Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 12:21:53 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 [420] 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804129 times)
ranlo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302


View Profile
May 26, 2014, 09:57:14 PM
 #8381


The eventual equilibrium state likely does not depend on it (debatable topic, I know, but that's my take).



no, you are exactly right.

as we approach that equilibrium state the price should level out while at the same time hoarders would have been disgorging coins all along the way up to equilibrium.  then Bitcoin can just become money and not a speculative asset.

the saddest part of Vitalik's argument is that he doesn't even consider the counter argument; what's stopping him from buying coins today?  in his mind they're "too expensive".  well, relative to what?  current growth, future growth?

this is why i continue to say "The Geeks Fail to Understand That which They Hath Created".  not all but most of them.

The issue with the equilibrium is that there are always new coins being created and destroyed. This makes it hard to come up with a median spot, just like with USD. The value of USD is constantly changing (though we don't always see that in real-time) because of the fluctuating amount of money in existence. Bitcoin just makes these changes much more evident.

The amount of BTC created to USD created is miniscule. No comparison.

For Bitcoin to be priced in USD, the amount of USD relative to BTC created IS important. The only way for it not to be is if BTC were able to stand 100% on its own, completely separate from any fiat system. This is far from the case and won't be for many years, if it ever happens.

Unichange.me
Unique · Universal · Uniting


            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █



















Earn Devcoins by Writing
1480854113
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480854113

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480854113
Reply with quote  #2

1480854113
Report to moderator
1480854113
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480854113

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480854113
Reply with quote  #2

1480854113
Report to moderator
1480854113
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480854113

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480854113
Reply with quote  #2

1480854113
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480854113
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480854113

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480854113
Reply with quote  #2

1480854113
Report to moderator
1480854113
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480854113

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480854113
Reply with quote  #2

1480854113
Report to moderator
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
May 26, 2014, 10:14:26 PM
 #8382

[The issue with the equilibrium is that there are always new coins being created and destroyed.

What is also interesting is that in a little over 2 years from now 75% of bitcoins that can exist will be created, and not long after that the number of bitcoins permanently lost will exceed those that are yet to be mined.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 26, 2014, 10:20:38 PM
 #8383

this has been a bad weekend for news on Bitcoin 2.0 projects.  we all know about Ripple now.  Mastercoin allegedly has problems with Willett selling out (not confirmed by me), and now we have Bitshares:

http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/beyond-bitcoin-1-nxt-asset-exchange-and-bitshares-technical-update

listen carefully to Larimer describe how, just last week, he's had to redo the entire implementation of how tx's are handled within his protocol.  simple inputs and outputs structure like in Bitcoin have been discarded for database tables which will be required for every asset tracked by the Bitshare protocol.  blocks require "delegate" (read centralized) nodes to sign off and approve tx's.  apparently he had severe forking problems with his original code and lack of a mechanism to develop consensus.  

while listening to the podcast it dawned on me how centralized these Bitcoin 2.0 projects have become in the sense of depending on a core group of known devs who have a vested interest.  he even says that if something happened to him while the protocol had a problem there would be no one to really fix it.  that's bad.

Satoshi was wise to remain anonymous.  by leaving and turning the code management over to a distributed group of devs who don't have a vested interest in Bitcoin, other than whatever BTC they may have bought on the free market, he fortified the Bitcoin dev process from gov't pressure.  all the Bitcoin 2.0 projects have dev teams whose personal financial success depends on the success of their product.  if the devs themselves ever get attacked by gov't their project would be finished by the mere fact that most of them have awarded themselves an upfront disproportionate share of the equity.

i am beginning to believe that blockchain technology may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as money.  you heard it here first.  i know what Satoshi said about scripting language and the potential to do more things like smart contracts et al but he said those things in a forum post and almost as an afterthought.  he also could be wrong about growing these products out from the blockchain from an economic and technical standpoint.  the masses don't care about these things, at least right now.  i think they just want their money to be safe.  here in the US, the arguably wealthiest country in the world, only a small % own things like stocks or bonds let alone assurance contracts or derivatives.

i think it's an interesting thought that blockchain technology may only ever be used to protect Bitcoin as money.  if i'm right, all that money directed at alt projects has yet to flow back to Bitcoin.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 26, 2014, 10:24:21 PM
 #8384


The eventual equilibrium state likely does not depend on it (debatable topic, I know, but that's my take).



no, you are exactly right.

as we approach that equilibrium state the price should level out while at the same time hoarders would have been disgorging coins all along the way up to equilibrium.  then Bitcoin can just become money and not a speculative asset.

the saddest part of Vitalik's argument is that he doesn't even consider the counter argument; what's stopping him from buying coins today?  in his mind they're "too expensive".  well, relative to what?  current growth, future growth?

this is why i continue to say "The Geeks Fail to Understand That which They Hath Created".  not all but most of them.

The issue with the equilibrium is that there are always new coins being created and destroyed. This makes it hard to come up with a median spot, just like with USD. The value of USD is constantly changing (though we don't always see that in real-time) because of the fluctuating amount of money in existence. Bitcoin just makes these changes much more evident.

The amount of BTC created to USD created is miniscule. No comparison.

For Bitcoin to be priced in USD, the amount of USD relative to BTC created IS important. The only way for it not to be is if BTC were able to stand 100% on its own, completely separate from any fiat system. This is far from the case and won't be for many years, if it ever happens.

well, i'm thinking that this equilibrium state will come sometime out around 2140 when the last satoshi is rewarded. by then, if Bitcoin has survived that long it is likely to be it's own unit of account w/o any reference to USD as you allude to.
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
May 26, 2014, 10:36:41 PM
 #8385

this has been a bad weekend for news on Bitcoin 2.0 projects.  we all know about Ripple now.  Mastercoin allegedly has problems with Willett selling out (not confirmed by me), and now we have Bitshares:

Looks like Willett has really bad tax advisors. He didn't want to sell MSC, but was told he needed to sell some to cover capital gains tax. Problem is that his capital gains mostly evaporated after, and probably because of his selling.

ranlo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302


View Profile
May 26, 2014, 10:39:53 PM
 #8386

[The issue with the equilibrium is that there are always new coins being created and destroyed.

What is also interesting is that in a little over 2 years from now 75% of bitcoins that can exist will be created, and not long after that the number of bitcoins permanently lost will exceed those that are yet to be mined.

The number of coins actually lost is theoretical, though. There's no way to know how many are truly gone. We're seeing some of the top accounts have coins moving around, and there are a lot of people that have just been sitting on theirs for years. We really have no idea if there are a thousand missing or a million.


The eventual equilibrium state likely does not depend on it (debatable topic, I know, but that's my take).



no, you are exactly right.

as we approach that equilibrium state the price should level out while at the same time hoarders would have been disgorging coins all along the way up to equilibrium.  then Bitcoin can just become money and not a speculative asset.

the saddest part of Vitalik's argument is that he doesn't even consider the counter argument; what's stopping him from buying coins today?  in his mind they're "too expensive".  well, relative to what?  current growth, future growth?

this is why i continue to say "The Geeks Fail to Understand That which They Hath Created".  not all but most of them.

The issue with the equilibrium is that there are always new coins being created and destroyed. This makes it hard to come up with a median spot, just like with USD. The value of USD is constantly changing (though we don't always see that in real-time) because of the fluctuating amount of money in existence. Bitcoin just makes these changes much more evident.

The amount of BTC created to USD created is miniscule. No comparison.

For Bitcoin to be priced in USD, the amount of USD relative to BTC created IS important. The only way for it not to be is if BTC were able to stand 100% on its own, completely separate from any fiat system. This is far from the case and won't be for many years, if it ever happens.

well, i'm thinking that this equilibrium state will come sometime out around 2140 when the last satoshi is rewarded. by then, if Bitcoin has survived that long it is likely to be it's own unit of account w/o any reference to USD as you allude to.

This is definitely a possibility (based on the extremely long time-frame). That's a long wait, though. 126 more years before we can consider it a currency? We need to do things earlier to fix that problem.

Unichange.me
Unique · Universal · Uniting


            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █



















Earn Devcoins by Writing
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
May 26, 2014, 10:46:48 PM
 #8387

..  if i'm right, all that money directed at alt projects has yet to flow back to Bitcoin.

Bitcoin doesn't actually flow out when invested in alt projects, those developers are innovators in the adoption cycle.

They are late innovators they are accumulating BTC, yes people make bad investments with there BTC, but all the while Bitcoin is distributing according to a typical adoption cycle, the user base is growing, not all innovator are accumulating as you have noted with Vitalik, but they all want wealth and chase Bitcoin to get it, I think alts amplify Bitcoin potential.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 26, 2014, 10:55:27 PM
 #8388

I think alts amplify Bitcoin potential.

but only as testing grounds.  anything worthwhile should be assimilated into Bitcoin when possible. 

the larger issue, as indicated by impulse above, is how do any of the alts implement a distribution mechanism that comes close to what Satoshi did?  he set a very high standard of what are now considered best practices in this new virtual currency world.  i'm thinking it's impossible unless you're willing to do the entire development model for free and somehow keep yourself anonymous.  but then at that point why wouldn't you just develop/enhance the market leader itself, Bitcoin, which stands to be the ultimate winner?
ranlo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302


View Profile
May 26, 2014, 11:04:27 PM
 #8389

I think alts amplify Bitcoin potential.

but only as testing grounds.  anything worthwhile should be assimilated into Bitcoin when possible. 

the larger issue, as indicated by impulse above, is how do any of the alts implement a distribution mechanism that comes close to what Satoshi did?  he set a very high standard of what are now considered best practices in this new virtual currency world.  i'm thinking it's impossible unless you're willing to do the entire development model for free and somehow keep yourself anonymous.  but then at that point why wouldn't you just develop/enhance the market leader itself, Bitcoin, which stands to be the ultimate winner?

Because Bitcoin can not be used in the real world for purchases, in a reliable manner. Nobody wants to wait an hour or more to purchase gasoline, or buy groceries. These things hold Bitcoin back. Lowering the confirmation times would only cause more issues with the entire system, not to mention the majority of people would have to agree on the change.

While Bitcoin is an awesome thing, it does have its flaws that are just not likely to be fixed.

Unichange.me
Unique · Universal · Uniting


            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █



















Earn Devcoins by Writing
klee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316



View Profile
May 26, 2014, 11:07:24 PM
 #8390

I see fanatic people...

BTC: 1K9atu5zgz7izCMAynk5adBJ8Qn2YgS6nT
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 26, 2014, 11:13:50 PM
 #8391

I think alts amplify Bitcoin potential.

but only as testing grounds.  anything worthwhile should be assimilated into Bitcoin when possible. 

the larger issue, as indicated by impulse above, is how do any of the alts implement a distribution mechanism that comes close to what Satoshi did?  he set a very high standard of what are now considered best practices in this new virtual currency world.  i'm thinking it's impossible unless you're willing to do the entire development model for free and somehow keep yourself anonymous.  but then at that point why wouldn't you just develop/enhance the market leader itself, Bitcoin, which stands to be the ultimate winner?

Because Bitcoin can not be used in the real world for purchases, in a reliable manner. Nobody wants to wait an hour or more to purchase gasoline, or buy groceries. These things hold Bitcoin back. Lowering the confirmation times would only cause more issues with the entire system, not to mention the majority of people would have to agree on the change.

While Bitcoin is an awesome thing, it does have its flaws that are just not likely to be fixed.

what you're arguing about is about the Bitcoin concept as a whole. 

what i'm discussing here assumes Bitcoin will be successful, arguably, and brings up the concept that the blockchain may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as money.
BldSwtTrs
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 808


View Profile
May 27, 2014, 12:03:30 AM
 #8392

listen carefully to Larimer describe how, just last week, he's had to redo the entire implementation of how tx's are handled within his protocol.  simple inputs and outputs structure like in Bitcoin have been discarded for database tables which will be required for every asset tracked by the Bitshare protocol.  blocks require "delegate" (read centralized) nodes to sign off and approve tx's.  apparently he had severe forking problems with his original code and lack of a mechanism to develop consensus.  
In Bitcoin mining pools are in effect delegates. There are about 10, whereas with Bitshares they will be 100. Plus users will be able to vote in order to fire delegates if they mess up.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 27, 2014, 12:18:09 AM
 #8393

listen carefully to Larimer describe how, just last week, he's had to redo the entire implementation of how tx's are handled within his protocol.  simple inputs and outputs structure like in Bitcoin have been discarded for database tables which will be required for every asset tracked by the Bitshare protocol.  blocks require "delegate" (read centralized) nodes to sign off and approve tx's.  apparently he had severe forking problems with his original code and lack of a mechanism to develop consensus.  
In Bitcoin mining pools are in effect delegates. There are about 10, whereas with Bitshares they will be 100. Plus users will be able to vote in order to fire delegates if they mess up.

can you tell us exactly what delegates responsibilities are?
majamalu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile WWW
May 27, 2014, 12:30:51 AM
 #8394

the masses don't care about these things, at least right now.  i think they just want their money to be safe.  here in the US, the arguably wealthiest country in the world, only a small % own things like stocks or bonds let alone assurance contracts or derivatives.


I've been saying this for years. Think of all the tricks that people have to do to protect their savings nowadays. Even in its current form, Bitcoin is easier - and perhaps safer - than every other way, at least for people that are able to manage (or learn how to manage) secure passwords.

http://elbitcoin.org - Bitcoin en español
http://mercadobitcoin.com - MercadoBitcoin
CoinRocka
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 250


View Profile
May 27, 2014, 01:17:12 AM
 #8395

"It's as good as bitcoin"    Cool
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 27, 2014, 01:29:59 AM
 #8396

the masses don't care about these things, at least right now.  i think they just want their money to be safe.  here in the US, the arguably wealthiest country in the world, only a small % own things like stocks or bonds let alone assurance contracts or derivatives.


I've been saying this for years. Think of all the tricks that people have to do to protect their savings nowadays. Even in its current form, Bitcoin is easier - and perhaps safer - than every other way, at least for people that are able to manage (or learn how to manage) secure passwords.

so yes, the fact that Bitcoin is money is what brings us all here. it's the most liquid and generally accepted of all "assets".  Bitcoin is first and foremost a financial concept.  that being a fixed supply new form of money.  Satoshi took that precept and racked his brain trying to figure out a way to bring technology to bear to enforce that concept.  he came up with the blockchain as a specific technological implementation to achieve this.  it employs POW to incentivize mining.  miners jump all over this and mine like hell to try and capture block rewards and fees which comes in the form of money.  not stock, not bonds, not debt, not assurance contracts, not derivatives.  money.  with any of these Bitcoin 2.0 platforms, i don't see a truly strong incentive to mine those blockchains.  as a miner, i wouldn't.

all those different forms of assets can be thought of as play tools of Wall Street=the minority.  the masses represent the majority in terms of sheer numbers, however, and they possess very little of those investments today.  they just want their money to be safe.  Bitcoin represents the first time in history where they have that chance.  the stakes are much higher in inventing a new form of money compared to these other assets.  look at the forex markets compared to all other markets.  they're huge in comparison.  and it's in the markets involving money where the real problem lies due to the Fed and central banks.  i think in the long run the masses prefer Bitcoin as an investment than any alt.

hence, the blockchain may end up being only applicable to Bitcoin as money.  i can't be sure of this but i think it's quite possible given how things are evolving.

BldSwtTrs
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 808


View Profile
May 27, 2014, 01:33:22 AM
 #8397

listen carefully to Larimer describe how, just last week, he's had to redo the entire implementation of how tx's are handled within his protocol.  simple inputs and outputs structure like in Bitcoin have been discarded for database tables which will be required for every asset tracked by the Bitshare protocol.  blocks require "delegate" (read centralized) nodes to sign off and approve tx's.  apparently he had severe forking problems with his original code and lack of a mechanism to develop consensus.  
In Bitcoin mining pools are in effect delegates. There are about 10, whereas with Bitshares they will be 100. Plus users will be able to vote in order to fire delegates if they mess up.

can you tell us exactly what delegates responsibilities are?
They will take turn to generate the next block which saves the transaction, and will receive transaction fees to do so.

The software client will monitor what the delegates are doing and automatically remove a delegate from his position if he has a bad behavior.

Then there is the transaction as proof of stake (TaPos) part, where each users validate on the long run the short-term consensus establish by the delegates.

I am not a tech guy tough: http://bitshares.org/delegated-proof-of-stake/
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
May 27, 2014, 01:37:28 AM
 #8398

I think alts amplify Bitcoin potential.

but only as testing grounds.  anything worthwhile should be assimilated into Bitcoin when possible.  

the larger issue, as indicated by impulse above, is how do any of the alts implement a distribution mechanism that comes close to what Satoshi did?  he set a very high standard of what are now considered best practices in this new virtual currency world.  i'm thinking it's impossible unless you're willing to do the entire development model for free and somehow keep yourself anonymous.  but then at that point why wouldn't you just develop/enhance the market leader itself, Bitcoin, which stands to be the ultimate winner?

I agree with you for now in that Bitcoin will not see a rival and satoshi's technical contribution won't be matched in innovation. But there are hundreds and thousands of smart minds who can't contribute to Bitcoin directly the primary barrier being political.

Investors can't easily avoid the scam coins and given your insight all will likely evolve into $#!±coins so how does the technical input from the innovators at the start of the adoption cycle get leveraged?

I'm glad these late comer innovator are earning Bitcoin it's growing our network.

Ultimately we will never agree that Bitcoin's confirmation time is too long or too short. But we can say it's too long for X application  or too short for Y situation.

So ultimately the value will come from Bitcoin's distribution and the ideas of spin-offs.
These new alts - the anonymous ones aside will hopefully wake up before they lose there Bitcoin.,

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
majamalu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile WWW
May 27, 2014, 02:11:48 AM
 #8399


hence, the blockchain may end up being only applicable to Bitcoin as money.  i can't be sure of this but i think it's quite possible given how things are evolving.


Let me know if/when you have something written about this perspective. I would like to translate it into Spanish.

http://elbitcoin.org - Bitcoin en español
http://mercadobitcoin.com - MercadoBitcoin
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554



View Profile
May 27, 2014, 03:52:37 AM
 #8400

Introducing The Bitcoin:Gold Slingshot Effect.  We got it with silver and we'll get it with the next gold touch:
...


You think so? That seemed in the cards last time as well. I suppose the China/Gox/China/Dorien/China/China/IRS/China/China news got in the way. But it still feels early....we still need better exchange infrastructure, and wall-st integration before bitcoin can approach gold as an easily acquirable and safely-holdable asset class for most people.

But to date I've thought every phase of bitcoin's adoption would take longer than it has, so whatevs...


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
Pages: « 1 ... 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 [420] 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 ... 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!