Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[brg444]

What incentive do I have to hold appcoinx to store value when BTC promises better return & better liquidity

Diversification.

Why investors have a portfolio of stocks instead of just having the stock that has the better risk/reward?

This is not diversification.

These are all eggs of the same basket (cryptoSOV).

Network effect dictates only one egg can survive. There is no comparison with stocks.

That is exactly diversification.

I'm sorry but I don't believe that purchasing assets subject to the same underlying risks is diversification.

Bitcoin, real estate, stocks, PM : sure

Bitcoin, Litecoin, Mastercoin, Storjcoin : not so

[NewLiberty]

Store of value function is a consequence of future economic relevance.

People store their wealth in stocks because they assume companies will have an economic relevance in the future. In gold because they assume that gold will have an economic relevance in the future. In BTC because they assume the network will have a future economic relevance.

Gold isn't the only SOV, it's just happens to be the one with the lower risk over long period, hence its popularity.

BTC will eat a good chunk of the SOV market, but it will not become the only means to transfer value in the future.

It's funny that gold is perceived as low risk. I think that perception inverts at some point. Given that gold no longer has any direct connection whatsoever to our monetary system or day-to-day economy, it sounds incredibly risky to me. There's no functional demand underpinning its value beyond the $300/oz (or whatever) of industrial-use demand, and it's a huge pain to actually manage ownership of it.

The risk of gold has a lot to do with its physical properties.  In the Egyptian pyramids, the gold (that hadn't been plundered) was just as it was when it was put there.  Most everything else was ravaged by time.  The small silver chains had become silver oxide dust, even most of the language was lost to antiquity and great effort has gone into decyphering its meanings with moderate success.

BIS still lists gold as an Tier 1 asset for central banks that use the option to do so.  The other tier 1 assets are mostly other central bank currencies and form the SDRs for inter-central bank settlements.  We aren't handing it back and forth to buy and sell stuff, but the central banks sometimes still do so.

[kodtycoon]

Sure, appcoins will probably have some value but it will degrade over time, just like frequent flyer miles as they will inevitably be inflated away through promises broken.

i am guna laugh my god damn ass off if an "app coin" as you call them ever over takes bitcoin lol im not saying its likely, just that it would be the most hilarious event in crypto history for me to see so many "wise men" proven wrong all in one go

How could they as most of them have not guaranteed a fixed supply nor will function as a neutral SOV for an undefined purpose.

how could they not have guaranteed a fixed supply? the vast majority do have a fixed supply enforced by mathematics. creation of a new alt does not expand the number of coins in any other network. can you define "neutral store of value"? storing value is the defined purpose if that is what the main/only function is.. so how can it be a "store of value for an undefined purpose" if the very purpose is to store value <- this statement is contradictory to itself..

[cypherdoc]

Sure, appcoins will probably have some value but it will degrade over time, just like frequent flyer miles as they will inevitably be inflated away through promises broken.

i am guna laugh my god damn ass off if an "app coin" as you call them ever over takes bitcoin lol im not saying its likely, just that it would be the most hilarious event in crypto history for me to see so many "wise men" proven wrong all in one go

How could they as most of them have not guaranteed a fixed supply nor will function as a neutral SOV for an undefined purpose.

how could they not have guaranteed a fixed supply? the vast majority do have a fixed supply enforced by mathematics. creation of a new alt does not expand the number of coins in any other network. can you define "neutral store of value"? storing value is the defined purpose if that is what the main/only function is.. so how can it be a "store of value for an undefined purpose" if the very purpose is to store value <- this statement is contradictory to itself..

I don't know all the altcoins and appcoins but I have seen plenty examples of how this promise has been violate,  like with Ripple. Bitshares has morphed itself like 3x. That's because none of them has gotten big enough to piss off too many people.

By neutral, I mean that Bitcoin only has to function as money and nothing else to succeed massively.

[justusranvier]

Nick Szabo has written an outstanding essay about the origins of money: http://szabo.best.vwh.net/shell.html

Krawisz is doing better work than Szabo these days:

http://nakamotoinstitute.org/reciprocal-altruism-in-the-theory-of-money/

(insert disclaimer referencing "shoulders of giants" here)

[BldSwtTrs]

Bitcoin, as money, aspires to become the most easily exchangeable good so that it can be traded for any goods or services on the market. For that reason Bitcoin is absolutely held, to some extent, because of its ability to be saved and maintain in exchange value so as to satisfy "future random opportunities" (the very definition of a SOV).

Now Storjcoin, as an appcoin, only serves one purpose which is to (afaik) use storage capabilities of the Storj network.

One will not hold Storjcoin to satisfy future storage needs. Presumably they will hold BTC and exchange for Storjcoin only when they want to use the Storj network.

Given the frictionless nature of this exchange it is reasonable to assume that most people will prefer holding the more valuable, liquid asset instead of one that is restricted to use in only one market(network).

If this model were true then nobody would hold something else than cash.
But people hold stocks which are less liquid than cash and which you cannot exchange against goods.

Appcoins really are just shares of a network as stocks are shares of companies. If a company creates value then its shares are valuable, if a network creates value then its shares will be valuable too. The only difference is that the company earns profits and give them out whereas the value created by a nertwork inflates directly the value of its tokens.

Cypherdoc you are right the limited supply of appcoins is questionnable but it's the same things with stocks. There are not good long term store of value but can be good medium tem store of value and speculative vehicles if managed actively. You cannot buy facebook shares or maidsafecoins and come back 20 years later whereas you can do that with BTC.

[kodtycoon]

Sure, appcoins will probably have some value but it will degrade over time, just like frequent flyer miles as they will inevitably be inflated away through promises broken.

i am guna laugh my god damn ass off if an "app coin" as you call them ever over takes bitcoin lol im not saying its likely, just that it would be the most hilarious event in crypto history for me to see so many "wise men" proven wrong all in one go

How could they as most of them have not guaranteed a fixed supply nor will function as a neutral SOV for an undefined purpose.

how could they not have guaranteed a fixed supply? the vast majority do have a fixed supply enforced by mathematics. creation of a new alt does not expand the number of coins in any other network. can you define "neutral store of value"? storing value is the defined purpose if that is what the main/only function is.. so how can it be a "store of value for an undefined purpose" if the very purpose is to store value <- this statement is contradictory to itself..

I don't know all the altcoins and appcoins but I have seen plenty examples of how this promise has been violate,  like with Ripple. Bitshares has morphed itself like 3x. That's because none of them has gotten big enough to piss off too many people.

By neutral, I mean that Bitcoin only has to function as money and nothing else to succeed massively.

its only a tiny fraction of coins that can increase the number of coins. the vast majority cant do that and never have or should i say it is possible with a fork or something but that would ultimately be the downfall of the coin - bitcoin is no different in regards to increasing supply. the fact that bitcoin can only ever act as a form of currency could be the very reason another coin over takes it - not that it would happen any time soon but you cant exactly say its impossible. acting as only money is not a prerequisite for success. the only reason bitcoin has that luxury of only needing to act as money is due to its 6 year head start to anything innovative enough to challenge it and bitcoin being the first of its kind. whether that head start can keep it ahead 10 years from now is any ones guess.. these second gen coins - not just app coins, theres a big difference - could eventually evolve and innovate enough to become challengers to the crypto status quo.

[smooth]

What incentive do I have to hold appcoinx to store value when BTC promises better return & better liquidity

Diversification.

Why investors have a portfolio of stocks instead of just having the stock that has the better risk/reward?

This is not diversification.

These are all eggs of the same basket (cryptoSOV).

Network effect dictates only one egg can survive. There is no comparison with stocks.

That is exactly diversification.

I'm sorry but I don't believe that purchasing assets subject to the same underlying risks is diversification.

Bitcoin, real estate, stocks, PM : sure

Bitcoin, Litecoin, Mastercoin, Storjcoin : not so

If one accepts the "only one egg can survive" theory, then you have nearly perfect negative correlation between the assets (at least when you buy only two of them, one being the most likely survivor and one being the strongest alt; if you buy more it becomes more complex, but still diversification). The is exactly what you want for ideal diversification.

I don't think you understand the concept at all.

[smooth]

Sure, appcoins will probably have some value but it will degrade over time, just like frequent flyer miles as they will inevitably be inflated away through promises broken.

i am guna laugh my god damn ass off if an "app coin" as you call them ever over takes bitcoin lol im not saying its likely, just that it would be the most hilarious event in crypto history for me to see so many "wise men" proven wrong all in one go

How could they as most of them have not guaranteed a fixed supply nor will function as a neutral SOV for an undefined purpose.

The way this would happen is if one of them became extremely useful and popular first. Then it would be so widely used and accepted that it could start to be used as money by others even if they had no direct interest in the underlying service. It really wouldn't take a lot for something to become more widely used than bitcoin at this point.

I don't really see this happening with something like storj (too limited in application), but something like ethereum or perhaps maidsafe has the (long shot) potential to develop in that manner.

[cbeast]

Sure, appcoins will probably have some value but it will degrade over time, just like frequent flyer miles as they will inevitably be inflated away through promises broken.

i am guna laugh my god damn ass off if an "app coin" as you call them ever over takes bitcoin lol im not saying its likely, just that it would be the most hilarious event in crypto history for me to see so many "wise men" proven wrong all in one go

How could they as most of them have not guaranteed a fixed supply nor will function as a neutral SOV for an undefined purpose.

The way this would happen is if one of them became extremely useful and popular first. Then it would be so widely used and accepted that it could start to be used as money by others even if they had no direct interest in the underlying service. It really wouldn't take a lot for something to become more widely used than bitcoin at this point.

I don't really see this happening with something like storj (too limited in application), but something like ethereum or perhaps maidsafe has the (long shot) potential to develop in that manner.

Bitcoin uses electricity, but any resource can be used to back honest money if it uses a one way function for consensus. Systems like storj and ethereum can be built on Bitcoin. The beauty of using energy is that it's abundant.

[NewLiberty]

[smooth]

Sure, appcoins will probably have some value but it will degrade over time, just like frequent flyer miles as they will inevitably be inflated away through promises broken.

i am guna laugh my god damn ass off if an "app coin" as you call them ever over takes bitcoin lol im not saying its likely, just that it would be the most hilarious event in crypto history for me to see so many "wise men" proven wrong all in one go

How could they as most of them have not guaranteed a fixed supply nor will function as a neutral SOV for an undefined purpose.

The way this would happen is if one of them became extremely useful and popular first. Then it would be so widely used and accepted that it could start to be used as money by others even if they had no direct interest in the underlying service. It really wouldn't take a lot for something to become more widely used than bitcoin at this point.

I don't really see this happening with something like storj (too limited in application), but something like ethereum or perhaps maidsafe has the (long shot) potential to develop in that manner.

Bitcoin uses electricity, but any resource can be used to back honest money if it uses a one way function for consensus. Systems like storj and ethereum can be built on Bitcoin. The beauty of using energy is that it's abundant.

You are looking at this in terms of what can be done (i.e. can be built on bitcoin), I'm looking at it in terms of what may actually happen.

Systems like ethereum or maidsafe could possibly become vastly more widespread than bitcoin on an explosive basis (i.e. far faster than bitcoin can adapt, if there is even a desire by the bitcoin community to adapt). Vastly more popular means only tens of millions of users or possibly 100 million, which really isn't that many when you consider a simple application like whatsapp with a billion users.

At that point the liquidity argument usually made in favor of bitcoin applies strongly against it.

To be clear I don't expect this to happen, but i recognize it as a possible low probability outcome.

[cbeast]

Sure, appcoins will probably have some value but it will degrade over time, just like frequent flyer miles as they will inevitably be inflated away through promises broken.

i am guna laugh my god damn ass off if an "app coin" as you call them ever over takes bitcoin lol im not saying its likely, just that it would be the most hilarious event in crypto history for me to see so many "wise men" proven wrong all in one go

How could they as most of them have not guaranteed a fixed supply nor will function as a neutral SOV for an undefined purpose.

The way this would happen is if one of them became extremely useful and popular first. Then it would be so widely used and accepted that it could start to be used as money by others even if they had no direct interest in the underlying service. It really wouldn't take a lot for something to become more widely used than bitcoin at this point.

I don't really see this happening with something like storj (too limited in application), but something like ethereum or perhaps maidsafe has the (long shot) potential to develop in that manner.

Bitcoin uses electricity, but any resource can be used to back honest money if it uses a one way function for consensus. Systems like storj and ethereum can be built on Bitcoin. The beauty of using energy is that it's abundant.

You are looking at this in terms of what can be done (i.e. can be built on bitcoin), I'm looking at it in terms of what may actually happen.

Systems like ethereum or maidsafe could possibly become vastly more widespread than bitcoin on an explosive basis (i.e. far faster than bitcoin can adapt, if there is even a desire by the bitcoin community to adapt). Vastly more popular means only tens of millions of users or possibly 100 million, which really isn't that many when you consider something a simple application like whatsapp with a billion users.

At that point the liquidity argument usually made in favor of bitcoin applies strongly against it.

To be clear I don't expect this to happen, but i recognize it as a possible low probability outcome.

Maidsafe is interesting, but doesn't sound like it's good one way function. Also, it would be easy to clone and sell by storage technology companies. Unlike ASIC manufacturers, they could offer incentives and discounts for adopting their centralized storage systems. In that way it's a lot like PoS systems. Perhaps every hard drive manufacturer should develop their own storage coin.

[smooth]

Sure, appcoins will probably have some value but it will degrade over time, just like frequent flyer miles as they will inevitably be inflated away through promises broken.

i am guna laugh my god damn ass off if an "app coin" as you call them ever over takes bitcoin lol im not saying its likely, just that it would be the most hilarious event in crypto history for me to see so many "wise men" proven wrong all in one go

How could they as most of them have not guaranteed a fixed supply nor will function as a neutral SOV for an undefined purpose.

The way this would happen is if one of them became extremely useful and popular first. Then it would be so widely used and accepted that it could start to be used as money by others even if they had no direct interest in the underlying service. It really wouldn't take a lot for something to become more widely used than bitcoin at this point.

I don't really see this happening with something like storj (too limited in application), but something like ethereum or perhaps maidsafe has the (long shot) potential to develop in that manner.

Bitcoin uses electricity, but any resource can be used to back honest money if it uses a one way function for consensus. Systems like storj and ethereum can be built on Bitcoin. The beauty of using energy is that it's abundant.

You are looking at this in terms of what can be done (i.e. can be built on bitcoin), I'm looking at it in terms of what may actually happen.

Systems like ethereum or maidsafe could possibly become vastly more widespread than bitcoin on an explosive basis (i.e. far faster than bitcoin can adapt, if there is even a desire by the bitcoin community to adapt). Vastly more popular means only tens of millions of users or possibly 100 million, which really isn't that many when you consider something a simple application like whatsapp with a billion users.

At that point the liquidity argument usually made in favor of bitcoin applies strongly against it.

To be clear I don't expect this to happen, but i recognize it as a possible low probability outcome.

Maidsafe is interesting, but doesn't sound like it's good one way function. Also, it would be easy to clone and sell by storage technology companies. Unlike ASIC manufacturers, they could offer incentives and discounts for adopting their centralized storage systems. In that way it's a lot like PoS systems. Perhaps every hard drive manufacturer should develop their own storage coin.

My understanding was that maidsafe was not just storage but more of a general purpose network services platform. If I'm incorrect about that, an I may be, then I would put it more in the category of storj.

[cbeast]

Sure, appcoins will probably have some value but it will degrade over time, just like frequent flyer miles as they will inevitably be inflated away through promises broken.

i am guna laugh my god damn ass off if an "app coin" as you call them ever over takes bitcoin lol im not saying its likely, just that it would be the most hilarious event in crypto history for me to see so many "wise men" proven wrong all in one go

How could they as most of them have not guaranteed a fixed supply nor will function as a neutral SOV for an undefined purpose.

The way this would happen is if one of them became extremely useful and popular first. Then it would be so widely used and accepted that it could start to be used as money by others even if they had no direct interest in the underlying service. It really wouldn't take a lot for something to become more widely used than bitcoin at this point.

I don't really see this happening with something like storj (too limited in application), but something like ethereum or perhaps maidsafe has the (long shot) potential to develop in that manner.

Bitcoin uses electricity, but any resource can be used to back honest money if it uses a one way function for consensus. Systems like storj and ethereum can be built on Bitcoin. The beauty of using energy is that it's abundant.

You are looking at this in terms of what can be done (i.e. can be built on bitcoin), I'm looking at it in terms of what may actually happen.

Systems like ethereum or maidsafe could possibly become vastly more widespread than bitcoin on an explosive basis (i.e. far faster than bitcoin can adapt, if there is even a desire by the bitcoin community to adapt). Vastly more popular means only tens of millions of users or possibly 100 million, which really isn't that many when you consider something a simple application like whatsapp with a billion users.

At that point the liquidity argument usually made in favor of bitcoin applies strongly against it.

To be clear I don't expect this to happen, but i recognize it as a possible low probability outcome.

Maidsafe is interesting, but doesn't sound like it's good one way function. Also, it would be easy to clone and sell by storage technology companies. Unlike ASIC manufacturers, they could offer incentives and discounts for adopting their centralized storage systems. In that way it's a lot like PoS systems. Perhaps every hard drive manufacturer should develop their own storage coin.

My understanding was that maidsafe was not just storage but more of a general purpose network services platform. If I'm incorrect about that, an I may be, then I would put it more in the category of storj.

Perhaps. BitPay's Foxtrot seems to be a similar approach. They all think that they can be universal currencies but they don't realize they are merely planets revolving around Bitcoin.

[brg444]

Sure, appcoins will probably have some value but it will degrade over time, just like frequent flyer miles as they will inevitably be inflated away through promises broken.

i am guna laugh my god damn ass off if an "app coin" as you call them ever over takes bitcoin lol im not saying its likely, just that it would be the most hilarious event in crypto history for me to see so many "wise men" proven wrong all in one go

How could they as most of them have not guaranteed a fixed supply nor will function as a neutral SOV for an undefined purpose.

The way this would happen is if one of them became extremely useful and popular first. Then it would be so widely used and accepted that it could start to be used as money by others even if they had no direct interest in the underlying service. It really wouldn't take a lot for something to become more widely used than bitcoin at this point.

I don't really see this happening with something like storj (too limited in application), but something like ethereum or perhaps maidsafe has the (long shot) potential to develop in that manner.

Bitcoin uses electricity, but any resource can be used to back honest money if it uses a one way function for consensus. Systems like storj and ethereum can be built on Bitcoin. The beauty of using energy is that it's abundant.

You are looking at this in terms of what can be done (i.e. can be built on bitcoin), I'm looking at it in terms of what may actually happen.

Systems like ethereum or maidsafe could possibly become vastly more widespread than bitcoin on an explosive basis (i.e. far faster than bitcoin can adapt, if there is even a desire by the bitcoin community to adapt). Vastly more popular means only tens of millions of users or possibly 100 million, which really isn't that many when you consider something a simple application like whatsapp with a billion users.

At that point the liquidity argument usually made in favor of bitcoin applies strongly against it.

To be clear I don't expect this to happen, but i recognize it as a possible low probability outcome.

Maidsafe is interesting, but doesn't sound like it's good one way function. Also, it would be easy to clone and sell by storage technology companies. Unlike ASIC manufacturers, they could offer incentives and discounts for adopting their centralized storage systems. In that way it's a lot like PoS systems. Perhaps every hard drive manufacturer should develop their own storage coin.

My understanding was that maidsafe was not just storage but more of a general purpose network services platform. If I'm incorrect about that, an I may be, then I would put it more in the category of storj.

Perhaps. BitPay's Foxtrot seems to be a similar approach. They all think that they can be universal currencies but they don't realize they are merely planets revolving around Bitcoin.

I believe Bitpay's foxtrot runs on Bitcoin

[Melbustus]

Eris essentially going after Ethereum: https://blog.erisindustries.com/products/2014/12/27/step-by-step-eris/

Vitalik and Eris staff back and forth in the comments...

[cypherdoc]

Sure, appcoins will probably have some value but it will degrade over time, just like frequent flyer miles as they will inevitably be inflated away through promises broken.

i am guna laugh my god damn ass off if an "app coin" as you call them ever over takes bitcoin lol im not saying its likely, just that it would be the most hilarious event in crypto history for me to see so many "wise men" proven wrong all in one go

How could they as most of them have not guaranteed a fixed supply nor will function as a neutral SOV for an undefined purpose.

The way this would happen is if one of them became extremely useful and popular first. Then it would be so widely used and accepted that it could start to be used as money by others even if they had no direct interest in the underlying service. It really wouldn't take a lot for something to become more widely used than bitcoin at this point.

I don't really see this happening with something like storj (too limited in application), but something like ethereum or perhaps maidsafe has the (long shot) potential to develop in that manner.

i can't think of anything more useful or popular than the function of money itself.  not to mention exciting, as this is precisely where all the problems of the financial world lie, and hence the potential to disrupt.  the problem when you try to intermingle or weave other assets classes into the structure of the money itself is that it quickly gets complicated and even political as we're seeing with Ethereum.  poor boy Vitalik can't even decide how to secure the whole concept yet at this late stage of his game.

Maidsafe is the goal for a decentralized internet, which is about the extent of my understanding of it.  however, using Safecoins is problematic.

[sidhujag]

Eris essentially going after Ethereum: https://blog.erisindustries.com/products/2014/12/27/step-by-step-eris/

Vitalik and Eris staff back and forth in the comments...

Vitalik has been seemingly pleasantly surprised by the recent developments in bitshares and participAtes in discussion over at bitsharestalk... maybe he will get a paid delegate and switch over?

[brg444]

Eris essentially going after Ethereum: https://blog.erisindustries.com/products/2014/12/27/step-by-step-eris/

Vitalik and Eris staff back and forth in the comments...

And from the looks of it both have yet to deliver any kind of working application