Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[molecular]

The 1MB block size limit is completely incompatible with the dream of BTC being used by everyone for everything.  Many people seem glued to that fantasy and it colors their vision of the future of Bitcoin.

This is absolutely no problem. Once transaction replacement gets enabled again, we can do most transactions outside the blockchain without any security loss and with the added benefit of instant settlement and much higher anonymity.

Transaction replacement? Have a pointer to where this is explained?

[1713502602]

1713502602

[1713502602]

1713502602

[wareen]

The 1MB block size limit is completely incompatible with the dream of BTC being used by everyone for everything.  Many people seem glued to that fantasy and it colors their vision of the future of Bitcoin.

This is absolutely no problem. Once transaction replacement gets enabled again, we can do most transactions outside the blockchain without any security loss and with the added benefit of instant settlement and much higher anonymity.

Transaction replacement? Have a pointer to where this is explained?

Maybe not the best, but here's a thread discussing it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=23501.0
Basically it is the possibility to replace a transaction with a newer version within a certain predetermined time-window.
The particular use case I was referring to is a variant of example 7 on https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts.

[tvbcof]

The 1MB block size limit is completely incompatible with the dream of BTC being used by everyone for everything.  Many people seem glued to that fantasy and it colors their vision of the future of Bitcoin.

This is absolutely no problem. Once transaction replacement gets enabled again, we can do most transactions outside the blockchain without any security loss and with the added benefit of instant settlement and much higher anonymity.

There are other solutions to this "problem" as well; the Bitcoin protocol is much more versatile as the way we are using it today might imply. If you really think this is a show stopper then I suggest you delve a bit deeper into the Bitcoin protocol.

Of course the protocol is versatile.  That's why it is implemented with scripting.  There's a reason why transaction replacement was turned off you know.  Complexity adds risk.

If you want to elaborate on your theories about how transaction replacement will act as a cure-all which facilitates the dreams of everyone's skittles, SD bet, and goat cheese sale the world over, I'd listen.

Else I'm happy just to correct the mis-conception that I see a 'show stopper' in a modest block-size limiting the potential of the Bitcoin solution.  It's just the opposite in fact...I suspect that it will be the main thing which could save it.

[miscreanity]

Every time gold has been dragged along for a prolonged period, the selling exhausts itself in a spike just like we're seeing - this will be the third failure.

The result is going to be violent because it is a bubble short position, meaning the market is shorted by weak hands beyond anything I have seen before.

Maguire - Stunning 225 Tons of Physical Gold Bought By CBs

Whistleblower - Gold & Silver Smash Orchestrated By The BIS

'Huge GLD Metal Reduction' Scary Buying Op?

[wareen]

If you want to elaborate on your theories about how transaction replacement will act as a cure-all which facilitates the dreams of everyone's skittles, SD bet, and goat cheese sale the world over, I'd listen.

lol
That's probably not the thread for it but I basically see the future of Bitcoin neither in mining supernodes (which would kinda centralize Bitcoin) and also not in some kind of probabilistic transaction verification (i.e. not every node has to receive/verify all transactions, as long as you can make guarantees about "enough" nodes having verified each subset). These would be two alternative solutions to the blockchain scalability problem. I believe we'll have payment services that can be completely untrusted but act as a brokers between their users. Every user of such a service would have a certain amount "locked in" for say a month. Locked in means that they agreed (without any risk) on a pair of transactions which cancel each other out unless they get replaced before the month is over. By sending the service a replacement version of the reverse transaction that does not pay the user back the full amount you can effectively pay something to the service in a secure and instant fashion without having to use the blockchain. You can also use this mechanism to settle bills with other users of the same payment service in a similar way and everybody can do a million micro-transactions without ever needing to do more than two transactions per month in the blockchain (the rest ist P2P, out of band).
Another intriguing idea is the ultimate blockchain compression which would also solve the blockchain scalability problem.

Else I'm happy just to correct the mis-conception that I see a 'show stopper' in a modest block-size limiting the potential of the Bitcoin solution.  It's just the opposite in fact...I suspect that it will be the main thing which could save it.

I apologize if I misunderstood you or came across as harsh, I just happen to see Bitcoin's main problems not on the technical level. I don't pretend to know the best solution to each and every shortcoming of the current implementation but I have yet to hear about a single one that's not being actively thought about and where I can't see at least a few convincing proposals to remedy the problem.

[tvbcof]

... <in the interest of trying to maintain the thread topic.>

Else I'm happy just to correct the mis-conception that I see a 'show stopper' in a modest block-size limiting the potential of the Bitcoin solution.  It's just the opposite in fact...I suspect that it will be the main thing which could save it.

I apologize if I misunderstood you or came across as harsh, I just happen to see Bitcoin's main problems not on the technical level. I don't pretend to know the best solution to each and every shortcoming of the current implementation but I have yet to hear about a single one that's not being actively thought about and where I can't see at least a few convincing proposals to remedy the problem.

My general feeling is that complexity, and especially dynamic feedback constructs, scare the shit out of me.  What we have now in Bitcoin works(*) and is good enough to build isolated systems off of.  Doing so will foster competition and evolution and will serve the purpose of providing individuals with solutions which will best fit their needs.  Some of the solutions will be scams and people will get burnt which is a shame, but one cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs as they say.  Again, a reliable backing such as Bitcoin for independent efforts is a really valuable thing in and of itself.

In a nutshell I am of the mindset that it is better to quit while we are ahead.  I believe that we've yet to face the biggest challenges which will occur if/when the system starts to threaten other mainstream solutions and we are inching closer to doing just that.  Not even 'inching' any more in fact.

(*) Actually we don't know exactly how well it works until we run into the block size limit, and probably some other things as well.  I believe that in Bitcoin's simplified protocol form of today there is a good chance that it will prove robust to technical exploits.  Further developments of more complex constructs will make it exponentially more likely that Bitcoin could suffer a protocol related failure.

[cypherdoc]

personally, i think it would less disruptive to the current monetary system if we could preserve the fiat overlay.  from day 1, i've always thought that Bitcoin could be used as world reserve standard; a gold standard if you will.  it would be a throwback to the old system we had prior to 1971 but digital.  it could ideally take the place that gold once held and perform a nightly digital balance of payment system between countries.  it would be fast, quick, and highly efficient and would prevent countries from issuing too much fiat or debt.

in that sense, Bitcoin would not have to change it's block size or increase it's complexity as it would be used mainly for very large transactions according to the above model.  yes, each Bitcoin would be worth an exorbitant amount as a result but hey, you have to think big and this would be the cost that the fiat money pushers would have to pay to preserve their corrupt system.  we can either take it from them forcefully or they can opt to work with a disruptive new technological system.  this concept is not unheard of as many gold bugs have recommended exactly this but using gold.  

it would be an enormous transfer of wealth to Bitcoin holders.  but again, those of us who were early adopters and contributed time, money, effort, talent, intellect, and hardware to growing this system deserve to reap the benefits.

[notme]

personally, i think it would less disruptive to the current monetary system if we could preserve the fiat overlay.  from day 1, i've always thought that Bitcoin could be used as world reserve standard; a gold standard if you will.  it would be a throwback to the old system we had prior to 1971 but digital.  it could ideally take the place that gold once held and perform a nightly digital balance of payment system between countries.  it would be fast, quick, and highly efficient and would prevent countries from issuing too much fiat or debt.

in that sense, Bitcoin would not have to change it's block size or increase it's complexity as it would be used mainly for very large transactions according to the above model.  yes, each Bitcoin would be worth an exorbitant amount as a result but hey, you have to think big and this would be the cost that the fiat money pushers would have to pay to preserve their corrupt system.  we can either take it from them forcefully or they can opt to work with a disruptive new technological system.  this concept is not unheard of as many gold bugs have recommended exactly this but using gold.  

it would be an enormous transfer of wealth to Bitcoin holders.  but again, those of us who were early adopters and contributed time, money, effort, talent, intellect, and hardware to growing this system deserve to reap the benefits.

Why can't they just start their own blockchain?  I agree that the bitcoin model of clearing transactions is superior to the existing banking system, but I don't see why they couldn't start their own coin so they can get more of the initial mining proceeds and not transfer away as much wealth.

[cypherdoc]

personally, i think it would less disruptive to the current monetary system if we could preserve the fiat overlay.  from day 1, i've always thought that Bitcoin could be used as world reserve standard; a gold standard if you will.  it would be a throwback to the old system we had prior to 1971 but digital.  it could ideally take the place that gold once held and perform a nightly digital balance of payment system between countries.  it would be fast, quick, and highly efficient and would prevent countries from issuing too much fiat or debt.

in that sense, Bitcoin would not have to change it's block size or increase it's complexity as it would be used mainly for very large transactions according to the above model.  yes, each Bitcoin would be worth an exorbitant amount as a result but hey, you have to think big and this would be the cost that the fiat money pushers would have to pay to preserve their corrupt system.  we can either take it from them forcefully or they can opt to work with a disruptive new technological system.  this concept is not unheard of as many gold bugs have recommended exactly this but using gold.  

it would be an enormous transfer of wealth to Bitcoin holders.  but again, those of us who were early adopters and contributed time, money, effort, talent, intellect, and hardware to growing this system deserve to reap the benefits.

Why can't they just start their own blockchain?  I agree that the bitcoin model of clearing transactions is superior to the existing banking system, but I don't see why they couldn't start their own coin so they can get more of the initial mining proceeds and not transfer away as much wealth.

but who's going to support their chain?  the reason ppl are buying into Bitcoin is b/c it has the right mix of principles that the average person can relate to and is happy with.

can you imagine what type of principles governing their chain that the gov't would come up with?  probably something like a Ripple where the originators get to keep 20% of the original coin, lol.  what a farce.  that's why i'm not a fan of Ripple and would never support it.  chains have to support the majority of participants, not just the interests of a few.

[notme]

personally, i think it would less disruptive to the current monetary system if we could preserve the fiat overlay.  from day 1, i've always thought that Bitcoin could be used as world reserve standard; a gold standard if you will.  it would be a throwback to the old system we had prior to 1971 but digital.  it could ideally take the place that gold once held and perform a nightly digital balance of payment system between countries.  it would be fast, quick, and highly efficient and would prevent countries from issuing too much fiat or debt.

in that sense, Bitcoin would not have to change it's block size or increase it's complexity as it would be used mainly for very large transactions according to the above model.  yes, each Bitcoin would be worth an exorbitant amount as a result but hey, you have to think big and this would be the cost that the fiat money pushers would have to pay to preserve their corrupt system.  we can either take it from them forcefully or they can opt to work with a disruptive new technological system.  this concept is not unheard of as many gold bugs have recommended exactly this but using gold.  

it would be an enormous transfer of wealth to Bitcoin holders.  but again, those of us who were early adopters and contributed time, money, effort, talent, intellect, and hardware to growing this system deserve to reap the benefits.

Why can't they just start their own blockchain?  I agree that the bitcoin model of clearing transactions is superior to the existing banking system, but I don't see why they couldn't start their own coin so they can get more of the initial mining proceeds and not transfer away as much wealth.

but who's going to support their chain?  the reason ppl are buying into Bitcoin is b/c it has the right mix of principles that the average person can relate to and is happy with.

can you imagine what type of principles governing their chain that the gov't would come up with?  probably something like a Ripple where the originators get to keep 20% of the original coin, lol.  what a farce.  that's why i'm not a fan of Ripple and would never support it.  chains have to support the majority of participants, not just the interests of a few.

Ideally, yes, but I don't see any properties of chains that require this.  If the governments are able to force it on people with legal tender laws, people may not support it, but they will use it.

[cypherdoc]

personally, i think it would less disruptive to the current monetary system if we could preserve the fiat overlay.  from day 1, i've always thought that Bitcoin could be used as world reserve standard; a gold standard if you will.  it would be a throwback to the old system we had prior to 1971 but digital.  it could ideally take the place that gold once held and perform a nightly digital balance of payment system between countries.  it would be fast, quick, and highly efficient and would prevent countries from issuing too much fiat or debt.

in that sense, Bitcoin would not have to change it's block size or increase it's complexity as it would be used mainly for very large transactions according to the above model.  yes, each Bitcoin would be worth an exorbitant amount as a result but hey, you have to think big and this would be the cost that the fiat money pushers would have to pay to preserve their corrupt system.  we can either take it from them forcefully or they can opt to work with a disruptive new technological system.  this concept is not unheard of as many gold bugs have recommended exactly this but using gold.  

it would be an enormous transfer of wealth to Bitcoin holders.  but again, those of us who were early adopters and contributed time, money, effort, talent, intellect, and hardware to growing this system deserve to reap the benefits.

Why can't they just start their own blockchain?  I agree that the bitcoin model of clearing transactions is superior to the existing banking system, but I don't see why they couldn't start their own coin so they can get more of the initial mining proceeds and not transfer away as much wealth.

but who's going to support their chain?  the reason ppl are buying into Bitcoin is b/c it has the right mix of principles that the average person can relate to and is happy with.

can you imagine what type of principles governing their chain that the gov't would come up with?  probably something like a Ripple where the originators get to keep 20% of the original coin, lol.  what a farce.  that's why i'm not a fan of Ripple and would never support it.  chains have to support the majority of participants, not just the interests of a few.

Ideally, yes, but I don't see any properties of chains that require this.  If the governments are able to force it on people with legal tender laws, people may not support it, but they will use it.

might as well just stick with the current fiat system then.  why bother with a chain?

problem with either system the gov't enforces, ppl don't like it and will look to alternatives.

[notme]

personally, i think it would less disruptive to the current monetary system if we could preserve the fiat overlay.  from day 1, i've always thought that Bitcoin could be used as world reserve standard; a gold standard if you will.  it would be a throwback to the old system we had prior to 1971 but digital.  it could ideally take the place that gold once held and perform a nightly digital balance of payment system between countries.  it would be fast, quick, and highly efficient and would prevent countries from issuing too much fiat or debt.

in that sense, Bitcoin would not have to change it's block size or increase it's complexity as it would be used mainly for very large transactions according to the above model.  yes, each Bitcoin would be worth an exorbitant amount as a result but hey, you have to think big and this would be the cost that the fiat money pushers would have to pay to preserve their corrupt system.  we can either take it from them forcefully or they can opt to work with a disruptive new technological system.  this concept is not unheard of as many gold bugs have recommended exactly this but using gold.  

it would be an enormous transfer of wealth to Bitcoin holders.  but again, those of us who were early adopters and contributed time, money, effort, talent, intellect, and hardware to growing this system deserve to reap the benefits.

Why can't they just start their own blockchain?  I agree that the bitcoin model of clearing transactions is superior to the existing banking system, but I don't see why they couldn't start their own coin so they can get more of the initial mining proceeds and not transfer away as much wealth.

but who's going to support their chain?  the reason ppl are buying into Bitcoin is b/c it has the right mix of principles that the average person can relate to and is happy with.

can you imagine what type of principles governing their chain that the gov't would come up with?  probably something like a Ripple where the originators get to keep 20% of the original coin, lol.  what a farce.  that's why i'm not a fan of Ripple and would never support it.  chains have to support the majority of participants, not just the interests of a few.

Ideally, yes, but I don't see any properties of chains that require this.  If the governments are able to force it on people with legal tender laws, people may not support it, but they will use it.

might as well just stick with the current fiat system then.  why bother with a chain?

problem with either system the gov't enforces, ppl don't like it and will look to alternatives.

They could even go so far as to duplicate bitcoin exactly if the concept is popular enough to threaten them.  There is no reason they would have to just roll over and pay up for bitcoins when they can clone it and make their clone legal tender.

[tvbcof]

Why can't they just start their own blockchain?  I agree that the bitcoin model of clearing transactions is superior to the existing banking system, but I don't see why they couldn't start their own coin so they can get more of the initial mining proceeds and not transfer away as much wealth.

The main reason to start one's own blockchain would be to exercise control (in the ways you mention.)  But the main thing that will build user faith in a blockchain is that nobody can exercise control.  It brings a smile to my face to think about the aggravation this corundum might cause to control freaks.

I project that Bitcoin will enjoy a lead as long as nobody can gain control.  And again, keeping it tight and accessible to a large number of potential operators is one of the reasons why I am so fixated on the block size issue.

Again also I had not understood Bitcoin sufficiently to recognize this small block size 'shortcoming' (or more accurately, how difficult it would be to 'rectify' it) and thus Bitcoin did not strike me as a suitable solution to act as a nearly perpetual backing store until fairly recently.

[cypherdoc]

personally, i think it would less disruptive to the current monetary system if we could preserve the fiat overlay.  from day 1, i've always thought that Bitcoin could be used as world reserve standard; a gold standard if you will.  it would be a throwback to the old system we had prior to 1971 but digital.  it could ideally take the place that gold once held and perform a nightly digital balance of payment system between countries.  it would be fast, quick, and highly efficient and would prevent countries from issuing too much fiat or debt.

in that sense, Bitcoin would not have to change it's block size or increase it's complexity as it would be used mainly for very large transactions according to the above model.  yes, each Bitcoin would be worth an exorbitant amount as a result but hey, you have to think big and this would be the cost that the fiat money pushers would have to pay to preserve their corrupt system.  we can either take it from them forcefully or they can opt to work with a disruptive new technological system.  this concept is not unheard of as many gold bugs have recommended exactly this but using gold.  

it would be an enormous transfer of wealth to Bitcoin holders.  but again, those of us who were early adopters and contributed time, money, effort, talent, intellect, and hardware to growing this system deserve to reap the benefits.

Why can't they just start their own blockchain?  I agree that the bitcoin model of clearing transactions is superior to the existing banking system, but I don't see why they couldn't start their own coin so they can get more of the initial mining proceeds and not transfer away as much wealth.

but who's going to support their chain?  the reason ppl are buying into Bitcoin is b/c it has the right mix of principles that the average person can relate to and is happy with.

can you imagine what type of principles governing their chain that the gov't would come up with?  probably something like a Ripple where the originators get to keep 20% of the original coin, lol.  what a farce.  that's why i'm not a fan of Ripple and would never support it.  chains have to support the majority of participants, not just the interests of a few.

Ideally, yes, but I don't see any properties of chains that require this.  If the governments are able to force it on people with legal tender laws, people may not support it, but they will use it.

might as well just stick with the current fiat system then.  why bother with a chain?

problem with either system the gov't enforces, ppl don't like it and will look to alternatives.

They could even go so far as to duplicate bitcoin exactly if the concept is popular enough to threaten them.  There is no reason they would have to just roll over and pay up for bitcoins when they can clone it and make their clone legal tender.

as tvbcof says below, blockchain success depends on voluntary participation, not force.

[notme]

personally, i think it would less disruptive to the current monetary system if we could preserve the fiat overlay.  from day 1, i've always thought that Bitcoin could be used as world reserve standard; a gold standard if you will.  it would be a throwback to the old system we had prior to 1971 but digital.  it could ideally take the place that gold once held and perform a nightly digital balance of payment system between countries.  it would be fast, quick, and highly efficient and would prevent countries from issuing too much fiat or debt.

in that sense, Bitcoin would not have to change it's block size or increase it's complexity as it would be used mainly for very large transactions according to the above model.  yes, each Bitcoin would be worth an exorbitant amount as a result but hey, you have to think big and this would be the cost that the fiat money pushers would have to pay to preserve their corrupt system.  we can either take it from them forcefully or they can opt to work with a disruptive new technological system.  this concept is not unheard of as many gold bugs have recommended exactly this but using gold.  

it would be an enormous transfer of wealth to Bitcoin holders.  but again, those of us who were early adopters and contributed time, money, effort, talent, intellect, and hardware to growing this system deserve to reap the benefits.

Why can't they just start their own blockchain?  I agree that the bitcoin model of clearing transactions is superior to the existing banking system, but I don't see why they couldn't start their own coin so they can get more of the initial mining proceeds and not transfer away as much wealth.

but who's going to support their chain?  the reason ppl are buying into Bitcoin is b/c it has the right mix of principles that the average person can relate to and is happy with.

can you imagine what type of principles governing their chain that the gov't would come up with?  probably something like a Ripple where the originators get to keep 20% of the original coin, lol.  what a farce.  that's why i'm not a fan of Ripple and would never support it.  chains have to support the majority of participants, not just the interests of a few.

Ideally, yes, but I don't see any properties of chains that require this.  If the governments are able to force it on people with legal tender laws, people may not support it, but they will use it.

might as well just stick with the current fiat system then.  why bother with a chain?

problem with either system the gov't enforces, ppl don't like it and will look to alternatives.

They could even go so far as to duplicate bitcoin exactly if the concept is popular enough to threaten them.  There is no reason they would have to just roll over and pay up for bitcoins when they can clone it and make their clone legal tender.

as tvbcof says below, blockchain success depends on voluntary participation, not force.

But if govcoin is required for taxes, won't it be a Gresham's law situation where the crapcoin is circulated while bitcoin is used for savings?

[cypherdoc]

personally, i think it would less disruptive to the current monetary system if we could preserve the fiat overlay.  from day 1, i've always thought that Bitcoin could be used as world reserve standard; a gold standard if you will.  it would be a throwback to the old system we had prior to 1971 but digital.  it could ideally take the place that gold once held and perform a nightly digital balance of payment system between countries.  it would be fast, quick, and highly efficient and would prevent countries from issuing too much fiat or debt.

in that sense, Bitcoin would not have to change it's block size or increase it's complexity as it would be used mainly for very large transactions according to the above model.  yes, each Bitcoin would be worth an exorbitant amount as a result but hey, you have to think big and this would be the cost that the fiat money pushers would have to pay to preserve their corrupt system.  we can either take it from them forcefully or they can opt to work with a disruptive new technological system.  this concept is not unheard of as many gold bugs have recommended exactly this but using gold.  

it would be an enormous transfer of wealth to Bitcoin holders.  but again, those of us who were early adopters and contributed time, money, effort, talent, intellect, and hardware to growing this system deserve to reap the benefits.

Why can't they just start their own blockchain?  I agree that the bitcoin model of clearing transactions is superior to the existing banking system, but I don't see why they couldn't start their own coin so they can get more of the initial mining proceeds and not transfer away as much wealth.

but who's going to support their chain?  the reason ppl are buying into Bitcoin is b/c it has the right mix of principles that the average person can relate to and is happy with.

can you imagine what type of principles governing their chain that the gov't would come up with?  probably something like a Ripple where the originators get to keep 20% of the original coin, lol.  what a farce.  that's why i'm not a fan of Ripple and would never support it.  chains have to support the majority of participants, not just the interests of a few.

Ideally, yes, but I don't see any properties of chains that require this.  If the governments are able to force it on people with legal tender laws, people may not support it, but they will use it.

might as well just stick with the current fiat system then.  why bother with a chain?

problem with either system the gov't enforces, ppl don't like it and will look to alternatives.

They could even go so far as to duplicate bitcoin exactly if the concept is popular enough to threaten them.  There is no reason they would have to just roll over and pay up for bitcoins when they can clone it and make their clone legal tender.

as tvbcof says below, blockchain success depends on voluntary participation, not force.

But if govcoin is required for taxes, won't it be a Gresham's law situation where the crapcoin is circulated while bitcoin is used for savings?

i think gov't is smart enough not even to go there in terms of trying to create a blockchain based on force.  it would be one big waste of time for them and they know it would fail.  look how fast we saw thru MintChip.  they're going to try and perpetuate the USD fiat system for as long as possible.

remember that Bitcoin is essentially a voluntary voting system carried out with ppl's laptops in a nearly anonymous way.  a gov't blockchain wouldn't get past square one.  or should i say past the genesis block.

[miscreanity]

can you imagine what type of principles governing their chain that the gov't would come up with?  probably something like a Ripple where the originators get to keep 20% of the original coin, lol.  what a farce.  that's why i'm not a fan of Ripple and would never support it.  chains have to support the majority of participants, not just the interests of a few.

The eventuality for Ripple should be no different from what exists with Bitcoin now - large balances held by the originators (or assumed to be early adopters in Bitcoin). It'll be functionally decentralized with an equivalent level of adoption as Bitcoin has. Of course, the server source remains to be seen, but the concept is strong.

[cypherdoc]

can you imagine what type of principles governing their chain that the gov't would come up with?  probably something like a Ripple where the originators get to keep 20% of the original coin, lol.  what a farce.  that's why i'm not a fan of Ripple and would never support it.  chains have to support the majority of participants, not just the interests of a few.

The eventuality for Ripple should be no different from what exists with Bitcoin now - large balances held by the originators (or assumed to be early adopters in Bitcoin). It'll be functionally decentralized with an equivalent level of adoption as Bitcoin has. Of course, the server source remains to be seen, but the concept is strong.

look how much push back ppl have around here about "early adopter" advantage even though that's a myth about Bitcoin.

for Ripple, its not a myth.  its a fact.  what OpenCoin is trying to do is create a new currency w/o anybody doing any work and based on trust.  they're handing them out for free which is what they'll be worth in the end; nothing.

nobody talks about the fees that they will be charging everyone to ensure "security".  what they mean is their security based on their own principles.  if they have to issue a bunch more XRP's to keep it all going, i'm sure they won't hesitate.  the whole system actually reminds me of the derivatives market.  it's based on trust btwn ppl in this interconnecting web of actors.  everything's fine when it's going well but if a crisis hits, trust will evaporate instantly.

[oakpacific]

can you imagine what type of principles governing their chain that the gov't would come up with?  probably something like a Ripple where the originators get to keep 20% of the original coin, lol.  what a farce.  that's why i'm not a fan of Ripple and would never support it.  chains have to support the majority of participants, not just the interests of a few.

The eventuality for Ripple should be no different from what exists with Bitcoin now - large balances held by the originators (or assumed to be early adopters in Bitcoin). It'll be functionally decentralized with an equivalent level of adoption as Bitcoin has. Of course, the server source remains to be seen, but the concept is strong.

look how much push back ppl have around here about "early adopter" advantage even though that's a myth about Bitcoin.

for Ripple, its not a myth.  its a fact.  what OpenCoin is trying to do is create a new currency w/o anybody doing any work and based on trust.  they're handing them out for free which is what they'll be worth in the end; nothing.

nobody talks about the fees that they will be charging everyone to ensure "security".  what they mean is their security based on their own principles.  if they have to issue a bunch more XRP's to keep it all going, i'm sure they won't hesitate.  the whole system actually reminds me of the derivatives market.  it's based on trust btwn ppl in this interconnecting web of actors.  everything's fine when it's going well but if a crisis hits, trust will evaporate instantly.

What we are seeing now is a constant reminder that early adopters gonna redistribute their coins at  discounted prices periodically.

[molecular]

Bitcoin Versus Gold By James Cox on runtogold.com

Editor’s Note: James Cox has written three good articles for GoldMoney. For some reason they rejected this well written and balanced article not on its merits but because it is ‘too sensitive’.

haha!