Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[_mr_e]

Part of the reason these coins are needed are because bitcoin cannot be changed very easily. Therefore these additional features have sprung up and I simply look at them as extensions of bitcoin that don't require changes to the core. Counterparty's asset exchange is horrible compared to nxt due to limitations of bitcoin itself, limitations that will not be resolved any time soon. Bitcoins network does not want to be used in that way.

Go ahead, store your wealth in bitcoin and use these systems as you see fit. That was the whole point I have always been trying to get across.

[1713492141]

1713492141

[1713492141]

1713492141

[devphp]

Go ahead, store your wealth in bitcoin and use these systems as you see fit. That was the whole point I have always been trying to get across.

This.

[valarmg]

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.

In what market have this ever happened (one stock/currency has dominated all others due to liquidity/marketcap)? Just as long as the other token/coin has sufficient liquidity/marketcap, then why wouldn't people stay in the other one? In fact, if there were two cryptos of similar market size, the liquidity of both would be improved by the trade between them.

[cypherdoc]

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

i meant in relation to fiat. it's Big Daddy in relation to NXT and getting bigger.

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.

if i were to guess, i'd guess NXT may not even be around.  and it has to do with the unfair initial distribution model and how pos encourages centralization to existing stakeholders.

[Torque]

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 ...'

No, the gold market doesn't collapse because there are other PM's.  But could you say the market cap of gold would be a lot bigger if silver and platinum PM's didn't exist?  I think so.

[_mr_e]

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

i meant in relation to fiat. it's Big Daddy in relation to NXT and getting bigger.

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.

if i were to guess, i'd guess NXT may not even be around.  and it has to do with the unfair initial distribution model and how pos encourages centralization to existing stakeholders.

It's only unfair as long as you didn't make any money off of it. Given that forging gives extremely minimal returns compared to other options you could spend your nxt on, this argument has grown very tired. Then again, don't the rich always get richer, how does nxt do this any differently?

You should know that more then anyone given the trading capital you likely have at your fingertips.  Pretty unfair if you ask me. You should just leave all your money in the bank. The interest would give you more then forging would!

[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 ...'

No, the gold market doesn't collapse because there are other PM's.  But could you say the market cap of gold would be a lot bigger if silver and platinum PM's didn't exist?  I think so.

Yes, probably.

Someone made a comment that if a second crypto had a value of the same order of magnitude as bitcoin, then all cryptos would lose their credibility because cryptos would no longer have scarcity anymore. My point was that it's possible to have a multitude of stores of value, and that a second one might take a chunk out of the first, but it wouldn't destroy the idea of cryptos as a store of value.

[cypherdoc]

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.

In what market have this ever happened (one stock/currency has dominated all others due to liquidity/marketcap)? Just as long as the other token/coin has sufficient liquidity/marketcap, then why wouldn't people stay in the other one? In fact, if there were two cryptos of similar market size, the liquidity of both would be improved by the trade between them.

well, for 5000 yrs or so, gold dominated currencies.  silver was a hack b/c there wasn't enough physical gold to serve the world's need for a widespread money that could be easily divided.

Bitcoin comes along and now we can disseminate a fixed supply currency easily worldwide.  we don't need any other cryptocurrency hacks to serve a global monetary function.

[nexern]

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.

In what market have this ever happened (one stock/currency has dominated all others due to liquidity/marketcap)? Just as long as the other token/coin has sufficient liquidity/marketcap, then why wouldn't people stay in the other one? In fact, if there were two cryptos of similar market size, the liquidity of both would be improved by the trade between them.

well, for 5000 yrs or so, gold dominated currencies.  silver was a hack b/c there wasn't enough physical gold to serve the world's need for a widespread money that could be easily divided.

Bitcoin comes along and now we can disseminate a fixed supply currency easily worldwide.  we don't need any other cryptocurrency hacks to serve a global monetary function.

wow, so you say btc is perfect and there is no need for improvements?
and i thought it is proved that standstill is a throwback.

[_mr_e]

Interesting timing: http://two-bit-idiot.tumblr.com/post/97258629244/adept-ibm-samsung-bitcoin

[Moneroman88]

well, for 5000 yrs or so, gold dominated currencies.  silver was a hack b/c there wasn't enough physical gold to serve the world's need for a widespread money that could be easily divided.

Bitcoin comes along and now we can disseminate a fixed supply currency easily worldwide.  we don't need any other cryptocurrency hacks to serve a global monetary function.

I call BS BTC hype , there are far superior technologies than Bitcoin available right now at this very second and you're aware of that. Monero (XMR) uses advanced CN technology that actually introduces real privacy, a point that is absolutely crucial. Beyond that Monero is supported by the majority of the oldschool Bitcoiners, hence the status quo is that Bitcoin's survival depends on the good will of Monero supporters not to let it crash. Does't really look all that solid... but go ahead and keep hyping Bitcoin as the only thing that matters...

[cypherdoc]

It's only unfair as long as you didn't make any money off of it. Given that forging gives extremely minimal returns compared to other options you could spend your nxt on, this argument has grown very tired. Then again, don't the rich always get richer, how does nxt do this any differently?

You should know that more then anyone given the trading capital you likely have at your fingertips.  Pretty unfair if you ask me. You should just leave all your money in the bank. The interest would give you more then forging would!

that unfairness is perceived by the mkt and discourages any future investors from wanting to be bagholders.

[cypherdoc]

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.

In what market have this ever happened (one stock/currency has dominated all others due to liquidity/marketcap)? Just as long as the other token/coin has sufficient liquidity/marketcap, then why wouldn't people stay in the other one? In fact, if there were two cryptos of similar market size, the liquidity of both would be improved by the trade between them.

well, for 5000 yrs or so, gold dominated currencies.  silver was a hack b/c there wasn't enough physical gold to serve the world's need for a widespread money that could be easily divided.

Bitcoin comes along and now we can disseminate a fixed supply currency easily worldwide.  we don't need any other cryptocurrency hacks to serve a global monetary function.

wow, so you say btc is perfect and there is no need for improvements?
and i thought it is proved that standstill is a throwback.

Gavin and the core devs do make improvements when they and the community see a need to do so.  fortunately, the network is performing quite well with increasing hashrate and more merchants.  

what you call a standstill, i call stability.  investors want a degree of certainty and predictability.  Bitcoin provides that.  NXT otoh, keeps changing.

[rpietila]

Someone made a comment that if a second crypto had a value of the same order of magnitude as bitcoin, then all cryptos would lose their credibility because cryptos would no longer have scarcity anymore. My point was that it's possible to have a multitude of stores of value, and that a second one might take a chunk out of the first, but it wouldn't destroy the idea of cryptos as a store of value.

It does not matter if 99% lose their faith on something, if the remaining 1% are wealthy enough and still accept it.

Bitcoin is an accepted medium for the extinguishing of a monetary obligation by 0.01% of world's population currently. It is not big even yet. If another cryptocurrency would come and match or overtake it, it would hardly matter anything.

The situation would be different if the general public did believe in crypto and accept them now. But that's not the case.

Just compare to the charade that is going on every day with the fiat currency world. None of the altcoin scams are as blatant. "To obtain a balance of coinX, you need to become indebted denominated in coinX and pay us interest...." and so the story goes.

Yet fiat has value.

[_mr_e]

It's only unfair as long as you didn't make any money off of it. Given that forging gives extremely minimal returns compared to other options you could spend your nxt on, this argument has grown very tired. Then again, don't the rich always get richer, how does nxt do this any differently?

You should know that more then anyone given the trading capital you likely have at your fingertips.  Pretty unfair if you ask me. You should just leave all your money in the bank. The interest would give you more then forging would!

that unfairness is perceived by the mkt and discourages any future investors from wanting to be bagholders.

That's not what I'm seeing...

[_mr_e]

Or...

[cypherdoc]

not impressed

[_mr_e]

still just a series of higher lows.  plus, we know how to deal with the blocking walls:

Odd that this impresses you then.

[nexern]

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.

In what market have this ever happened (one stock/currency has dominated all others due to liquidity/marketcap)? Just as long as the other token/coin has sufficient liquidity/marketcap, then why wouldn't people stay in the other one? In fact, if there were two cryptos of similar market size, the liquidity of both would be improved by the trade between them.

well, for 5000 yrs or so, gold dominated currencies.  silver was a hack b/c there wasn't enough physical gold to serve the world's need for a widespread money that could be easily divided.

Bitcoin comes along and now we can disseminate a fixed supply currency easily worldwide.  we don't need any other cryptocurrency hacks to serve a global monetary function.

wow, so you say btc is perfect and there is no need for improvements?
and i thought it is proved that standstill is a throwback.

Gavin and the core devs do make improvements when they and the community see a need to do so.  fortunately, the network is performing quite well with increasing hashrate and more merchants.  

what you call a standstill, i call stability.  investors want a degree of certainty and predictability.  Bitcoin provides that.  NXT otoh, keeps changing.

while this sounds correct and makes sense, it change the context of your prior statement.
nonetheless i really doubt the core devs are in a free position to make improvements on
real demand. the blockchain tech is usable for much more than just a simple value storage
and there is a measurable demand for this additional need, indicated by various new projects.

however, i don't want to derail your thread here - which - btw is quite interesting.
we will see the outcome latest next year. hopefully you are right.

[cypherdoc]

still just a series of higher lows.  plus, we know how to deal with the blocking walls:

Odd that this impresses you then.

odd that you equate the two.

Bitcoin has much more proven history and money behind it.  NXT is still sucking on a teet as devphp put it.