as priority #1.

this is why i'm so vocal against the concept of Sidechains.  if you look thru my comments over on Reddit, i've argued this extensively from an economic and technical standpoint.  b/c Sidechains will need to be merged mined, by definition, they will never be as secure as the main blockchain.  this presents a huge opportunity for a non-economic malicious attacker to wait until approximately 20-30% of all BTC migrate over to a popular Sidechain and then launch an attack.  if successful, all those BTC will be wiped out and i think the blowback effect would be to destroy Bitcoin.  we already have a hard enough time convincing the general population to accept a fixed supply currency.  if you then lose 20-30% of BTC from a Sidechain failure, it will destroy confidence in Bitcoin forever as a too deflationary intense to be workable new form of money.  there are many more arguments i've presented but that one is the most important.

don't get me wrong, i'm a big fan of Andreas as we need someone like him to speak the unspeakable to rally the masses.  but he's just wrong in this particular area of his abstraction.

[wachtwoord]

Bitcoin may be the first application of the Blockchain, it's an essential one, without which everything falls apart.

[bitcoinsrus]

Isn't he now saying there's value in the transfer tech, but not the currency?

Here's the progression of all the gold-bug bitcoin naysayers:

1) 2011: "Bitcoin is a silly nerd fad that'll be dead in a month or two."
2) 2012: "Bitcoin has no intrinsic value."
3) 2013: "The government will never let bitcoin survive."
4) 2014: "Bitcoin as a payments technology has value, but the currency won't have lasting value."

Hasn't Peter been saying #4 a bunch lately? Funny - this current trend of former total naysayers talking about how the network/tech has lasting value but the currency doesn't is really dumb. They're so obviously trying to save a little face by giving some grudging kudos to bitcoin, but can't fully admit how wrong they are/were.

I can't wait 'till we get over the false notion that the network/currency-unit are completely distinct and these guys accept the entangled (and valuable) nature of the whole beast.


Edit: Boom. $500 taken out on Bitstamp as I was typing.

For some reason they still don't understand exactly why the bitcoin token cannot be separated from the Bitcoin network. I think they believe that there is a way in which to make them separate entities, thus removing value from the token, but they are misinformed.

i hate to say it but it's b/c of Andreas.

i've had to become much more vocal against him saying the Bitcoin the currency is "just" the first app layered over the blockchain protocol implying that we can get rid of the currency yet still retain the value of Bitcoin with just the blockchain.  in his mind, the blockchain is paramount, which is totally wrong.  and you see this attitude has spilled over into many other topics/projects he advocates such as Ethereum and the concept that there will be "thousands of altcoins", etc.

the right way to think of this is that the Bitcoin units are integral and fundamental to the Bitcoin network and can never be separated from the blockchain.  they were designed to function within it.  it is a self contained financial system:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51590.0  if you really think about what Satoshi was trying to do with Bitcoin, it was this:  he started with the inviolable concept of how to design a fixed supply of currency (mimicking gold) and then combined various tools from separate fields and came up with the blockchain technology around the currency units to secure this fundamental principle.  yeah, he mentions things like smart contracts and stuff in a separate post on the forum but the fixed supply currency was priority #1.

this is why i'm so vocal against the concept of Sidechains.  if you look thru my comments over on Reddit, i've argued this extensively from an economic and technical standpoint.  b/c Sidechains will need to be merged mined, by definition, they will never be as secure as the main blockchain.  this presents a huge opportunity for a non-economic malicious attacker to wait until approximately 20-30% of all BTC migrate over to a popular Sidechain and then launch an attack.  if successful, all those BTC will be wiped out and i think the blowback effect would be to destroy Bitcoin.  we already have a hard enough time convincing the general population to accept a fixed supply currency.  if you then lose 20-30% of BTC from a Sidechain failure, it will destroy confidence in Bitcoin forever as a too deflationary intense to be workable new form of money.  there are many more arguments i've presented but that one is the most important.

don't get me wrong, i'm a big fan of Andreas as we need someone like him to speak the unspeakable to rally the masses.  but he's just wrong in this particular area of his abstraction.

You make some great points.  I believe Andreas is speaking so highly of the blockchain, mainly because he is deeply involved in it (and its expected....like if anyone where in the same situation, they would probably plug their own project etc).

I believe new layers can be good.  A few comment-ors discussed a coin that is distributed by how many bitcoins you already have.  Some thing like this would be a "new layer" and have a built in following (since it basically would not start from scratch).  (The new coin could be improved and not frustrate deeply involve members....since the beginning circa 2009-2011)

I agree with the whole satoshi thing you mentioned above.

I like the idea of sidechains because it is another layer.  I have not thought about it the way you have, and your ideas are interesting (especially since I am new and eventually I might have similar wisdom after learning more about things like sidechains).

 

[impulse]

Isn't he now saying there's value in the transfer tech, but not the currency?

Here's the progression of all the gold-bug bitcoin naysayers:

1) 2011: "Bitcoin is a silly nerd fad that'll be dead in a month or two."
2) 2012: "Bitcoin has no intrinsic value."
3) 2013: "The government will never let bitcoin survive."
4) 2014: "Bitcoin as a payments technology has value, but the currency won't have lasting value."

Hasn't Peter been saying #4 a bunch lately? Funny - this current trend of former total naysayers talking about how the network/tech has lasting value but the currency doesn't is really dumb. They're so obviously trying to save a little face by giving some grudging kudos to bitcoin, but can't fully admit how wrong they are/were.

I can't wait 'till we get over the false notion that the network/currency-unit are completely distinct and these guys accept the entangled (and valuable) nature of the whole beast.


Edit: Boom. $500 taken out on Bitstamp as I was typing.

For some reason they still don't understand exactly why the bitcoin token cannot be separated from the Bitcoin network. I think they believe that there is a way in which to make them separate entities, thus removing value from the token, but they are misinformed.

i hate to say it but it's b/c of Andreas.

i've had to become much more vocal against him saying the Bitcoin the currency is "just" the first app layered over the blockchain protocol implying that we can get rid of the currency yet still retain the value of Bitcoin with just the blockchain.  in his mind, the blockchain is paramount, which is totally wrong.  and you see this attitude has spilled over into many other topics/projects he advocates such as Ethereum and the concept that there will be "thousands of altcoins", etc.

the right way to think of this is that the Bitcoin units are integral and fundamental to the Bitcoin network and can never be separated from the blockchain.  they were designed to function within it.  it is a self contained financial system:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51590.0  if you really think about what Satoshi was trying to do with Bitcoin, it was this:  he started with the inviolable concept of how to design a fixed supply of currency (mimicking gold) and then combined various tools from separate fields and came up with the blockchain technology around the currency units to secure this fundamental principle.  yeah, he mentions things like smart contracts and stuff in a separate post on the forum but he designed the blockchain to ensure the fixed supply currency as priority #1.

this is why i'm so vocal against the concept of Sidechains.  if you look thru my comments over on Reddit, i've argued this extensively from an economic and technical standpoint.  b/c Sidechains will need to be merged mined, by definition, they will never be as secure as the main blockchain.  this presents a huge opportunity for a non-economic malicious attacker to wait until approximately 20-30% of all BTC migrate over to a popular Sidechain and then launch an attack.  if successful, all those BTC will be wiped out and i think the blowback effect would be to destroy Bitcoin.  we already have a hard enough time convincing the general population to accept a fixed supply currency.  if you then lose 20-30% of BTC from a Sidechain failure, it will destroy confidence in Bitcoin forever as a too deflationary intense to be workable new form of money.  there are many more arguments i've presented but that one is the most important.

don't get me wrong, i'm a big fan of Andreas as we need someone like him to speak the unspeakable to rally the masses.  but he's just wrong in this particular area of his abstraction.

Agreed. I can't help but think that the Ethereum mania will end badly for anyone who gets heavily involved financially early on. There are a lot of moving parts and technical and economic uncertainties at the moment, and WAY too much hype. Similarly, while I agree that we will likely see a lot of blockchain implementations and alternate "currencies", the vast majority of them will have little or no value. I rather like the "spin-off" ideas that were being discussed a while back, and I feel like their existence is an inevitability. It will be difficult for innovative and competing systems to prevent bitcoin users from "co-opting" their technology. I like Andreas as well, but he is very strong headed, which is both an asset and potentially a liability at times

[cypherdoc]

Isn't he now saying there's value in the transfer tech, but not the currency?

Here's the progression of all the gold-bug bitcoin naysayers:

1) 2011: "Bitcoin is a silly nerd fad that'll be dead in a month or two."
2) 2012: "Bitcoin has no intrinsic value."
3) 2013: "The government will never let bitcoin survive."
4) 2014: "Bitcoin as a payments technology has value, but the currency won't have lasting value."

Hasn't Peter been saying #4 a bunch lately? Funny - this current trend of former total naysayers talking about how the network/tech has lasting value but the currency doesn't is really dumb. They're so obviously trying to save a little face by giving some grudging kudos to bitcoin, but can't fully admit how wrong they are/were.

I can't wait 'till we get over the false notion that the network/currency-unit are completely distinct and these guys accept the entangled (and valuable) nature of the whole beast.


Edit: Boom. $500 taken out on Bitstamp as I was typing.

For some reason they still don't understand exactly why the bitcoin token cannot be separated from the Bitcoin network. I think they believe that there is a way in which to make them separate entities, thus removing value from the token, but they are misinformed.

i hate to say it but it's b/c of Andreas.

i've had to become much more vocal against him saying the Bitcoin the currency is "just" the first app layered over the blockchain protocol implying that we can get rid of the currency yet still retain the value of Bitcoin with just the blockchain.  in his mind, the blockchain is paramount, which is totally wrong.  and you see this attitude has spilled over into many other topics/projects he advocates such as Ethereum and the concept that there will be "thousands of altcoins", etc.

the right way to think of this is that the Bitcoin units are integral and fundamental to the Bitcoin network and can never be separated from the blockchain.  they were designed to function within it.  it is a self contained financial system:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51590.0  if you really think about what Satoshi was trying to do with Bitcoin, it was this:  he started with the inviolable concept of how to design a fixed supply of currency (mimicking gold) and then combined various tools from separate fields and came up with the blockchain technology around the currency units to secure this fundamental principle.  yeah, he mentions things like smart contracts and stuff in a separate post on the forum but he designed the blockchain to ensure the fixed supply currency as priority #1.

this is why i'm so vocal against the concept of Sidechains.  if you look thru my comments over on Reddit, i've argued this extensively from an economic and technical standpoint.  b/c Sidechains will need to be merged mined, by definition, they will never be as secure as the main blockchain.  this presents a huge opportunity for a non-economic malicious attacker to wait until approximately 20-30% of all BTC migrate over to a popular Sidechain and then launch an attack.  if successful, all those BTC will be wiped out and i think the blowback effect would be to destroy Bitcoin.  we already have a hard enough time convincing the general population to accept a fixed supply currency.  if you then lose 20-30% of BTC from a Sidechain failure, it will destroy confidence in Bitcoin forever as a too deflationary intense to be workable new form of money.  there are many more arguments i've presented but that one is the most important.

don't get me wrong, i'm a big fan of Andreas as we need someone like him to speak the unspeakable to rally the masses.  but he's just wrong in this particular area of his abstraction.

Agreed. I can't help but think that the Ethereum mania will end badly for anyone who gets heavily involved financially early on. There are a lot of moving parts and technical and economic uncertainties at the moment, and WAY too much hype. Similarly, while I agree that we will likely see a lot of blockchain implementations and alternate "currencies", the vast majority of them will have little or no value. I rather like the "spin-off" ideas that were being discussed a while back, and I feel like their existence is an inevitability. It will be difficult for innovative and competing systems to prevent bitcoin users from "co-opting" their technology. I like Andreas as well, but he is very strong headed, which is both an asset and potentially a liability at times

when you speak as frequently as he does, sometimes one struggles to find "new material".  in Bitcoin's case, that's not necessary.  it's complicated enough to explain the basics.  he should just stick to discussing various parts of the protocol instead of trying to always introduce new mind blowing economic concepts.

[cypherdoc]

Isn't he now saying there's value in the transfer tech, but not the currency?

Here's the progression of all the gold-bug bitcoin naysayers:

1) 2011: "Bitcoin is a silly nerd fad that'll be dead in a month or two."
2) 2012: "Bitcoin has no intrinsic value."
3) 2013: "The government will never let bitcoin survive."
4) 2014: "Bitcoin as a payments technology has value, but the currency won't have lasting value."

Hasn't Peter been saying #4 a bunch lately? Funny - this current trend of former total naysayers talking about how the network/tech has lasting value but the currency doesn't is really dumb. They're so obviously trying to save a little face by giving some grudging kudos to bitcoin, but can't fully admit how wrong they are/were.

I can't wait 'till we get over the false notion that the network/currency-unit are completely distinct and these guys accept the entangled (and valuable) nature of the whole beast.


Edit: Boom. $500 taken out on Bitstamp as I was typing.

For some reason they still don't understand exactly why the bitcoin token cannot be separated from the Bitcoin network. I think they believe that there is a way in which to make them separate entities, thus removing value from the token, but they are misinformed.

i hate to say it but it's b/c of Andreas.

i've had to become much more vocal against him saying the Bitcoin the currency is "just" the first app layered over the blockchain protocol implying that we can get rid of the currency yet still retain the value of Bitcoin with just the blockchain.  in his mind, the blockchain is paramount, which is totally wrong.  and you see this attitude has spilled over into many other topics/projects he advocates such as Ethereum and the concept that there will be "thousands of altcoins", etc.

the right way to think of this is that the Bitcoin units are integral and fundamental to the Bitcoin network and can never be separated from the blockchain.  they were designed to function within it.  it is a self contained financial system:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51590.0  if you really think about what Satoshi was trying to do with Bitcoin, it was this:  he started with the inviolable concept of how to design a fixed supply of currency (mimicking gold) and then combined various tools from separate fields and came up with the blockchain technology around the currency units to secure this fundamental principle.  yeah, he mentions things like smart contracts and stuff in a separate post on the forum but the fixed supply currency was priority #1.

this is why i'm so vocal against the concept of Sidechains.  if you look thru my comments over on Reddit, i've argued this extensively from an economic and technical standpoint.  b/c Sidechains will need to be merged mined, by definition, they will never be as secure as the main blockchain.  this presents a huge opportunity for a non-economic malicious attacker to wait until approximately 20-30% of all BTC migrate over to a popular Sidechain and then launch an attack.  if successful, all those BTC will be wiped out and i think the blowback effect would be to destroy Bitcoin.  we already have a hard enough time convincing the general population to accept a fixed supply currency.  if you then lose 20-30% of BTC from a Sidechain failure, it will destroy confidence in Bitcoin forever as a too deflationary intense to be workable new form of money.  there are many more arguments i've presented but that one is the most important.

don't get me wrong, i'm a big fan of Andreas as we need someone like him to speak the unspeakable to rally the masses.  but he's just wrong in this particular area of his abstraction.

You make some great points.  I believe Andreas is speaking so highly of the blockchain, mainly because he is deeply involved in it (and its expected....like if anyone where in the same situation, they would probably plug their own project etc).

I believe new layers can be good.  A few comment-ors discussed a coin that is distributed by how many bitcoins you already have.  Some thing like this would be a "new layer" and have a built in following (since it basically would not start from scratch).  (The new coin could be improved and not frustrate deeply involve members....since the beginning circa 2009-2011)

I agree with the whole satoshi thing you mentioned above.

I like the idea of sidechains because it is another layer.  I have not thought about it the way you have, and your ideas are interesting (especially since I am new and eventually I might have similar wisdom after learning more about things like sidechains).

 

you're talking about Spin Offs which was hatched right in this thread by Peter R.  it's a devious and well thought out economic concept that has great potential.  i just hope he gets around to implementing it.  

if i were a coder, i'd be systematically going thru the altcoins, one by one, and taking this Spin Off stick to them, all the while profiting.

[molecular]

1) 2011: "Bitcoin is a silly nerd fad that'll be dead in a month or two."
2) 2012: "Bitcoin has no intrinsic value."
3) 2013: "The government will never let bitcoin survive."
4) 2014: "Bitcoin as a payments technology has value, but the currency won't have lasting value."

I think you need to somehow fit in the famous mantra: "if you can't hold it in your hands, you don't own it". Maybe that fits into all of the periods.