Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Skele]

Gold is is just old.. Gold is not so rare!, besides of the tons of gold outhere , recently some scientist discovered a huge mine near central America.. gold will continue to drop in price

[1714961613]

1714961613

[1714961613]

1714961613

[1714961613]

1714961613

[cypherdoc]

If there was any question that Vitalik Buterin  doesn't understand Bitcoin, here it is:

The reason why having a fixed never-growing supply is undesirable is obvious: it encourages wealth concentration and creates a static community of holders without an effective way for new people to get in, and it means that the coin has no way to incentive any specific kind of activity in the long term.

http://blog.ethereum.org/2014/05/24/on-long-term-cryptocurrency-distribution-models/

Kinda sad really.  

[damnek]

If there was any question that Vitalik Buterin  doesn't understand Bitcoin, here it is:

The reason why having a fixed never-growing supply is undesirable is obvious: it encourages wealth concentration and creates a static community of holders without an effective way for new people to get in, and it means that the coin has no way to incentive any specific kind of activity in the long term.

http://blog.ethereum.org/2014/05/24/on-long-term-cryptocurrency-distribution-models/

Kinda sad really.  

These techy kids are often completely out of touch with how things work in the real world..

[impulse]

If there was any question that Vitalik Buterin  doesn't understand Bitcoin, here it is:

The reason why having a fixed never-growing supply is undesirable is obvious: it encourages wealth concentration and creates a static community of holders without an effective way for new people to get in, and it means that the coin has no way to incentive any specific kind of activity in the long term.

http://blog.ethereum.org/2014/05/24/on-long-term-cryptocurrency-distribution-models/

Kinda sad really.  

Wow, I must say I'm a little surprised. I very much doubt there is any reasonable way to design an issuance system that cannot be gamed by the wealthiest members of any community. I would be very curious to know how he believes their model can prevent such behavior.

[Dusty]

These techy kids are often completely out of touch with how things work in the real world..

Actually that statement is true for 99% of the people out there: how many of them understand real economics?

99% of the people still thinks that inflation is good for the economy, and for them.
And that's because they have been told exactly that all their life.

You can't explain that concept to them: you can only show it, and Bitcoin is how.

We'll get our revenge ;-)

[wachtwoord]

These techy kids are often completely out of touch with how things work in the real world..

Actually that statement is true for 99% of the people out there: how many of them understand real economics?

99% of the people still thinks that inflation is good for the economy, and for them.
And that's because they have been told exactly that all their life.

You can't explain that concept to them: you can only show it, and Bitcoin is how.

We'll get our revenge ;-)

We'll be proven right. Revenge isn't really necessary

[Melbustus]

If there was any question that Vitalik Buterin  doesn't understand Bitcoin, here it is:

The reason why having a fixed never-growing supply is undesirable is obvious: it encourages wealth concentration and creates a static community of holders without an effective way for new people to get in, and it means that the coin has no way to incentive any specific kind of activity in the long term.

http://blog.ethereum.org/2014/05/24/on-long-term-cryptocurrency-distribution-models/

Kinda sad really.  

These techy kids are often completely out of touch with how things work in the real world..

Yeah, this is because he's young, not stupid. At least crypto projects have the potential to act as massive (and rapid!) economic experiments which will help make market-dynamics, and really human-nature, more obvious and explicit to more people.

As an aside, it's always irritated me in discussions with bitcoin newbs when they want to focus the conversation on mining and "who gets the new coins". I try to explain that initial distribution is just an implementation detail. The eventual equilibrium state likely does not depend on it (debatable topic, I know, but that's my take).

[igorr]

I think, the gold need willy bot. 

[wachtwoord]

I think, the gold need willy bot. 

(paper) Gold has had the opposite bot.

[Dusty]

[...]
You can't explain that concept to them: you can only show it, and Bitcoin is how.

We'll get our revenge ;-)

We'll be proven right. Revenge isn't really necessary

Revenge is because of being mocked all the time about the deflation/inflation argument.

But you are right: to be proven right is enough ;-)

[cypherdoc]

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.

[ranlo]

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.

[smoothie]

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.

[ranlo]

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.

[solex]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

[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.

[Adrian-x]

..  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.