Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Ivanhoe]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cOubCHLXT6A&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DcOubCHLXT6A

Watch this carefully.

Is it just me, or did he openly declare war on DC and everything it stands for?

Yes, he did. With a big Y-Combinator logo on the podium, mentioning bitcoin several times, and telling people to go build apps that facilitate exiting the current system.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that stuff like this is indicative of a greater trend of people (especially tech-savvy people, obv) viewing government more as a product that requires competitive iteration and customer mobility than as some inevitable and immutable entity in and an of itself. The speaker made a great point; namely that mobile tech is not about location-based-apps, but about making location *irrelevant*.

The way that technology enables both the theoretical decentralization of services and the building of non-location-centric communities implies that traditional notions of patriotism and nationalism can become more aligned with people's natural way of life and ideology across physical boundaries. This is a big shift. Obviously philosophers have debated the nature of human interaction, ideology, and government for millenia, but technological interconnectedness really does open up a very wide range of new possibilities.

Interesting times, indeed.

+1, transformation from the "place of spaces" to the "space of flows". Got a great article about this trend, i will look it up for you.

Found it : http://www.paulos.net/teaching/2009/AE/readings/protected/CyberCitiesReader-Castells.pdf

Bitcoin fits in this trend, and thus it's invention was inevitable. Although that's a bit deterministic to say.

[1714820723]

1714820723

[1714820723]

1714820723

[iCEBREAKER]

personally, i think the Money Masters in Wall St Washington, London, and Basel are what corrupts Washington everything.  this is the power of the printing press when controlled by private hands (banksters).

that is where the root of the problem lies and this is why we're here.

FTFY.

When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.

P. J. O'Rourke

[World]

The best quote at 21:28 min 
http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/29/chamath-palihapitiya-owns-5-million-in-bitcoins-wants-to-own-10-15-million/

[cypherdoc]

Gold down. Bitcoin up.

[vokain]

The best quote at 21:28 min  
http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/29/chamath-palihapitiya-owns-5-million-in-bitcoins-wants-to-own-10-15-million/

this thought coincided nicely with a video spread via the Lifeboat Foundation I saw yesterday

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXq_mVU8nyc

it's true

[molecular]

The best quote at 21:28 min  
http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/29/chamath-palihapitiya-owns-5-million-in-bitcoins-wants-to-own-10-15-million/

He might not even have to do anything to achieve that.

[Melbustus]

The best quote at 21:28 min  
http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/29/chamath-palihapitiya-owns-5-million-in-bitcoins-wants-to-own-10-15-million/

He might not even have to do anything to achieve that.

Well, yeah. I think he means he wants $10-$15m worth averaged in under some number. He noted that he thinks a $10-$15m stash now could end up be worth $100billion down the road. So 10000x return from current prices, which certainly makes him one of the uber-est of bulls (also note his $500k-$1m/btc possibility prediction).

[tvbcof]

I've always considered 'bitcoin-days' to be the most logical expression of value magnitudes.  That is, 150 is a 'bitcoin-hour' and 3600 is a 'bitcoin-day' until the next half-ing.  I used this notation when deciding what kind of a position to shoot for when I was in accumulation phase.

A better metric would be simply the percentage of current maximum possible value (meaning ignoring lost bitcoins.)  In that case, .0003 or .03% is about a 'bitcoin-day' at the moment.  But I've never thought of things in those terms except as a mental tool when musing about gross system-level potentials.

[rocks]

A better metric would be simply the percentage of current maximum possible value (meaning ignoring lost bitcoins.)

This.

The reality is we have no idea where bitcoin will end up, but if you are a believer that BTC has a chance to become a reserve asset of sorts (similar to gold, maybe gold 2.0), then by definition your metric for bitcoin ownership should NOT be in dollar terms, but in terms of what percent of the reserve asset do you own.

Under a gold standard people talked in terms of how many oz of gold they had. Under a BTC standard the amount of satoshi is all that you need to discuss, dollar value becomes meaningless.

Currently, it is possible to realistically purchase 0.000x% of the total supply, could you imagine owning 0.0001% of the gold supply under a gold standard. I think this is what chamath was hinting at for the big numbers he suggested.

[tvbcof]

...
The reality is we have no idea where bitcoin will end up, but if you are a believer that BTC has a chance to become a reserve asset of sorts (similar to gold, maybe gold 2.0), then by definition your metric for bitcoin ownership should NOT be in dollar terms, but in terms of what percent of the reserve asset do you own.
...

Even if bitcoin was used as a pure exchange currency at a decent velocity, the valuations would be huge just to handle the liquidity needs.  But as I've said a million times, trying to scale along that path would change the nature of the solution drastically and it would likely die due to competitive pressures and loss of confidence.

If Bitcoin were to evolve along a 'reserve currency' path I'm not sure what the valuations would be.  If successful in that role, it would share some value with a (probably ever evolving) block of exchange currencies, but would still also be very high since many people have excess value above what they need for their next meal and a need to store it reliably.

[Peter Lambert]

The best quote at 21:28 min  
http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/29/chamath-palihapitiya-owns-5-million-in-bitcoins-wants-to-own-10-15-million/

He might not even have to do anything to achieve that.

Well, yeah. I think he means he wants $10-$15m worth averaged in under some number. He noted that he thinks a $10-$15m stash now could end up be worth $100billion down the road. So 10000x return from current prices, which certainly makes him one of the uber-est of bulls (also note his $500k-$1m/btc possibility prediction).

That's only four more orders of magnitude higher than it is today. The price has been going up about an order of magnitude each year, so that is a perfectly reasonable estimate of where bitcoin prices might be several years down the road.

[rpietila]

Well, yeah. I think he means he wants $10-$15m worth averaged in under some number. He noted that he thinks a $10-$15m stash now could end up be worth $100billion down the road. So 10000x return from current prices, which certainly makes him one of the uber-est of bulls (also note his $500k-$1m/btc possibility prediction).

That's only four more orders of magnitude higher than it is today. The price has been going up about an order of magnitude each year, so that is a perfectly reasonable estimate of where bitcoin prices might be several years down the road.

Whaile at the same time being so high relative to the wealth on the planet that we can reasonably conclude it cannot go any higher, except in case of a bubble.

Watch out for the great bitcoin bubble of 2016! Some people are actually going to lose by investing in bitcoins!! 

[cypherdoc]

what's that sucking sound?

oh, it's the flow of dollars.

look the hell out.

[Peter Lambert]

Well, yeah. I think he means he wants $10-$15m worth averaged in under some number. He noted that he thinks a $10-$15m stash now could end up be worth $100billion down the road. So 10000x return from current prices, which certainly makes him one of the uber-est of bulls (also note his $500k-$1m/btc possibility prediction).

That's only four more orders of magnitude higher than it is today. The price has been going up about an order of magnitude each year, so that is a perfectly reasonable estimate of where bitcoin prices might be several years down the road.

Whaile at the same time being so high relative to the wealth on the planet that we can reasonably conclude it cannot go any higher, except in case of a bubble.

Watch out for the great bitcoin bubble of 2016! Some people are actually going to lose by investing in bitcoins!! 

I don't know if it is so high ... if the price of a bitcoin goes up 10000x then each bitcoin will be like 2 000 000, so the monetary base of bitcoins would be 42 000 000 000 000, which is not so far off from the 17 000 000 000 000 currently in the US national debt (and the US will probably have debt of 42 000 000 000 000 before then), so I wouldn't say that is "so high relative to the wealth on the planet".

[molecular]

I've always considered 'bitcoin-days' to be the most logical expression of value magnitudes.  That is, 150 is a 'bitcoin-hour' and 3600 is a 'bitcoin-day' until the next half-ing.  I used this notation when deciding what kind of a position to shoot for when I was in accumulation phase.

A better metric would be simply the percentage of current maximum possible value (meaning ignoring lost bitcoins.)  In that case, .0003 or .03% is about a 'bitcoin-day' at the moment.  But I've never thought of things in those terms except as a mental tool when musing about gross system-level potentials.

Took me a while to understand your "bitcoin-day" because the term is traditionally used a bit differently (the sum over all inputs of a transaction of the age of the coins multiplied by the amount of coins, as in: "bitcoin days destroyed")

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

In the first place it was always kind of retarded or economically idiosyncratic to speak of "$100,000" in your bank account. The only reason we'd talk about numbers of "dollars" or "ounces" of gold is simply that we don't know how many dollars or ounces of gold there really are available in the world. There is also the complication that dollars and gold aren't the only moneys; there are also euros, yen, yuan, silver, etc. As a practical matter, therefore, we end up having to speak in terms of monetary units. It's incredibly obfuscating way to talk, though.

A world where a single money had taken over, and where we knew exactly how much had been issued, would be different. In that case - if we knew there was exactly $10 trillion dollars out there - we should simply refer our $100,000 in the bank as "a hundred-millionth." That is, 1/100,000,000 (that is, 0.000001%) of all the purchasing power in the world.

Instead of this:



We would see this, but without the parenthetical explanation since it would be standard:




Now since this IS the case with Bitcoin - we do know how many coins have been issued - we can easily switch to speaking of 100,000 BTC as "about 1%" and 1000 BTC as "about 0.01%" (eventually to become about half that over the course of the next century).

Assuming that Bitcoin does take over the world, the present-day price of 0.000008% ("1 BTC") is around $200. You can own 0.000008% of all the purchasing power in the whole world in the future for just $200 today. Or instead of buying a house now for $240,000, you could own 0.01% (one ten-thousandth) of the global economy in the future, no matter how much huger that global economy may be. Quite a deal.

It doesn't matter what the price is in dollars if Bitcoin does become the standard.

Chamath Palihapitiya controls a two-hundredth of the future global economy and would like to control a one-hundredth or a sixtieth of it. These are the terms I'm sure he's thinking of it in.

[cypherdoc]

Gold down. Bitcoin up.

[rpietila]

A world where a single money had taken over, and where we knew exactly how much had been issued, would be different. In that case - if we knew there was exactly $10 trillion dollars out there - we should simply refer our $100,000 in the bank as "a hundred-millionth." That is, 1/100,000,000 (that is, 0.000001%) of all the purchasing power in the world.

Chamath Palihapitiya controls a two-hundredth of the future global economy and would like to control a one-hundredth or a sixtieth of it. These are the terms I'm sure he's thinking of it in.

+1.

I have started to think that, if possible, the current higher echelons of bitcoin should sell some of it to Chamath, me, and the likes. It would benefit Bitcoin to go from scams and secrecy to integrity and openness. (Not pointing to anyone in particular, you will know in your heart if I mean you

[NewLiberty]

This is sort of nonsense...

For there to be only a single money, there would be no money, as nothing could be exchanged with it.

All things are a type of money when there are people that exchange them.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Money (n.) - the most marketable medium of exchange.

Or for a more rigorous conception see: http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/sr/sr218.pdf

More discussion (because this is a very important concept for fully understanding Bitcoin):

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1fw3m5/bitcoin_is_memory/

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=232137.0

http://libertyhq.freeforums.org/fed-economist-predicts-bitcoin-will-end-the-fed-t938-20.html

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=230416.msg2450191#msg2450191