Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[justusranvier]

Here's a more up-to-date version of the Metcalfe's Law chart you linked to in your post:

Thanks

[thezerg]

http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/03/09/scaling-bitcoin-to-its-first-billion-users-and-beyond-2/

Maybe define the interconnectedness of ledgers as the inverse of the cost to move money between them.  But this cost function is not just exchange fees.  It would ideally take into account the amortized cost to set up and maintain accounts in various exchanges, the time value of the money while it is inaccessible (presumably the inter-ledger exchange takes more time then intra-ledger exchange), and other such externalities.

[cypherdoc]

You've still got me.  

Yes, afterthoughts often linger.

Yep, the guy who screams at every blip in gold and whose emotions/FUD swing with every Bitcoin dip.

Sad really how desperate for recognition one can be.

About the only time I even check the gold price over the last year is when you make one of your numerous 'gold collapsing' exclamations.  Sometimes I check Kitco and find that you seem to have made up the decline out of whole cloth, and a fraction of those I might bother to respond to.  Probably my history of pretty good calls, not all supporting your campaign of wishing Bitcoin up, have colored your perceptions and memories.

tvbcof in action:

[cypherdoc]

Bitcoin has clearly failed in an 'exchange' role as evidenced by still not needing to fiddle with the 7 tps transaction rate (1MB block size) and not being on a trajectory to need to do so any time soon.  The reason for this is abundantly clear and I've been saying so for years:  Bitcoin is simply not competitive in this role.
...

I don't fully get where you're coming from on this one. Does it all boil down to your assertion that blocksize increase would have to outrun Nielsen's law in order to sustain significant transaction throughput?

Forgive me for neglecting to answer your other questions, but I like to try to keep things tight, and this is important.

Firstly, Adam cast some pearls that I'm afraid went over most people's heads which is a shame.  He is not talking about exactly what I want to mention here, but the same principles apply:

...
Its a little risky to play steganography arms race though because they could bypass that (at the limit steganography wins)  by replacing
...

So, here's the deal:

Something can act as a reserve if it is rock solid in all circumstances.  Gold is a classic example.

If in the future things are as they are now from a regulatory point of view, there are all kinds of instruments which could serve my purposes.  I've long said that Bitcoin is a fun little toy in today's world and hardly anything more.  In a world where it is really needed there is nearly no chance that it won't be viciously attacked by those who are threatened.

The attacks possible (and likely in my opinion) against Bitcoin will drastically shrink the available bandwidth and the reliability the network.  I don't give two shits what the capacity of todays or tomorrows 'consumer grade' bandwidth may be.  It's an irrelevance in a situation where it matters.  And even in situations where it does not (mainstream monetary systems are working fine) there is a high likelihood that the global internet will become more restrictive and less free for other reasons.

Bitcoin really only has value to me if I can have some confidence that it will be supportable under vigorous attacks.  I suspect there are many others who feel similarly and enough to result in some pretty high valuations.  If Bitcoin can succeed here then that success will be (potentially) available to solutions which use Bitcoin as a backing.  Sidechains would be a good example, and by their nature they are quickly adaptable and a whack-a-mole headache to attackers.

It is this potential to possibly succeed which give Bitcoin it's value.  Fortunately for Bitcoin, most of the alts are not really vying for this market-space since the very thought of a hostile global internet is widely considered to be some sort of crazed conspiricy theory...and it's no fun to restrict ones code anyway.

As I've mentioned ad-nauseam recently it does not matter how big or small the transaction rate, fees, or coinbase.  Bitcoin is economically doomed relying on the normally assumed rewards.  This because the hashing power grows at a rate proportional to the reward so it relatively quickly becomes unprofitable no matter what the reward.  Hashing gear is durable however, so it does not shrink.  Maybe it can find something else to do or maybe not.  Sidechains could help resolve this economic dilemma because they must support Bitcoin at a loss if need be...they cannot afford to let native Bitcoin be unhealthy.

The above para means that nothing good economically can be achieved by increasing the block size.  The only thing doing so could achieve would be to make the solution more bloated and thus more easy to attack.  To add insult to injury, the piss-ant 10x or 20x size increases would chase out another big tranche of enthusiast class infrastructure providers and not come close to supporting even a mid-sized exchange economy anyway.  At least by my seat-of-the-pants estimation.

---

Just a brief word about Bitcoin's competitiveness as an 'exchange currency'.  It sucks.  The system is a marvel of inefficiency because it was architecture to be resistant to some aspect of the kind of nightmare attack scenarios that I allude to.  Just look at the real cost of providing a transaction...it's laughably high.  Also there is no reason to suspect that mainstream systems are ever going to become more secure to the Joe Sixpack class user so he'll always be struggling with secret keys.  And, of course, there is the block latency which requires various shortcuts, workarounds, and throwing out of some of the security features that Bitcoin crows about in the first place.  Bitcoin is also just (barely) subversive enough to create all kinds of legal-ish and regulatory-ish hassles that make it a real bitch to use, and I don't see that changing.  If it does change then Bitcoin loses almost any reason to be used.  The list goes on.

this is tvbcof on the day of the last plunge down to 155.  nice memorial.

[Wandererfromthenorth]

Bitcoin has clearly failed in an 'exchange' role as evidenced by still not needing to fiddle with the 7 tps transaction rate (1MB block size) and not being on a trajectory to need to do so any time soon.  The reason for this is abundantly clear and I've been saying so for years:  Bitcoin is simply not competitive in this role.
...

I don't fully get where you're coming from on this one. Does it all boil down to your assertion that blocksize increase would have to outrun Nielsen's law in order to sustain significant transaction throughput?

Forgive me for neglecting to answer your other questions, but I like to try to keep things tight, and this is important.

Firstly, Adam cast some pearls that I'm afraid went over most people's heads which is a shame.  He is not talking about exactly what I want to mention here, but the same principles apply:

...
Its a little risky to play steganography arms race though because they could bypass that (at the limit steganography wins)  by replacing
...

So, here's the deal:

Something can act as a reserve if it is rock solid in all circumstances.  Gold is a classic example.

If in the future things are as they are now from a regulatory point of view, there are all kinds of instruments which could serve my purposes.  I've long said that Bitcoin is a fun little toy in today's world and hardly anything more.  In a world where it is really needed there is nearly no chance that it won't be viciously attacked by those who are threatened.

The attacks possible (and likely in my opinion) against Bitcoin will drastically shrink the available bandwidth and the reliability the network. I don't give two shits what the capacity of todays or tomorrows 'consumer grade' bandwidth may be.  It's an irrelevance in a situation where it matters.  And even in situations where it does not (mainstream monetary systems are working fine) there is a high likelihood that the global internet will become more restrictive and less free for other reasons.

Bitcoin really only has value to me if I can have some confidence that it will be supportable under vigorous attacks.  I suspect there are many others who feel similarly and enough to result in some pretty high valuations.  If Bitcoin can succeed here then that success will be (potentially) available to solutions which use Bitcoin as a backing.  Sidechains would be a good example, and by their nature they are quickly adaptable and a whack-a-mole headache to attackers.

It is this potential to possibly succeed which give Bitcoin it's value.  Fortunately for Bitcoin, most of the alts are not really vying for this market-space since the very thought of a hostile global internet is widely considered to be some sort of crazed conspiricy theory...and it's no fun to restrict ones code anyway.

As I've mentioned ad-nauseam recently it does not matter how big or small the transaction rate, fees, or coinbase.  Bitcoin is economically doomed relying on the normally assumed rewards.  This because the hashing power grows at a rate proportional to the reward so it relatively quickly becomes unprofitable no matter what the reward.  Hashing gear is durable however, so it does not shrink.  Maybe it can find something else to do or maybe not.  Sidechains could help resolve this economic dilemma because they must support Bitcoin at a loss if need be...they cannot afford to let native Bitcoin be unhealthy.

The above para means that nothing good economically can be achieved by increasing the block size.  The only thing doing so could achieve would be to make the solution more bloated and thus more easy to attack.  To add insult to injury, the piss-ant 10x or 20x size increases would chase out another big tranche of enthusiast class infrastructure providers and not come close to supporting even a mid-sized exchange economy anyway.  At least by my seat-of-the-pants estimation.

---

Just a brief word about Bitcoin's competitiveness as an 'exchange currency'.  It sucks. The system is a marvel of inefficiency because it was architecture to be resistant to some aspect of the kind of nightmare attack scenarios that I allude to.  Just look at the real cost of providing a transaction...it's laughably high.  Also there is no reason to suspect that mainstream systems are ever going to become more secure to the Joe Sixpack class user so he'll always be struggling with secret keys.  And, of course, there is the block latency which requires various shortcuts, workarounds, and throwing out of some of the security features that Bitcoin crows about in the first place.  Bitcoin is also just (barely) subversive enough to create all kinds of legal-ish and regulatory-ish hassles that make it a real bitch to use, and I don't see that changing.  If it does change then Bitcoin loses almost any reason to be used. The list goes on.

this is tvbcof on the day of the last plunge down to 155.  nice memorial.

Why are you mentioning short term price action with regards to what he said (he didn't even mention current price)?
Some of them are good points IMHO.

I hope you don't believe that price pumping short term (or even medium-long term for that matter) means that not even some of his arguments are valid or something...

[cypherdoc]

Bitcoin has clearly failed in an 'exchange' role as evidenced by still not needing to fiddle with the 7 tps transaction rate (1MB block size) and not being on a trajectory to need to do so any time soon.  The reason for this is abundantly clear and I've been saying so for years:  Bitcoin is simply not competitive in this role.
...

I don't fully get where you're coming from on this one. Does it all boil down to your assertion that blocksize increase would have to outrun Nielsen's law in order to sustain significant transaction throughput?

Forgive me for neglecting to answer your other questions, but I like to try to keep things tight, and this is important.

Firstly, Adam cast some pearls that I'm afraid went over most people's heads which is a shame.  He is not talking about exactly what I want to mention here, but the same principles apply:

...
Its a little risky to play steganography arms race though because they could bypass that (at the limit steganography wins)  by replacing
...

So, here's the deal:

Something can act as a reserve if it is rock solid in all circumstances.  Gold is a classic example.

If in the future things are as they are now from a regulatory point of view, there are all kinds of instruments which could serve my purposes.  I've long said that Bitcoin is a fun little toy in today's world and hardly anything more.  In a world where it is really needed there is nearly no chance that it won't be viciously attacked by those who are threatened.

The attacks possible (and likely in my opinion) against Bitcoin will drastically shrink the available bandwidth and the reliability the network. I don't give two shits what the capacity of todays or tomorrows 'consumer grade' bandwidth may be.  It's an irrelevance in a situation where it matters.  And even in situations where it does not (mainstream monetary systems are working fine) there is a high likelihood that the global internet will become more restrictive and less free for other reasons.

Bitcoin really only has value to me if I can have some confidence that it will be supportable under vigorous attacks.  I suspect there are many others who feel similarly and enough to result in some pretty high valuations.  If Bitcoin can succeed here then that success will be (potentially) available to solutions which use Bitcoin as a backing.  Sidechains would be a good example, and by their nature they are quickly adaptable and a whack-a-mole headache to attackers.

It is this potential to possibly succeed which give Bitcoin it's value.  Fortunately for Bitcoin, most of the alts are not really vying for this market-space since the very thought of a hostile global internet is widely considered to be some sort of crazed conspiricy theory...and it's no fun to restrict ones code anyway.

As I've mentioned ad-nauseam recently it does not matter how big or small the transaction rate, fees, or coinbase.  Bitcoin is economically doomed relying on the normally assumed rewards.  This because the hashing power grows at a rate proportional to the reward so it relatively quickly becomes unprofitable no matter what the reward.  Hashing gear is durable however, so it does not shrink.  Maybe it can find something else to do or maybe not.  Sidechains could help resolve this economic dilemma because they must support Bitcoin at a loss if need be...they cannot afford to let native Bitcoin be unhealthy.

The above para means that nothing good economically can be achieved by increasing the block size.  The only thing doing so could achieve would be to make the solution more bloated and thus more easy to attack.  To add insult to injury, the piss-ant 10x or 20x size increases would chase out another big tranche of enthusiast class infrastructure providers and not come close to supporting even a mid-sized exchange economy anyway.  At least by my seat-of-the-pants estimation.

---

Just a brief word about Bitcoin's competitiveness as an 'exchange currency'.  It sucks. The system is a marvel of inefficiency because it was architecture to be resistant to some aspect of the kind of nightmare attack scenarios that I allude to.  Just look at the real cost of providing a transaction...it's laughably high.  Also there is no reason to suspect that mainstream systems are ever going to become more secure to the Joe Sixpack class user so he'll always be struggling with secret keys.  And, of course, there is the block latency which requires various shortcuts, workarounds, and throwing out of some of the security features that Bitcoin crows about in the first place.  Bitcoin is also just (barely) subversive enough to create all kinds of legal-ish and regulatory-ish hassles that make it a real bitch to use, and I don't see that changing.  If it does change then Bitcoin loses almost any reason to be used. The list goes on.

this is tvbcof on the day of the last plunge down to 155.  nice memorial.

Why are you mentioning short term price action with regards to what he said (he didn't even mention current price)?
Some of them are good points IMHO.

I hope you don't believe that price pumping short term (or even medium-long term for that matter) means that not even some of his arguments are valid or something...

you can stop hoping right there.  i think his concerns are invalid.

[Wandererfromthenorth]

Bitcoin has clearly failed in an 'exchange' role as evidenced by still not needing to fiddle with the 7 tps transaction rate (1MB block size) and not being on a trajectory to need to do so any time soon.  The reason for this is abundantly clear and I've been saying so for years:  Bitcoin is simply not competitive in this role.
...

I don't fully get where you're coming from on this one. Does it all boil down to your assertion that blocksize increase would have to outrun Nielsen's law in order to sustain significant transaction throughput?

Forgive me for neglecting to answer your other questions, but I like to try to keep things tight, and this is important.

Firstly, Adam cast some pearls that I'm afraid went over most people's heads which is a shame.  He is not talking about exactly what I want to mention here, but the same principles apply:

...
Its a little risky to play steganography arms race though because they could bypass that (at the limit steganography wins)  by replacing
...

So, here's the deal:

Something can act as a reserve if it is rock solid in all circumstances.  Gold is a classic example.

If in the future things are as they are now from a regulatory point of view, there are all kinds of instruments which could serve my purposes.  I've long said that Bitcoin is a fun little toy in today's world and hardly anything more.  In a world where it is really needed there is nearly no chance that it won't be viciously attacked by those who are threatened.

The attacks possible (and likely in my opinion) against Bitcoin will drastically shrink the available bandwidth and the reliability the network. I don't give two shits what the capacity of todays or tomorrows 'consumer grade' bandwidth may be.  It's an irrelevance in a situation where it matters.  And even in situations where it does not (mainstream monetary systems are working fine) there is a high likelihood that the global internet will become more restrictive and less free for other reasons.

Bitcoin really only has value to me if I can have some confidence that it will be supportable under vigorous attacks.  I suspect there are many others who feel similarly and enough to result in some pretty high valuations.  If Bitcoin can succeed here then that success will be (potentially) available to solutions which use Bitcoin as a backing.  Sidechains would be a good example, and by their nature they are quickly adaptable and a whack-a-mole headache to attackers.

It is this potential to possibly succeed which give Bitcoin it's value.  Fortunately for Bitcoin, most of the alts are not really vying for this market-space since the very thought of a hostile global internet is widely considered to be some sort of crazed conspiricy theory...and it's no fun to restrict ones code anyway.

As I've mentioned ad-nauseam recently it does not matter how big or small the transaction rate, fees, or coinbase.  Bitcoin is economically doomed relying on the normally assumed rewards.  This because the hashing power grows at a rate proportional to the reward so it relatively quickly becomes unprofitable no matter what the reward.  Hashing gear is durable however, so it does not shrink.  Maybe it can find something else to do or maybe not.  Sidechains could help resolve this economic dilemma because they must support Bitcoin at a loss if need be...they cannot afford to let native Bitcoin be unhealthy.

The above para means that nothing good economically can be achieved by increasing the block size.  The only thing doing so could achieve would be to make the solution more bloated and thus more easy to attack.  To add insult to injury, the piss-ant 10x or 20x size increases would chase out another big tranche of enthusiast class infrastructure providers and not come close to supporting even a mid-sized exchange economy anyway.  At least by my seat-of-the-pants estimation.

---

Just a brief word about Bitcoin's competitiveness as an 'exchange currency'.  It sucks. The system is a marvel of inefficiency because it was architecture to be resistant to some aspect of the kind of nightmare attack scenarios that I allude to.  Just look at the real cost of providing a transaction...it's laughably high.  Also there is no reason to suspect that mainstream systems are ever going to become more secure to the Joe Sixpack class user so he'll always be struggling with secret keys.  And, of course, there is the block latency which requires various shortcuts, workarounds, and throwing out of some of the security features that Bitcoin crows about in the first place.  Bitcoin is also just (barely) subversive enough to create all kinds of legal-ish and regulatory-ish hassles that make it a real bitch to use, and I don't see that changing.  If it does change then Bitcoin loses almost any reason to be used. The list goes on.

this is tvbcof on the day of the last plunge down to 155.  nice memorial.

Why are you mentioning short term price action with regards to what he said (he didn't even mention current price)?
Some of them are good points IMHO.

I hope you don't believe that price pumping short term (or even medium-long term for that matter) means that not even some of his arguments are valid or something...

you can stop hoping right there.  i think his concerns are invalid.

In that case you don't think it's more appropriate to provide arguments against his views instead of mentioning price at the time of his post which has little relevance at all?

[cypherdoc]

Bitcoin has clearly failed in an 'exchange' role as evidenced by still not needing to fiddle with the 7 tps transaction rate (1MB block size) and not being on a trajectory to need to do so any time soon.  The reason for this is abundantly clear and I've been saying so for years:  Bitcoin is simply not competitive in this role.
...

I don't fully get where you're coming from on this one. Does it all boil down to your assertion that blocksize increase would have to outrun Nielsen's law in order to sustain significant transaction throughput?

Forgive me for neglecting to answer your other questions, but I like to try to keep things tight, and this is important.

Firstly, Adam cast some pearls that I'm afraid went over most people's heads which is a shame.  He is not talking about exactly what I want to mention here, but the same principles apply:

...
Its a little risky to play steganography arms race though because they could bypass that (at the limit steganography wins)  by replacing
...

So, here's the deal:

Something can act as a reserve if it is rock solid in all circumstances.  Gold is a classic example.

If in the future things are as they are now from a regulatory point of view, there are all kinds of instruments which could serve my purposes.  I've long said that Bitcoin is a fun little toy in today's world and hardly anything more.  In a world where it is really needed there is nearly no chance that it won't be viciously attacked by those who are threatened.

The attacks possible (and likely in my opinion) against Bitcoin will drastically shrink the available bandwidth and the reliability the network. I don't give two shits what the capacity of todays or tomorrows 'consumer grade' bandwidth may be.  It's an irrelevance in a situation where it matters.  And even in situations where it does not (mainstream monetary systems are working fine) there is a high likelihood that the global internet will become more restrictive and less free for other reasons.

Bitcoin really only has value to me if I can have some confidence that it will be supportable under vigorous attacks.  I suspect there are many others who feel similarly and enough to result in some pretty high valuations.  If Bitcoin can succeed here then that success will be (potentially) available to solutions which use Bitcoin as a backing.  Sidechains would be a good example, and by their nature they are quickly adaptable and a whack-a-mole headache to attackers.

It is this potential to possibly succeed which give Bitcoin it's value.  Fortunately for Bitcoin, most of the alts are not really vying for this market-space since the very thought of a hostile global internet is widely considered to be some sort of crazed conspiricy theory...and it's no fun to restrict ones code anyway.

As I've mentioned ad-nauseam recently it does not matter how big or small the transaction rate, fees, or coinbase.  Bitcoin is economically doomed relying on the normally assumed rewards.  This because the hashing power grows at a rate proportional to the reward so it relatively quickly becomes unprofitable no matter what the reward.  Hashing gear is durable however, so it does not shrink.  Maybe it can find something else to do or maybe not.  Sidechains could help resolve this economic dilemma because they must support Bitcoin at a loss if need be...they cannot afford to let native Bitcoin be unhealthy.

The above para means that nothing good economically can be achieved by increasing the block size.  The only thing doing so could achieve would be to make the solution more bloated and thus more easy to attack.  To add insult to injury, the piss-ant 10x or 20x size increases would chase out another big tranche of enthusiast class infrastructure providers and not come close to supporting even a mid-sized exchange economy anyway.  At least by my seat-of-the-pants estimation.

---

Just a brief word about Bitcoin's competitiveness as an 'exchange currency'.  It sucks. The system is a marvel of inefficiency because it was architecture to be resistant to some aspect of the kind of nightmare attack scenarios that I allude to.  Just look at the real cost of providing a transaction...it's laughably high.  Also there is no reason to suspect that mainstream systems are ever going to become more secure to the Joe Sixpack class user so he'll always be struggling with secret keys.  And, of course, there is the block latency which requires various shortcuts, workarounds, and throwing out of some of the security features that Bitcoin crows about in the first place.  Bitcoin is also just (barely) subversive enough to create all kinds of legal-ish and regulatory-ish hassles that make it a real bitch to use, and I don't see that changing.  If it does change then Bitcoin loses almost any reason to be used. The list goes on.

this is tvbcof on the day of the last plunge down to 155.  nice memorial.

Why are you mentioning short term price action with regards to what he said (he didn't even mention current price)?
Some of them are good points IMHO.

I hope you don't believe that price pumping short term (or even medium-long term for that matter) means that not even some of his arguments are valid or something...

you can stop hoping right there.  i think his concerns are invalid.

In that case you don't think it's more appropriate to provide arguments against his views instead of mentioning price at the time of his post which has little relevance at all?

i have 4 yrs worth of arguments against his positions littered throughout this thread.  just because you, as a newbie troll, can't be bothered to go back and read up on those arguments doesn't mean i haven't provided them.

let's be clear; tvbcof and i disagree on everything.  if he says black, i say white.  that's just a fact.  i'd put him on ignore if he weren't so amusing.

[cypherdoc]

http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/03/09/scaling-bitcoin-to-its-first-billion-users-and-beyond-2/

Maybe define the interconnectedness of ledgers as the inverse of the cost to move money between them.  But this cost function is not just exchange fees.  It would ideally take into account the amortized cost to set up and maintain accounts in various exchanges, the time value of the money while it is inaccessible (presumably the inter-ledger exchange takes more time then intra-ledger exchange), and other such externalities.

if i'm not mistaken, he's talking about other blockchains, like those of altcoins and sidechains.

[Wandererfromthenorth]

^Quite nervous today are we?

I'm no "newbie troll" dude.


All I meant is that your post "you said this stuff but you said it before a pump therefore it's bullshit" was childish. That is all.

[cypherdoc]

^Quite nervous today are we?

I'm no "newbie troll" dude.


All I meant is that your post "you said this stuff but you said it before a pump therefore it's bullshit" was childish. That is all.

no, i'm pointing out that the tenor and content of his posts follow along with the price and reflect his emotional attachment to it.  that's pretty clear.

[tabnloz]

'Last month the Deputy Managing Director of the IMF, Japan’s Naoyuki Shinohara, openly stated that emerging markets in Asia should begin the process of de-dollarisation “to mitigate against external shocks and constraining the central bank’s ability as lender of last resort.”'

http://www.goldcore.com/ie/gold-blog/currency-wars-continue-imf-concedes-end-dollar-hegemony/?utm_content=12813987&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

[thezerg]

http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/03/09/scaling-bitcoin-to-its-first-billion-users-and-beyond-2/

Maybe define the interconnectedness of ledgers as the inverse of the cost to move money between them.  But this cost function is not just exchange fees.  It would ideally take into account the amortized cost to set up and maintain accounts in various exchanges, the time value of the money while it is inaccessible (presumably the inter-ledger exchange takes more time then intra-ledger exchange), and other such externalities.

if i'm not mistaken, he's talking about other blockchains, like those of altcoins and sidechains.

I think you could generalize to all ledgers including implicit ones like fiat currencies.

[justusranvier]

http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/03/09/scaling-bitcoin-to-its-first-billion-users-and-beyond-2/

Maybe define the interconnectedness of ledgers as the inverse of the cost to move money between them.  But this cost function is not just exchange fees.  It would ideally take into account the amortized cost to set up and maintain accounts in various exchanges, the time value of the money while it is inaccessible (presumably the inter-ledger exchange takes more time then intra-ledger exchange), and other such externalities.

if i'm not mistaken, he's talking about other blockchains, like those of altcoins and sidechains.

I think you could generalize to all ledgers including implicit ones like fiat currencies.

I have worked out a way of discussing the network effect as it relates to the interaction between Bitcoin, other blockchains, sidechains, various off-chain systems, and fiat currencies, and conversion friction is the centrepiece of that method, and I'm saving it for a future article because nobody seems to read the 4500 word ones.

[thezerg]

http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/03/09/scaling-bitcoin-to-its-first-billion-users-and-beyond-2/

Maybe define the interconnectedness of ledgers as the inverse of the cost to move money between them.  But this cost function is not just exchange fees.  It would ideally take into account the amortized cost to set up and maintain accounts in various exchanges, the time value of the money while it is inaccessible (presumably the inter-ledger exchange takes more time then intra-ledger exchange), and other such externalities.

if i'm not mistaken, he's talking about other blockchains, like those of altcoins and sidechains.

I think you could generalize to all ledgers including implicit ones like fiat currencies.

I have worked out a way of discussing the network effect as it relates to the interaction between Bitcoin, other blockchains, sidechains, various off-chain systems, and fiat currencies, and conversion friction is the centrepiece of that method, and I'm saving it for a future article because nobody seems to read the 4500 word ones.

That will be a fascinating article.  Since the triple bubble I've thought that BTC and social media would force a rewrite of the intro to economics textbook and I think you're writing a chapter here.

[cypherdoc]

http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/03/09/scaling-bitcoin-to-its-first-billion-users-and-beyond-2/

Maybe define the interconnectedness of ledgers as the inverse of the cost to move money between them.  But this cost function is not just exchange fees.  It would ideally take into account the amortized cost to set up and maintain accounts in various exchanges, the time value of the money while it is inaccessible (presumably the inter-ledger exchange takes more time then intra-ledger exchange), and other such externalities.

if i'm not mistaken, he's talking about other blockchains, like those of altcoins and sidechains.

I think you could generalize to all ledgers including implicit ones like fiat currencies.

I have worked out a way of discussing the network effect as it relates to the interaction between Bitcoin, other blockchains, sidechains, various off-chain systems, and fiat currencies, and conversion friction is the centrepiece of that method, and I'm saving it for a future article because nobody seems to read the 4500 word ones.

you mean a 2wp that locks up your money for at least a 2d minimum, may also force you to post a bounty, & is at high risk of being stolen is considered friction?

[justusranvier]

I think you're writing a chapter here.

The more articles I write, the longer my backlog of articles I need to write becomes.

I'm not sure I like where this trend is going...

you mean a 2wp that locks up your money for at least a 2d minimum, may also force you to post a bounty, & is at high risk of being stolen is considered friction?

There's good news and bad news:

They are right that increased adoption on sidechains would increase the exchange rate of Bitcoins via the network effect, but not as much as if that friction didn't exist (all transactions on one chain).

Note that is a separate issue from the effect sidechains could have on mining incentives and the reliability of PoW itself.

[cypherdoc]

Gold collapsing.  Bitcoin UP.

nice ramp in the dollar going on right now.  something's up.

[sidhujag]

Gold collapsing.  Bitcoin UP.

nice ramp in the dollar going on right now.  something's up.

Probably going after 100.. Funny that bitcoin is rising at same time.. Correlation shifting or just great trading opportunity.

[cypherdoc]

Gold collapsing.  Bitcoin UP.

nice ramp in the dollar going on right now.  something's up.

Probably going after 100.. Funny that bitcoin is rising at same time.. Correlation shifting or just great trading opportunity.

i don't think it's funny at all.  it's expected after such a prolonged, deep pullback.

if anything, it's a warning notice to anything dollar related including stock and bonds.  i'm beginning to think we'll have one more push up for the dollar followed by a potential collapse.  UST's would be bought as a result as i don't believe in the next crisis that both can go up as they did in 2008.  we'll see.