Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

an analogy to the self contained financial system that i envision with Bitcoin is gold.

there is a finite amount of gold circulating throughout the world.  it's stored, it's used, it's supply is theoretically immutable.  none of it gets "transformed" to other speculative assets at any time.  and for 5000 yrs it served as the basis for a sound money system.  

by promoting the transformation of BTC units over to "different less secure ledgers" which now seems to be accepted here by even brg444, how is Bitcoins Sound Money function sustained?

There are plenty of examples of gold "side chains".  The GLD ETF derives its value from gold.  Egold once derived its value from gold.  In fact anyone who owns any kind of note that is redeemable for gold is participating in a gold "side chain".  Perhaps the most infamous example is the USD which has also lost its peg to gold.  These pegs were eventually lost because of central points of failure, but the physical gold remained unharmed.  Bitcoin distributes these central points of failure and if side chains fail, the bitcoin will remain.  Of course none of the elemental properties of gold were changed to create gold "side chains" and that is why we should go the federated route with bitcoin.

the bitcoin can be lost in a SC failure though.  i think confidence is eroded in the entire system certainly in the case of those owners who lose their scBTC.

Bitcoin can also be locked in for a length of time by the miners, remember merge mining can mine empty blocks on the SideChain locking it without forfeiting there mining revenue earned on other SideChains or Bitcoin.  

Which implies they forfeit the mining revenue of the chain they are attacking. If users decide that this chain is valuable to them it is in the miners best interest to preserve their economic incentives

this is new, in Bitcoin land, to use 100% of your mining power you had to forfeit 100% of your income and pay for the energy needed to be a malicious miner, in the post SC BTC world you can use 100% of your mining power and attack the network, while still earning tx fees on other chains, these kind of speculative attacks was not possible before, its just labour and gold rigging, on the protocol level. its will always be profitable.

Hmm...
It seems that in later years (with smaller coinbase TX block rewards) under the scenario of a very successful MM SC, the miner may be 51% the MC and mining the SC profitably without significant opportunity costs.
Since SPV is a soft fork, they could be 51%ing MC without supporting SPV on the MC and maliciously unlocking BTC from the SC.

don't forget the other way around is even more likely.  attacking the SC is costless in that the attack is temporary and doesn't involve destroying your main source of revenue, the MC.  there is greater incentive as well as you will be stealing scBTC which can be converted back to BTC.  you can also short scBTC if their is a market exchange.  you also wouldn't lose the value of your mining hardware investment like you would attacking your main revenue source, the MC.

[1713991755]

1713991755

[1713991755]

1713991755

[1713991755]

1713991755

[brg444]

my position is that Bitcoin should only be used as Money.  all other services should simply use Bitcoin as money.  Bitcoin should not have to build in any other services.

is that consistent with your model?  it doesn't sound like it.

Hmm... we are lacking the terminology here.  Gold or USD is also money.  Bitcoin is money with addtl features like guaranteed scarcity and simple transfer.  These features make it better money.  But exchange is not supported (atomic trustless worldwide).   Changetip and lots of other services dont really use it.  By this I mean other then the on and off ramp changetip might as well be using USD.

I want BTC to be the universal electronic embodiment of value -- the final money.

 To do so it needs to truly be integral to the applications that require value.  But I want the main chain to remain the safe low risk equivalent of holding FRNs or gold.  I dont want tons of features thrown into the mainchain -- too dangerous.  At the same time having every app use BTC equivalently to how it would use USD (centralized offline storage with individuals balance in a DB) is wasting btc's revolutionary technologies.  Sidechains are the way to keep the core safe yet allow BTC to assume the role of the ultimate money.

+1 My man. This guy gets it. I don't want it to be money cypherdoc. We need it to be the internet of money.

all other services should simply use Bitcoin as money.

This 8 words sentence perfectly resumes you.

After nearly 200 pages of discussion on this very issue. You did do not understand that sidechains (whether SPVP or federated) are the most natural and intuitive way to create services that use Bitcoin as money.

They are potentially the optimal way to preserve BTC as a ledger.

The SPVP proposal you so oppose is in reality emerging for the very nature of Bitcoin as a programmable open-source protocol. As stated, the reason its implementation would be ideal is to allow a more secure & decentralized proof mechanism to be available to sidechains that command these properties.

[cypherdoc]

Jim Rickards in an interview re: China debt, global depression (lower % growth than could be achieved - the Keynesian def) and timing of the next crisis

Anyways, speaking about a system reset, the last question was:

Do you think such scenarios make people more optimistic about crypto currencies like Bitcoins?

I see the rise of crypto-currencies as a sign of waning confidence in traditional currencies, such as the dollar. I expect the trend towards alternative currencies, such as Bitcoin, to grow as central banks continue to fail in their efforts to manipulate asset values.

http://internationalfinancemagazine.com/article/The-debt-problem-in-China-is-not-hype.html#sthash.XPW1qNhD.dpuf

Nice find.

The back pedaling is  almost complete.

And, accordingly on Twitter, his new online store accepts bitcoin.

wat!?  someone should call him out on that one.

[cypherdoc]

my position is that Bitcoin should only be used as Money.  all other services should simply use Bitcoin as money.  Bitcoin should not have to build in any other services.

is that consistent with your model?  it doesn't sound like it.

Hmm... we are lacking the terminology here.  Gold or USD is also money.  Bitcoin is money with addtl features like guaranteed scarcity and simple transfer.  These features make it better money.  But exchange is not supported (atomic trustless worldwide).   Changetip and lots of other services dont really use it.  By this I mean other then the on and off ramp changetip might as well be using USD.

I want BTC to be the universal electronic embodiment of value -- the final money.

 To do so it needs to truly be integral to the applications that require value.  But I want the main chain to remain the safe low risk equivalent of holding FRNs or gold.  I dont want tons of features thrown into the mainchain -- too dangerous.  At the same time having every app use BTC equivalently to how it would use USD (centralized offline storage with individuals balance in a DB) is wasting btc's revolutionary technologies.  Sidechains are the way to keep the core safe yet allow BTC to assume the role of the ultimate money.

+1 My man. This guy gets it. I don't want it to be money cypherdoc. We need it to be the internet of money.

all other services should simply use Bitcoin as money.

This 8 words sentence perfectly resumes you.

After nearly 200 pages of discussion on this very issue. You did do not understand that sidechains (whether SPVP or federated) are the most natural and intuitive way to create services that use Bitcoin as money.

They are potentially the optimal way to preserve BTC as a ledger.

The SPVP proposal you so oppose is in reality emerging for the very nature of Bitcoin as a programmable open-source protocol. As stated, the reason its implementation would be ideal is to allow a more secure & decentralized proof mechanism to be available to sidechains that command these properties.

i was thinking today this very point is what distinguishes our philosophies of the pro vs con of SC's  

you, zerg, odalv all want to see the Bitcoin protocol encompass all forms of asset trade; stocks, bonds, insurance, smart contracts, etc.  you will accomplish by breaking the link btwn the currency unit and its blockchain.

i, and many others on this thread, see Bitcoin as Money only.  a digital form of gold.  the SPVproof is the key to our opposing views.  in our world view, Bitcoin as Money will eventually be used to trade these assets as well.  but it will take longer and some patience.

there is good reason for this outlook and desire.  the real problem with the world today is with unfettered fiat printing.  we need a better money like Bitcoin.  imo, Bitcoin is the targeted silver bullet aimed at the heart of central banks at their core function of money printing.  Forex markets trade of $5.3T per day.  the gold market is $8T.  if we can maintain Bitcoin as Money, with time we can subsume both of those markets which will take us to the Moon.  but it relies on keeping the sound money function.

there's the problem.

[cypherdoc]

brg444.  i could give a shit about Bitcoin encompassing those pitiful little markets to the left with SC's.  i want the Big Kahuna on the far right.  those amts are $/d:

[brg444]

my position is that Bitcoin should only be used as Money.  all other services should simply use Bitcoin as money.  Bitcoin should not have to build in any other services.

is that consistent with your model?  it doesn't sound like it.

Hmm... we are lacking the terminology here.  Gold or USD is also money.  Bitcoin is money with addtl features like guaranteed scarcity and simple transfer.  These features make it better money.  But exchange is not supported (atomic trustless worldwide).   Changetip and lots of other services dont really use it.  By this I mean other then the on and off ramp changetip might as well be using USD.

I want BTC to be the universal electronic embodiment of value -- the final money.

 To do so it needs to truly be integral to the applications that require value.  But I want the main chain to remain the safe low risk equivalent of holding FRNs or gold.  I dont want tons of features thrown into the mainchain -- too dangerous.  At the same time having every app use BTC equivalently to how it would use USD (centralized offline storage with individuals balance in a DB) is wasting btc's revolutionary technologies.  Sidechains are the way to keep the core safe yet allow BTC to assume the role of the ultimate money.

+1 My man. This guy gets it. I don't want it to be money cypherdoc. We need it to be the internet of money.

all other services should simply use Bitcoin as money.

This 8 words sentence perfectly resumes you.

After nearly 200 pages of discussion on this very issue. You did do not understand that sidechains (whether SPVP or federated) are the most natural and intuitive way to create services that use Bitcoin as money.

They are potentially the optimal way to preserve BTC as a ledger.

The SPVP proposal you so oppose is in reality emerging for the very nature of Bitcoin as a programmable open-source protocol. As stated, the reason its implementation would be ideal is to allow a more secure & decentralized proof mechanism to be available to sidechains that command these properties.

i was thinking today this very point is what distinguishes our philosophies of the pro vs con of SC's  

you, zerg, odalv all want to see the Bitcoin protocol encompass all forms of asset trade; stocks, bonds, insurance, smart contracts, etc.  you will accomplish by breaking the link btwn the currency unit and its blockchain.

i, and many others on this thread, see Bitcoin as Money only.  a digital form of gold.  the SPVproof is the key to our opposing views.  in our world view, Bitcoin as Money will eventually be used to trade these assets as well.  but it will take longer and some patience.

there is good reason for this outlook and desire.  the real problem with the world today is with unfettered fiat printing.  we need a better money like Bitcoin.  imo, Bitcoin is the targeted silver bullet aimed at the heart of central banks at their core function of money printing.  Forex markets trade of $5.3T per day.  the gold market is $8T.  if we can maintain Bitcoin as Money, with time we can subsume both of those markets which will take us to the Moon.  but it relies on keeping the sound money function.

there's the problem.

 

my friend. the cost is not time or convenience but trust.

if you want to maintain Bitcoin as Money only the trust for the ledger matters.

to preserve the trust, you have to, as you say,discourage any inflation and devaluation of its value.

by conceding the handling of transactions and proof verification to anyone but the network you forfeit trust.

by conceding the trust to a significant portion of the economy to off-chain schemes and federation of servers/oracles/voting pools you necessarily create more risk and enable possibilities of fractional reserve schemes.

[Alonzo Ewing]

Jim Rickards in an interview re: China debt, global depression (lower % growth than could be achieved - the Keynesian def) and timing of the next crisis

Anyways, speaking about a system reset, the last question was:

Do you think such scenarios make people more optimistic about crypto currencies like Bitcoins?

I see the rise of crypto-currencies as a sign of waning confidence in traditional currencies, such as the dollar. I expect the trend towards alternative currencies, such as Bitcoin, to grow as central banks continue to fail in their efforts to manipulate asset values.

http://internationalfinancemagazine.com/article/The-debt-problem-in-China-is-not-hype.html#sthash.XPW1qNhD.dpuf

Nice find.

The back pedaling is  almost complete.

And, accordingly on Twitter, his new online store accepts bitcoin.

wat!?  someone should call him out on that one.

Yeah, he's pretending he was always pro-Bitcoin.  At least have the integrity to admit you were wrong, Jim.

[cypherdoc]

my position is that Bitcoin should only be used as Money.  all other services should simply use Bitcoin as money.  Bitcoin should not have to build in any other services.

is that consistent with your model?  it doesn't sound like it.

Hmm... we are lacking the terminology here.  Gold or USD is also money.  Bitcoin is money with addtl features like guaranteed scarcity and simple transfer.  These features make it better money.  But exchange is not supported (atomic trustless worldwide).   Changetip and lots of other services dont really use it.  By this I mean other then the on and off ramp changetip might as well be using USD.

I want BTC to be the universal electronic embodiment of value -- the final money.

 To do so it needs to truly be integral to the applications that require value.  But I want the main chain to remain the safe low risk equivalent of holding FRNs or gold.  I dont want tons of features thrown into the mainchain -- too dangerous.  At the same time having every app use BTC equivalently to how it would use USD (centralized offline storage with individuals balance in a DB) is wasting btc's revolutionary technologies.  Sidechains are the way to keep the core safe yet allow BTC to assume the role of the ultimate money.

+1 My man. This guy gets it. I don't want it to be money cypherdoc. We need it to be the internet of money.

all other services should simply use Bitcoin as money.

This 8 words sentence perfectly resumes you.

After nearly 200 pages of discussion on this very issue. You did do not understand that sidechains (whether SPVP or federated) are the most natural and intuitive way to create services that use Bitcoin as money.

They are potentially the optimal way to preserve BTC as a ledger.

The SPVP proposal you so oppose is in reality emerging for the very nature of Bitcoin as a programmable open-source protocol. As stated, the reason its implementation would be ideal is to allow a more secure & decentralized proof mechanism to be available to sidechains that command these properties.

i was thinking today this very point is what distinguishes our philosophies of the pro vs con of SC's  

you, zerg, odalv all want to see the Bitcoin protocol encompass all forms of asset trade; stocks, bonds, insurance, smart contracts, etc.  you will accomplish by breaking the link btwn the currency unit and its blockchain.

i, and many others on this thread, see Bitcoin as Money only.  a digital form of gold.  the SPVproof is the key to our opposing views.  in our world view, Bitcoin as Money will eventually be used to trade these assets as well.  but it will take longer and some patience.

there is good reason for this outlook and desire.  the real problem with the world today is with unfettered fiat printing.  we need a better money like Bitcoin.  imo, Bitcoin is the targeted silver bullet aimed at the heart of central banks at their core function of money printing.  Forex markets trade of $5.3T per day.  the gold market is $8T.  if we can maintain Bitcoin as Money, with time we can subsume both of those markets which will take us to the Moon.  but it relies on keeping the sound money function.

there's the problem.

 

my friend. the cost is not time or convenience but trust.

if you want to maintain Bitcoin as Money only the trust for the ledger matters.

to preserve the trust, you have to, as you say,discourage any inflation and devaluation of its value.

by conceding the handling of transactions and proof verification to anyone but the network you forfeit trust.

by conceding the trust to a significant portion of the economy to off-chain schemes and federation of servers/oracles/voting pools you necessarily create more risk and enable possibilities of fractional reserve schemes.

i agree with your first four sentences, not the last.

it's how to accomplish this where we disagree.  by maintaining Bitcoin's bullet proof BTC/blockchain linkage which has been aptly proven over the last 6 yrs, we have accomplished enough trust to attract all the investment we're seeing currently.  that is what is important.  nothing that happens on gox-like ledgers matters to Bitcoin and its future success.  none of those BTC ever left the blockchain and remain in circulation somewhere in someones hands.  any scBTC that get lost in an attack or SC failure get lost forever.  but the real problem is the offramp; the spvp which breaks the sound money function and ruins everything for everyone.

[cypherdoc]

as i see it, SC's are a temptation to make fast money thru inflation thru the indirect method of breaking Bitcoin's Sound Money function using the spvp which allows transformation of BTC to all manner of speculative assets (anything not BTC).  except that Blockstream will be in the best position to make USD's from that.  the rest of us will have to scramble to figure out which chain contains the most value.

the bigger reward, but longer battle, will be achieved by maintaining a self contained Bitcoin financial system that inextricably links the currency unit to its blockchain.  this will be much easier for us, all we have to do is hodl.

[cypherdoc]

here's a clever reply on how Blockstream can make money devving SC's by asherp on Reddit:

[–]asherp 2 points 7 hours ago

My guess: it takes time to convert btc onto a given sidechain, and the weaker the chain the longer it takes to convert. The devs could have already started several sidechains that expand bitcoin's features, moving their own btc onto them. When they announce their new sidechain, they can offer to trade for coins on the main chain for slightly above the 1-1 peg. Those who want to use the sidechain can either a) convert their own coins which could take weeks or 2) buy premined sidechain coins for a small fee.

[brg444]

my friend. the cost is not time or convenience but trust.

if you want to maintain Bitcoin as Money only the trust for the ledger matters.

to preserve the trust, you have to, as you say,discourage any inflation and devaluation of its value.

by conceding the handling of transactions and proof verification to anyone but the network you forfeit trust.

by conceding the trust to a significant portion of the economy to off-chain schemes and federation of servers/oracles/voting pools you necessarily create more risk and enable possibilities of fractional reserve schemes.

nothing that happens on gox-like ledgers matters to Bitcoin and its future success.  

lol

well I think *this* is where we disagree

I don't believe that people who lost coins on Gox are glad they "remain in circulation somewhere in someones hands."

Probably because that someone's hand is likely the same one who took it from theirs..

any scBTC that get lost in an attack or SC failure get lost forever.  

Well you see to me this is not necessarily a bad proposition. it encourages prudence and financial awareness. It instills respect first and foremost for the store of value.

but the real problem is the offramp; the spvp which breaks the sound money function and ruins everything for everyone.

the off ramp exists in many form and is not unique to spvp proof verification.

[brg444]

as i see it, SC's are a temptation to make fast money thru inflation thru the indirect method of breaking Bitcoin's Sound Money function using federated servers which allows transformation of BTC to all manner of speculative assets (anything not BTC).  except that Blockstream will be in the best position to make USD's from that.  the rest of us will have to scramble to figure out which chain contains the most value.

the bigger reward, but longer battle, will be achieved by maintaining a self contained Bitcoin financial system that inextricably links the currency unit to its blockchain.  this will be much easier for us, all we have to do is hodl.

FTFY

[brg444]

here's a clever reply on how Blockstream can make money devving SC's by asherp on Reddit:

[–]asherp 2 points 7 hours ago

My guess: it takes time to convert btc onto a given sidechain, and the weaker the chain the longer it takes to convert. The devs could have already started several sidechains that expand bitcoin's features, moving their own btc onto them. When they announce their new sidechain, they can offer to trade for coins on the main chain for slightly above the 1-1 peg. Those who want to use the sidechain can either a) convert their own coins which could take weeks or 2) buy premined sidechain coins for a small fee.

clever.

who would've thought.

[cypherdoc]

as i see it, SC's are a temptation to make fast money thru inflation thru the indirect method of breaking Bitcoin's Sound Money function using federated servers which allows transformation of BTC to all manner of speculative assets (anything not BTC).  except that Blockstream will be in the best position to make USD's from that.  the rest of us will have to scramble to figure out which chain contains the most value.

the bigger reward, but longer battle, will be achieved by maintaining a self contained Bitcoin financial system that inextricably links the currency unit to its blockchain.  this will be much easier for us, all we have to do is hodl.

FTFY

maybe.

but those ppl are short sighted as the big column on the far right should be the goal.  there should be a column for gold:

[brg444]

http://blockstream.com/2014/11/17/blockstream-a-champion-of-bitcoins-core-values/
http://blockstream.com/2014/11/17/blockstream-closes-21m-seed-round/

we all share a demonstrated commitment to advancing an open source, cryptographically-enabled future that supports user’s rights and freedoms and creates lasting public benefit.

These values are also core to the group of investors who participated in our seed round. Both Reid Hoffman and Vinod Khosla are well known for their deep commitment and generous contributions to companies, projects and causes that have benefited millions of people around the world. As Reid mentions in his post today, he sees Blockstream as similar to Mozilla (Reid is a board member of Mozilla).

“And that’s why I’m participating in this first-round financing as an individual investor, and why Blockstream itself will function similarly to the Mozilla Corporation. Here, our first interest is maintaining and enhancing Bitcoin’s strong open ecosystem. And the structure we’ve chosen will give us the freedom and flexibility to prioritize public good over returns to investors.”

We look forward to working with the community on fulfilling the potential of a faster pace of blockchain innovation, focussed and building on Bitcoin’s network-effect.

“Can’t be evil.” That was the first thing Adam Back and I wrote on a whiteboard at the start of the year.

Blockstream is the first startup focused on advancements to the core technology underpinning Bitcoin.
...
Blockstream is the first company extending the capabilities at the protocol level to support massive scaling of Bitcoin and blockchain technology to a broad range of asset types. Put another way, the extension mechanism of sidechains, the company’s initial area of focus, allows any number of so far unthought of developments to happen in an open and interoperable way.

Blockstream: A Champion of Bitcoin’s Core Values

Sounds like bad guys  

[brg444]

as i see it, SC's are a temptation to make fast money thru inflation thru the indirect method of breaking Bitcoin's Sound Money function using federated servers which allows transformation of BTC to all manner of speculative assets (anything not BTC).  except that Blockstream will be in the best position to make USD's from that.  the rest of us will have to scramble to figure out which chain contains the most value.

the bigger reward, but longer battle, will be achieved by maintaining a self contained Bitcoin financial system that inextricably links the currency unit to its blockchain.  this will be much easier for us, all we have to do is hodl.

FTFY

maybe.

but those ppl are short sighted as the big column on the far right should be the goal.  there should be a column for gold:

I'm afraid this, is actualy a very shortsighted way to see things.

I'd like to suggest you this reading http://wefivekingsblog.blogspot.ca/2014/01/the-universe-wants-one-exchange.html if you haven't had the chance yet.

you will understand that your complaisance with Bitcoin as merely Sound Money might be misguided.

[thezerg]

In no way is the "Bitcoin's bullet proof BTC/blockchain linkage" broken.  The coins aren't actually moved to the other chain, they are held on the mainchain like gold in a vault and a representation which is NOT BTC and can't be spent at coinbase for example, appears on the sidechain.

There is no way sidechains break the 21 million scarcity limit of real BTC.  And anything that a sidechain could do to "dilute" the space (that is by creating a new token type) can be done with an altcoin today, and that has gotten nowhere.  Any "betrayal" of the BTC "brand" that can be done with sidechains can equivalently be done much more easily (and with the same brand damage) with centralized solutions.  We've seen it over and over again; Gox ponzi didn't kill BTC, and SCponzi won't either.  But the risk of SCponzi will certainly make the mainchain the preferred place to hold and make large transfers.  Sidechains will make Bitcoin the preferred long term store of value, because tremendous utility is just a chain transfer away.

  And how is Gox going to go Ponzi when the GoxBTC and GoxUSD on its sidechain must match the BTC "locked" on the mainchain and the USD in their bank accounts (which can be audited)?

If a multi-token sidechain is created with scBTC and inflata-Coin-to-make-devs-rich, what do you think people will do?  Probably not even touch the sidechain.  But assuming they do, they will hold the scBTC and when they need to "use" the sidechain features the require inflata-coin, they'll buy the inflata-coin moments before spending it.

But without sidechains you really do risk a new token that comes along and takes massive market share.  We as a society are not ready to put stocks, mortgages, etc on a blockchain (because why have the risk of a new tech coupled with the return of an old stock).  But someday we WILL be.  And when we are, what's going to be the preferred payment?  Old stodgy BTC that you have to sign up for exchanges, do AML, etc to access real markets, or tradecoin which can be tranformed into GOOG 5 seconds after receipt?  There's a REASON gold shot up when ETFs appeared -- its called access to markets.  

What about the IOT (internet of things) token?  20 years from now, items in your house might be doing 500 txns per day for a total of < $5 automatically on your behalf... Sidechains allow BTC to scale beyond our wildest dreams to applications we can't even consider.

You are like the guy who said there's only use for 5 computers in the world.  

You should instead consider that the biggest risk to BTC right now is the sidechain-altcoin that Blockstream so "kindly" offered to build instead of integrating these technologies directly into BTC.  That altcoin has the potential to leave BTC in the backwaters of digital currencies (except that I believe in the core devs in Blockstream to move the tech over).

Ok, that's probably the end of my rant... but my subsequent silence does not mean that you are right :-).  Honestly, I miss the great insights you guys (and mostly cypherdoc) provide about the larger world economic picture on this thread and hope that we can eventually get back to it!  But I'll tell you this; I'm a technologist and I've skipped from one newly breaking technology to the next for my entire career in startups; gaming, telecom in 1995-2000, storage, wireless, OSHW, bitcoin.  I'm telling you if sidechains CAN be done (honestly I haven't really verified the gory details of the automated 2-way peg myself) they WILL eventually be the dominant coin.  I proposed them in early 2012 (the concept not the mechanism)...  but don't worry to much, BTC will not die; it'll be the Rolls Royce with a valuation above what we have today, while the sidechain-enabled coin takes 99% of the market.

EDIT: tl;dr. Bitcoin is the zerg.  It will take over everything thru sidechains.

[brg444]

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/bitcoin-startup-buttercoin-lands-wedbush-as-investor-qW8Vi84nTaq4fbHea_TfJQ.html

Wedbush purchasing undisclosed stake in Buttercoin.

boom

[Melbustus]

Jim Rickards in an interview re: China debt, global depression (lower % growth than could be achieved - the Keynesian def) and timing of the next crisis

Anyways, speaking about a system reset, the last question was:

Do you think such scenarios make people more optimistic about crypto currencies like Bitcoins?

I see the rise of crypto-currencies as a sign of waning confidence in traditional currencies, such as the dollar. I expect the trend towards alternative currencies, such as Bitcoin, to grow as central banks continue to fail in their efforts to manipulate asset values.

http://internationalfinancemagazine.com/article/The-debt-problem-in-China-is-not-hype.html#sthash.XPW1qNhD.dpuf

Nice find.

The back pedaling is  almost complete.

And, accordingly on Twitter, his new online store accepts bitcoin.

wat!?  someone should call him out on that one.

That article is from November 7th, I see. Well, 6 days later he was upping his attack rhetoric on bitcoin:



He's tweeted that at least twice:

https://twitter.com/JamesGRickards/status/533306873525854208

https://twitter.com/JamesGRickards/status/533057485264134144


I get where he's coming from; it must be very annoying to spend your life advocating for something which gets less and less relevant every day only to have a bunch of young irreverent nerds eat your lunch when you're a couple years from retirement.

[brg444]

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/bitcoin-as-a-technology-bloomberg-panel-TnFJvX9~SOOgqr4UoiWRHw.html

WOW at Adam Ludwin from Chain hits a HOME RUN on the first question of the day in this panel.

Adresses straight away the blockchain without bitcoin myth and tears it apart.