Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

I'm impressed with the number of pos guys following this thread. 

[1713583732]

1713583732

[1713583732]

1713583732

[1713583732]

1713583732

[_mr_e]

I'm impressed with the number of pos guys following this thread.  

Why does it have to be us vs them? Why must the crypto space be so divided? I am not a "pos guy". I simply see some value and utility in a well designed system and want to share that with others, just as I do with bitcoin.

Fiat is the enemy here.

[cypherdoc]

I'm impressed with the number of pos guys following this thread.  

Piece of Shit coins?

This wasn't was not me, notme!

[Damelon]

I'm impressed with the number of pos guys following this thread. 

Piece of Shit coins?

This wasn't me, notme!

lol.

Likewise, I don't consider myself a PoS guy.
Don't see the need to take those kinds of positions.
If a technology fills a need, that's good.

[jgarzik]

Guess what?  It was a question.

It is notable when asking questions leading to paranoia and accusations rather than specific answers.

Sorry, but that is just a cop-out answer.

You asked a question that you could have quite easily have answered yourself.

The hashes are always posted on the nxt forum: https://nxtforum.org/nrs-releases/nrs-v1-2-8/ ánd in the Nxt thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=587007.msg8672358#msg8672358

No.  Those hashes prove nothing.

A deterministic build process enables multiple independent parties to generate the exact same output, given a git commit id.

If you cannot prove what's in users hands is exactly what came out from the java->bytecode compiler, then you should not use that binary.

[Melbustus]

I'm impressed with the number of pos guys following this thread.  

Why does it have to be us vs them? Why must the crypto space be so divided? I am not a "pos guy". I simply see some value and utility in a well designed system and want to share that with others, just as I do with bitcoin.

Fiat is the enemy here.

Because if another coin even gets close (same order of mag) to bitcoin in terms of market cap, it seriously erodes the "scarcity" feature/argument of bitcoin, which is one of the most critical arguments for putting any wealth/mindshare/time/effort into bitcoin (and by extension, any crypto). Guys like Schiff and Rickards would be proven right, and no one would be comfortable putting any wealth into any crypto for a long long time. Thus, everyone would lose. Humanity would not see the benefits that decentralized money can bring for many years/decades longer than if bitcoin simply becomes the obvious-to-everyone non-dethronable crypto store of value.

To be clear, I think there's niche value in some alts, and some of the experimentation is valuable. But you guys who think that many coins can live side by side with similar monetizations are missing the key point that if that happened, we'd all be sitting side-by-side at *trivial* market-caps, not big ones.

[Adrian-x]

from the Boston Fed:  

Second, the resource cost of mining is becoming increasingly unaffordable, not to mention the inefficiency associated with this aspect of the system design. Again, it is possible that within a few years it will become infeasible to rely on this distributed model, however consolidated, to verify transactions.

if it's so unaffordable, then why does it keep doing this?:

https://i.imgur.com/qyS2BPn.png

Why can no one understand that we don't need this hashing power to secure this network?  I doubt we need 1% of what we have today, given the impact destroying it would have.  Obviously a major govt could (at great cost) 51% it.  But most governments that have the means are ultimately responsible to the people and killing BTC by 51% attack is not the legal approach they would take (as opposed to a ban).  Therefore hashing only needs to secure against a private enterprise.  When you realize that 51%ing does not allow you to steal other people's coin -- it only can be used to stop them from spending, to reap all the mining rewards and to double spend, you quickly realize that economically this is a losing proposition.

it's not "no one understands that..." the increase in hashing power is a byproduct or a reflection or a value judgment, its quite elegant the way it increases so smoothly - more to the point is, where is it best for me to invest my excess resources, and it turns out lots of people see the system of Bitcoin a viable place to invest. The exponential halving forces competition and ultimately drives out any inefficient use of hashing power.

for all those non believers there is PoS and Fiat.  

[tvbcof]

Why does it have to be us vs them? Why must the crypto space be so divided? I am not a "pos guy". I simply see some value and utility in a well designed system and want to share that with others, just as I do with bitcoin.

Fiat is the enemy here.

Because if another coin even gets close (same order of mag) to bitcoin in terms of market cap, it seriously erodes the "scarcity" feature/argument of bitcoin, which is one of the most critical arguments for putting any wealth/mindshare/time/effort into bitcoin (and by extension, any crypto). Guys like Schiff and Rickards would be proven right, and no one would be comfortable putting any wealth into any crypto for a long long time. Thus, everyone would lose. Humanity would not see the benefits that decentralized money can bring for many years/decades longer than if bitcoin simply becomes the obvious-to-everyone non-dethronable crypto store of value.

To be clear, I think there's niche value in some alts, and some of the experimentation is valuable. But you guys who think that many coins can live side by side with similar monetizations are missing the key point that if that happened, we'd all be sitting side-by-side at *trivial* market-caps, not big ones.

Just like fiat must contend with distributed crypto-currencies, distributed (or not) crypto-currencies must contend with one another.  Fair is fair.  Each will rise and fall on it's strengths, the the strengths and weaknesses come from all different directions.  That is to say, technical and otherwise, and I'll go out on a limb and say that technical strengths and weaknesses will be minor compared to political ones.

[Adrian-x]

Why does it have to be us vs them? Why must the crypto space be so divided? I am not a "pos guy". I simply see some value and utility in a well designed system and want to share that with others, just as I do with bitcoin.

Fiat is the enemy here.

Because if another coin even gets close (same order of mag) to bitcoin in terms of market cap, it seriously erodes the "scarcity" feature/argument of bitcoin, which is one of the most critical arguments for putting any wealth/mindshare/time/effort into bitcoin (and by extension, any crypto). Guys like Schiff and Rickards would be proven right, and no one would be comfortable putting any wealth into any crypto for a long long time. Thus, everyone would lose. Humanity would not see the benefits that decentralized money can bring for many years/decades longer than if bitcoin simply becomes the obvious-to-everyone non-dethronable crypto store of value.

To be clear, I think there's niche value in some alts, and some of the experimentation is valuable. But you guys who think that many coins can live side by side with similar monetizations are missing the key point that if that happened, we'd all be sitting side-by-side at *trivial* market-caps, not big ones.

Just like fiat must contend with distributed crypto-currencies, distributed (or not) crypto-currencies must contend with one another.  Fair is fair.  Each will rise and fall on it's strengths, the the strengths and weaknesses come from all different directions.  That is to say, technical and otherwise, and I'll go out on a limb and say that technical strengths and weaknesses will be minor compared to political ones.

I think it's way more profound, Bitcoin is a once in 5,000 year paradigm shifting innovation, Alt's are an insignificant incremental improvement. cripto's from my viewpoint are the equivalent of painting a line in down the middle of the road, and saying this new innovation supersedes the road network. there will be metaphoric competition like rail roads and air ports, but the most valuable network will be Bitcoin.

[cypherdoc]

Why does it have to be us vs them? Why must the crypto space be so divided? I am not a "pos guy". I simply see some value and utility in a well designed system and want to share that with others, just as I do with bitcoin.

Fiat is the enemy here.

Because if another coin even gets close (same order of mag) to bitcoin in terms of market cap, it seriously erodes the "scarcity" feature/argument of bitcoin, which is one of the most critical arguments for putting any wealth/mindshare/time/effort into bitcoin (and by extension, any crypto). Guys like Schiff and Rickards would be proven right, and no one would be comfortable putting any wealth into any crypto for a long long time. Thus, everyone would lose. Humanity would not see the benefits that decentralized money can bring for many years/decades longer than if bitcoin simply becomes the obvious-to-everyone non-dethronable crypto store of value.

To be clear, I think there's niche value in some alts, and some of the experimentation is valuable. But you guys who think that many coins can live side by side with similar monetizations are missing the key point that if that happened, we'd all be sitting side-by-side at *trivial* market-caps, not big ones.

Just like fiat must contend with distributed crypto-currencies, distributed (or not) crypto-currencies must contend with one another.  Fair is fair.  Each will rise and fall on it's strengths, the the strengths and weaknesses come from all different directions.  That is to say, technical and otherwise, and I'll go out on a limb and say that technical strengths and weaknesses will be minor compared to political ones.

I think it's way more profound, Bitcoin is a once in 5,000 year paradigm shifting innovation, Alt's are an insignificant incremental improvement. cripto's from my viewpoint are the equivalent of painting a line in down the middle of the road, and saying this new innovation supersedes the road network. there will be metaphoric competition like rail roads and air ports, but the most valuable network will be Bitcoin.

yes, which is to also say, "most investors in the cryptocurrency space will lose money" from a lack of understanding of the economics, technical innovations, and political circumstances surrounding Bitcoin.

and that, ladies and gentlemen, is why it is still early days for Bitcoin.

[_mr_e]

I'm impressed with the number of pos guys following this thread.  

Why does it have to be us vs them? Why must the crypto space be so divided? I am not a "pos guy". I simply see some value and utility in a well designed system and want to share that with others, just as I do with bitcoin.

Fiat is the enemy here.

Because if another coin even gets close (same order of mag) to bitcoin in terms of market cap, it seriously erodes the "scarcity" feature/argument of bitcoin, which is one of the most critical arguments for putting any wealth/mindshare/time/effort into bitcoin (and by extension, any crypto). Guys like Schiff and Rickards would be proven right, and no one would be comfortable putting any wealth into any crypto for a long long time. Thus, everyone would lose. Humanity would not see the benefits that decentralized money can bring for many years/decades longer than if bitcoin simply becomes the obvious-to-everyone non-dethronable crypto store of value.

To be clear, I think there's niche value in some alts, and some of the experimentation is valuable. But you guys who think that many coins can live side by side with similar monetizations are missing the key point that if that happened, we'd all be sitting side-by-side at *trivial* market-caps, not big ones.

I have no interest in trying to dethrone Bitcoin. It's is crypto's store of value. That is it's job. It provides the backing everything else that comes after it. Bitcoin goes up, everything goes up. Bitcoin goes down, everything goes down - because they are directly tied to Bitcoin. Bitcoin is your entry into cryptoland. From there you are free to do as you wish with any system you wish, free of regulation and red tape and slow processes and filled with CHOICE! This is what crypto gives us: CHOICE and FREEDOM to do what we want with our money. Bitcoin is our direct gateway into that and does it exceptionally well.

Any coin that is a direct fork of bitcoin is not worth a second glance due to the reasons you mention above. However I believe that like Nxt, Maidsafe, Storj etc are NOT coins. They provide innovative value that is completely separate from it being a currency. They are token that exist on a system that provides other functions - and guess what, their value ARE MEASURED IN BITCOINS and is therefore in direct relation to the utility they provide crypto as a whole!  The use of these systems should bring more value to crypto and therefore Bitcoin itself. Of course because they have value they can be traded LIKE a currency and will speculated on but that is not their primary goal. That is Bitcoin's job and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Bitcoin's value is not and should not be threatened by this and if it is, then it would be because it is not doing it's job very well.

[Eadeqa]

No.  Those hashes prove nothing. A deterministic build process enables multiple independent parties to generate the exact same output, given a git commit id.
If you cannot prove what's in users hands is exactly what came out from the java->bytecode compiler, then you should not use that binary.

Funny logic. Do all million or so BTC users compile from the source before using it? I guess we should not even be using any online site, like coinbase, as we don't have source. All Windows users should never use BTC either as BTC is only for people who compile from the source.

What's your point anyway? Nxt is open source. Anyone can compile it. Given it's in Java, anyone can even decompile it. We have dozens of clones.

You have not made your point clear. Are you trying to claim Nxt security relies on obscurity? If that is the claim, that is provable false as you can decompile Java and steal Nxt. Given that isn't hapening, what are you trying to claim?

[valarmg]

Because if another coin even gets close (same order of mag) to bitcoin in terms of market cap, it seriously erodes the "scarcity" feature/argument of bitcoin, which is one of the most critical arguments for putting any wealth/mindshare/time/effort into bitcoin (and by extension, any crypto). Guys like Schiff and Rickards would be proven right, and no one would be comfortable putting any wealth into any crypto for a long long time. Thus, everyone would lose. Humanity would not see the benefits that decentralized money can bring for many years/decades longer than if bitcoin simply becomes the obvious-to-everyone non-dethronable crypto store of value.

To be clear, I think there's niche value in some alts, and some of the experimentation is valuable. But you guys who think that many coins can live side by side with similar monetizations are missing the key point that if that happened, we'd all be sitting side-by-side at *trivial* market-caps, not big ones.

Interesting viewpoint, but I don't believe it to be true. Does silver as a store of wealth erode the value of gold being a store of wealth? What about platinum? There are hundreds of altcoins, some of which are worth tens of millions, some of which are worth nothing. The value of one doesn't affect the value of others to a huge degree. Bitcoin's value is based on the network effect, if another coin gained a huge market share they'd both have value based on their usage and their users. One doesn't degrade the other. Not every coin can have a huge network effect, therefore what you are talking about where there'll be thousands of equally valueless cryptocoins will never happen.

[cypherdoc]

I'm impressed with the number of pos guys following this thread.  

Why does it have to be us vs them? Why must the crypto space be so divided? I am not a "pos guy". I simply see some value and utility in a well designed system and want to share that with others, just as I do with bitcoin.

Fiat is the enemy here.

Because if another coin even gets close (same order of mag) to bitcoin in terms of market cap, it seriously erodes the "scarcity" feature/argument of bitcoin, which is one of the most critical arguments for putting any wealth/mindshare/time/effort into bitcoin (and by extension, any crypto). Guys like Schiff and Rickards would be proven right, and no one would be comfortable putting any wealth into any crypto for a long long time. Thus, everyone would lose. Humanity would not see the benefits that decentralized money can bring for many years/decades longer than if bitcoin simply becomes the obvious-to-everyone non-dethronable crypto store of value.

To be clear, I think there's niche value in some alts, and some of the experimentation is valuable. But you guys who think that many coins can live side by side with similar monetizations are missing the key point that if that happened, we'd all be sitting side-by-side at *trivial* market-caps, not big ones.

It appears that all of my posts stating the Nxt is not a "coin" have gone ignored. Not sure what is the point in refuting the same arguments over and over.

I have no interest in trying to dethrone Bitcoin. It's is crypto's store of value. That is it's job. It provides the backing everything else that comes after it. Bitcoin goes up, everything goes up. Bitcoin goes down, everything goes down - because they are directly tied to Bitcoin. Bitcoin is your entry into cryptoland. From there you are free to do as you wish with any system you wish, free of regulation and red tape and slow processes and filled with CHOICE! This is what crypto gives us: CHOICE and FREEDOM to do what we want with our money. Bitcoin is our direct gateway into that and does it exceptionally well.

Any coin that is a direct fork of bitcoin is not worth a second glance due to the reasons you mention above. However I believe that like Nxt, Maidsafe, Storj etc are NOT coins. They provide innovative value that is completely separate from it being a currency. They are token that exist on a system that provides other functions - and guess what, their value ARE MEASURED IN BITCOINS and is therefore in direct relation to the utility they provide crypto as a whole!  The use of these systems should bring more value to crypto and therefore Bitcoin itself. Of course because they have value they can be traded LIKE a currency and will speculated on but that is not their primary goal. That is Bitcoin's job and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Bitcoin's value is not and should not be threatened by this and if it is, then it would be because it is not doing it's job very well.

well, i'll agree with you there.  all these Bitcoin 2.0 projects involve "tokens", which unlike you say, are fundamental to the success of the underlying platforms.  otherwise, how could you trade a token that is worthless for storage space?  tokens have to have some value to do this. 

the problem though is that those tokens will inevitably trend to 0 value.  they are like United Flyer miles.  i can't tell you how many times those miles have been devalued or outright cancelled due to non use.  for the Bitcoin 2.0 projects, which have specific uses, it will behoove cryptocurrency users to hold their BTC over time until they have the need for these specific use cases.  this is b/c of the fixed supply nature of Bitcoin and its real world relationship to ever increasing fiat currency.  in other words, BTC should increase in value over time as one holds them instead of tokens.  this encourages market participants to hold their BTC until such time as they "need" to use them.  the converse is that the value of tokens on other platforms should trend to 0.

[devphp]

Because if another coin even gets close (same order of mag) to bitcoin in terms of market cap, it seriously erodes the "scarcity" feature/argument of bitcoin, which is one of the most critical arguments for putting any wealth/mindshare/time/effort into bitcoin (and by extension, any crypto). Guys like Schiff and Rickards would be proven right, and no one would be comfortable putting any wealth into any crypto for a long long time. Thus, everyone would lose. Humanity would not see the benefits that decentralized money can bring for many years/decades longer than if bitcoin simply becomes the obvious-to-everyone non-dethronable crypto store of value.

To be clear, I think there's niche value in some alts, and some of the experimentation is valuable. But you guys who think that many coins can live side by side with similar monetizations are missing the key point that if that happened, we'd all be sitting side-by-side at *trivial* market-caps, not big ones.

If scarcity is the only argument you can present, well, that's a weak position. And why does anyone have to prove anything to Peter Schiff? He's in his zone of comfort, no reason to persuade him of anything.

Trivial market caps or big ones, as long as the total market cap of all cryptos grows, that means cryptos perform their function of giving shelter from the fiat system. If you thought you could comfortably stay in Bitcoin and other people would be happy to get a few crumbs from the early adopters' table, well, you thought wrong. Bitcoin is just software. In software world if you can develop better software there is a high chance you can beat the old one. People will always be trying to compete and be the first, that's human nature, and that's how all better things are born.

[cypherdoc]

Because if another coin even gets close (same order of mag) to bitcoin in terms of market cap, it seriously erodes the "scarcity" feature/argument of bitcoin, which is one of the most critical arguments for putting any wealth/mindshare/time/effort into bitcoin (and by extension, any crypto). Guys like Schiff and Rickards would be proven right, and no one would be comfortable putting any wealth into any crypto for a long long time. Thus, everyone would lose. Humanity would not see the benefits that decentralized money can bring for many years/decades longer than if bitcoin simply becomes the obvious-to-everyone non-dethronable crypto store of value.

To be clear, I think there's niche value in some alts, and some of the experimentation is valuable. But you guys who think that many coins can live side by side with similar monetizations are missing the key point that if that happened, we'd all be sitting side-by-side at *trivial* market-caps, not big ones.

If scarcity is the only argument you can present, well, that's a weak position. And why does anyone have to prove anything to Peter Schiff? He's in his zone of comfort, no reason to persuade him of anything.

Trivial market caps or big ones, as long as the total market cap of all cryptos grows, that means cryptos perform their function of giving shelter from the fiat system. If you thought you could comfortably stay in Bitcoin and other people would be happy to get a few crumbs from the early adopters' table, well, you thought wrong. Bitcoin is just software. In software world if you can develop better software there is a high chance you can beat the old one. People will always be trying to compete and be the first, that's human nature, and that's how all better things are born.

take a stab at my post 2 above yours.  

ppl will always want to stay in the most liquid store of value which in this case is Bitcoin b/c of its fixed supply and market cap.  only when they need to trade it for a token will they do so.  and only for a specific purpose.  the underlying platform's purpose can have value, it's just that its tokens will trend to 0 from lack of liquidity and limited demand.

[_mr_e]

I'm impressed with the number of pos guys following this thread.  

Why does it have to be us vs them? Why must the crypto space be so divided? I am not a "pos guy". I simply see some value and utility in a well designed system and want to share that with others, just as I do with bitcoin.

Fiat is the enemy here.

Because if another coin even gets close (same order of mag) to bitcoin in terms of market cap, it seriously erodes the "scarcity" feature/argument of bitcoin, which is one of the most critical arguments for putting any wealth/mindshare/time/effort into bitcoin (and by extension, any crypto). Guys like Schiff and Rickards would be proven right, and no one would be comfortable putting any wealth into any crypto for a long long time. Thus, everyone would lose. Humanity would not see the benefits that decentralized money can bring for many years/decades longer than if bitcoin simply becomes the obvious-to-everyone non-dethronable crypto store of value.

To be clear, I think there's niche value in some alts, and some of the experimentation is valuable. But you guys who think that many coins can live side by side with similar monetizations are missing the key point that if that happened, we'd all be sitting side-by-side at *trivial* market-caps, not big ones.

It appears that all of my posts stating the Nxt is not a "coin" have gone ignored. Not sure what is the point in refuting the same arguments over and over.

I have no interest in trying to dethrone Bitcoin. It's is crypto's store of value. That is it's job. It provides the backing everything else that comes after it. Bitcoin goes up, everything goes up. Bitcoin goes down, everything goes down - because they are directly tied to Bitcoin. Bitcoin is your entry into cryptoland. From there you are free to do as you wish with any system you wish, free of regulation and red tape and slow processes and filled with CHOICE! This is what crypto gives us: CHOICE and FREEDOM to do what we want with our money. Bitcoin is our direct gateway into that and does it exceptionally well.

Any coin that is a direct fork of bitcoin is not worth a second glance due to the reasons you mention above. However I believe that like Nxt, Maidsafe, Storj etc are NOT coins. They provide innovative value that is completely separate from it being a currency. They are token that exist on a system that provides other functions - and guess what, their value ARE MEASURED IN BITCOINS and is therefore in direct relation to the utility they provide crypto as a whole!  The use of these systems should bring more value to crypto and therefore Bitcoin itself. Of course because they have value they can be traded LIKE a currency and will speculated on but that is not their primary goal. That is Bitcoin's job and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Bitcoin's value is not and should not be threatened by this and if it is, then it would be because it is not doing it's job very well.

well, i'll agree with you there.  all these Bitcoin 2.0 projects involve "tokens", which unlike you say, are fundamental to the success of the underlying platforms.  otherwise, how could you trade a token that is worthless for storage space?  tokens have to have some value to do this.  

the problem though is that those tokens will inevitably trend to 0 value.  they are like United Flyer miles.  i can't tell you how many times those miles have been devalued or outright cancelled due to non use.  for the Bitcoin 2.0 projects, which have specific uses, it will behoove cryptocurrency users to hold their BTC over time until they have the need for these specific use cases.  this is b/c of the fixed supply nature of Bitcoin and its real world relationship to ever increasing fiat currency.  in other words, BTC should increase in value over time as one holds them instead of tokens.  this encourages market participants to hold their BTC until such time as they "need" to use them.  the converse is that the value of tokens on other platforms should trend to 0.

I've heard this debate before, but I don't think a winner was ever crowned: http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-139-the-validity-of-appcoins

What will really happen is yet to be seen.

[devphp]

ppl will always want to stay in the most liquid store of value which in this case is Bitcoin b/c of its fixed supply and market cap.  only when they need to trade it for a token will they do so.  and only for a specific purpose.  the underlying platform's purpose can have value, it's just that its tokens will trend to 0 from lack of liquidity and limited demand.

For now Bitcoin is the most liquid store of value. But you said a few posts above that it's just the early days of Bitcoin. Well, if it's just the early days of Bitcoin, one can say other projects like NXT are still sucking breast milk We don't know what the most liquid one will be in a few years and why people would need to stay in one and have to do exchange operations to use another, if they could just stay in that another one which is more useful and thus make it the most liquid by its utility value.

[Pruden]

from the Boston Fed:  

Second, the resource cost of mining is becoming increasingly unaffordable, not to mention the inefficiency associated with this aspect of the system design. Again, it is possible that within a few years it will become infeasible to rely on this distributed model, however consolidated, to verify transactions.

if it's so unaffordable, then why does it keep doing this?:

Why can no one understand that we don't need this hashing power to secure this network?  I doubt we need 1% of what we have today, given the impact destroying it would have.  Obviously a major govt could (at great cost) 51% it.  But most governments that have the means are ultimately responsible to the people and killing BTC by 51% attack is not the legal approach they would take (as opposed to a ban).  Therefore hashing only needs to secure against a private enterprise.  When you realize that 51%ing does not allow you to steal other people's coin -- it only can be used to stop them from spending, to reap all the mining rewards and to double spend, you quickly realize that economically this is a losing proposition.

Completely agree. As I stated before, the low fees paid are proof that users consider that the network has more than enough hashrate and there is no need to pay for more.

It also reminds me of bubble charts and makes me think if the capital allocated to Bitcoin is better placed than in many other assets in what the NYT called "The Bubble of Everything" the other day. Maybe Bitcoin, or a good part of it, is in the same side as housing, stocks, land, art, exclusive cars and antiques in these times of zero-risk money.

[valarmg]

Does silver as a store of wealth erode the value of gold being a store of wealth?

Of course.

Yet gold can still maintain 100trillion market cap or whatever it is. It doesn't cause the value of gold to collapse because 'why do we need gold, we can just store our value in silver or platinum or ...'