The Royal Canadian Mint just announced a new alternative to BitCoin

[cunicula]

professional trolls

Smart trolls inspire useful change in society. Cheerleading idiots, not so much.

[1714909207]

1714909207

[1714909207]

1714909207

[1714909207]

1714909207

[1714909207]

1714909207

[1714909207]

1714909207

[nedbert9]

My operations are 100% open source linux. I dig open source deep and heavy, man, it's produces state of the art software of high quality better than any other process I've ever seen I even released a little freeware app in the early 1990s. I recall having a firm enthusiastically pick it up and start using it ( it was a disk optimizer for the old OS/2 HPFS file system ) and they had the hardest time accepting that I wasn't in a position to maintain and enhance it but I was more than happy to give away the source code.

The fact that the core software development follows the open source model is not the big problem.

The problem is that bitcoin-related commercial ventures are left up to small-scale entrepreneurs. Any small-scale entrepreneur thinking about a commercial venture can see that a) the current market is miniscule. No profit worth speaking about is available. b) the future market may be big and profitable. However, there is no reason to expect that getting involved now will be that helpful in accessing this potential future market (which probably won't exist in any case).

The logical response to this is to buy some bitcoin and wait for someone else to make bitcoin succeed. If everyone waits simultaneously, then bitcoin fails. That is what is happening.

To get the ball rolling, you need to have an agency which is heavily invested in bitcoin (say to the tune of ten million USD) to spearhead and fund projects. They would have an incentive to do something professional because they could gain from currency appreciation. This needs to happen in order to get to the future where bitcoin can be big and profitable.

If an agency like this isn't created, bitcoin will continue to consist of hobby businesses. The profits from these businesses are so slim that even when they attract a reasonable amount of interest, the business owners often fail to maintain them. You certainly don't see them upgrading and becoming professional. That makes sense. There is no reason to invest money right now when there is no money to be made right now.

I tend to agree with that assessment.  Bitcoin needs strong leadership backed by some cash on both the development and business fronts.

While success or failure might not be foregone conclusions it's easy to see how easily Bitcoin could wither away.

But let me ask this.  Is P2P digital currency a cash cow in any sense?  Where is the money to be had for big players to come in and push Bitcoin?  I don't see it.

Somehow I only see it surviving in grass roots mode and, of course, that's super questionable.

[cunicula]

I tend to agree with that assessment.  Bitcoin needs strong leadership backed by some cash on both the development and business fronts.

While success or failure might not be foregone conclusions it's easy to see how easily Bitcoin could wither away.

But let me ask this.  Is P2P digital currency a cash cow in any sense?  Where is the money to be had for big players to come in and push Bitcoin?  I don't see it.

Somehow I only see it surviving in grass roots mode and, of course, that's super questionable.

You are still missing much of the point. 'big money' interest comes from concentrated ownership of the currency. Gains come from currency appreciation not direct business profits. The business activities are likely loss-making, but still in the interest of the concentrated owner to pursue. The problem is that without any concentrated ownership there is no incentive for anyone to undertake anything. This is one reason why I was hoping that Vlad performed the 51% attack. He might become the central owner. I propose a solution that doesn't require a central owner here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75029.0 Essentially, the solution is to create something like a cryptocorporation to run the cryptocurrency.

[nedbert9]

I tend to agree with that assessment.  Bitcoin needs strong leadership backed by some cash on both the development and business fronts.

While success or failure might not be foregone conclusions it's easy to see how easily Bitcoin could wither away.

But let me ask this.  Is P2P digital currency a cash cow in any sense?  Where is the money to be had for big players to come in and push Bitcoin?  I don't see it.

Somehow I only see it surviving in grass roots mode and, of course, that's super questionable.

You are still missing much of the point. 'big money' interest comes from concentrated ownership of the currency. Gains come from currency appreciation not direct business profits. The business activities are likely loss-making, but still in the interest of the concentrated owner to pursue. The problem is that without any concentrated ownership there is no incentive for anyone to undertake anything. This is one reason why I was hoping that Vlad performed the 51% attack. He might become the central owner. I propose a solution that doesn't require a central owner here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75029.0 Essentially, the solution is to create something like a cryptocorporation to run the cryptocurrency.

Coming from an idealist P2P perspective it takes a moment to readjust focus to the points you make.  What I was saying was describing the same problem, but from a different perspective and without attempting to describe a solution.  I said in a purist P2P sense, one without any central ownership, there really isn't enough profit to support single entities in big pushes to develop the Bitcoin market.

I agree with the points you make and that is why I worry about Bitcoin even though I find the idealist points of P2P currency attractive and worthy of survival.

If profit is the biggest motivator maybe the solution you describe is desirable.  Ideally, and accepting the faults of idealism, I'd like to see a coalition or some association that could work to accomplish the big pushes Bitcoin needs that would be funded collectively in a P2P fashion.

It's true what they say that money and leadership is needed to focus progress.

[cunicula]

I tend to agree with that assessment.  Bitcoin needs strong leadership backed by some cash on both the development and business fronts.

While success or failure might not be foregone conclusions it's easy to see how easily Bitcoin could wither away.

But let me ask this.  Is P2P digital currency a cash cow in any sense?  Where is the money to be had for big players to come in and push Bitcoin?  I don't see it.

Somehow I only see it surviving in grass roots mode and, of course, that's super questionable.

You are still missing much of the point. 'big money' interest comes from concentrated ownership of the currency. Gains come from currency appreciation not direct business profits. The business activities are likely loss-making, but still in the interest of the concentrated owner to pursue. The problem is that without any concentrated ownership there is no incentive for anyone to undertake anything. This is one reason why I was hoping that Vlad performed the 51% attack. He might become the central owner. I propose a solution that doesn't require a central owner here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75029.0 Essentially, the solution is to create something like a cryptocorporation to run the cryptocurrency.

Coming from an idealist P2P perspective it takes a moment to readjust focus to the points you make.  What I was saying was describing the same problem, but from a different perspective and without attempting to describe a solution.  I said in a purist P2P sense, one without any central ownership, there really isn't enough profit to support single entities in big pushes to develop the Bitcoin market.

I agree with the points you make and that is why I worry about Bitcoin even though I find the idealist points of P2P currency attractive and worthy of survival.

If profit is the biggest motivator maybe the solution you describe is desirable.  Ideally, and accepting the faults of idealism, I'd like to see a coalition or some association that could work to accomplish the big pushes Bitcoin needs that would be funded collectively in a P2P fashion.

It's true what they say that money and leadership is needed to focus progress.

It is unusual for people to be able to screw on another head and use it to think for a moment. I appreciate that.

Check the link? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75029.0 It suggests using a P2P system in order to run a corporate-like entity. Is that against P2P principles? Is it bad for the p2p network to elect a leader to represent its interests? Is it bad for the p2p network to vote to tax itself in order to raise revenue to fund projects?

[evoorhees]

The problem is that bitcoin-related commercial ventures are left up to small-scale entrepreneurs.

That's because nobody is sure of the legal ramifications. There is big money watching Bitcoin, but it's waiting on the sidelines until legal precedents are set. In the meantime, a significant infrastructure is being assembled by a small number of ideologically motivated hobbyists - and ironically this infrastructure will subsidize the larger players when they're ready to enter.

But the law needs to figure out in which ways it shall or shall not tyrannize Bitcoin before serious money is thrown at the experiment.

[cunicula]

The problem is that bitcoin-related commercial ventures are left up to small-scale entrepreneurs.

That's because nobody is sure of the legal ramifications. There is big money watching Bitcoin, but it's waiting on the sidelines until legal precedents are set. In the meantime, a significant infrastructure is being assembled by a small number of ideologically motivated hobbyists - and ironically this infrastructure will subsidize the larger players when they're ready to enter.

But the law needs to figure out in which ways it shall or shall not tyrannize Bitcoin before serious money is thrown at the experiment.

Neither of us has any idea what 'big money' plans to do. It is idle to speculate. Of course, I'm very skeptical of that large corporations have any plans involving bitcoin at all. If you have some specific information to divulge, then don't let me stop you.

[Dutch Merganser]

I want you on my team, Dutch, and it would be my pleasure if you were ever to kick me off yours. BTW, I knew Satoshi was a couple Irish guys that holidayed in Japan.

~Bruno~

Damn, and I was so hoping for two albino hairdressers with a trained slug who holidayed at the Hotel Great Northern 

Oh well, back to living in disappointment...

[R-]

The logical response to this is to buy some bitcoin and wait for someone else to make bitcoin succeed. If everyone waits simultaneously, then bitcoin fails. That is what is happening.

To get the ball rolling, you need to have an agency which is heavily invested in bitcoin (say to the tune of ten million USD) to spearhead and fund projects. They would have an incentive to do something professional because they could gain from currency appreciation. This needs to happen in order to get to the future where bitcoin can be big and profitable.

If an agency like this isn't created, bitcoin will continue to consist of hobby businesses. The profits from these businesses are so slim that even when they attract a reasonable amount of interest, the business owners often fail to maintain them. You certainly don't see them upgrading and becoming professional. That makes sense. There is no reason to invest money right now when there is no money to be made right now.

This post by cunicula is so on point.

Definitely saving this for later usage.

[rjk]

If we get enough/all the "hobby businesses" to accept Bitcoin, even if it takes a while of slow persuasion, it becomes a part of the vernacular. That is much more powerful than a large entity promoting it. There isn't any reason to rush into this headlong; slowly but surely is the way to do it.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

The logical response to this is to buy some bitcoin and wait for someone else to make bitcoin succeed. If everyone waits simultaneously, then bitcoin fails. That is what is happening.

To get the ball rolling, you need to have an agency which is heavily invested in bitcoin (say to the tune of ten million USD) to spearhead and fund projects. They would have an incentive to do something professional because they could gain from currency appreciation. This needs to happen in order to get to the future where bitcoin can be big and profitable.

If an agency like this isn't created, bitcoin will continue to consist of hobby businesses. The profits from these businesses are so slim that even when they attract a reasonable amount of interest, the business owners often fail to maintain them. You certainly don't see them upgrading and becoming professional. That makes sense. There is no reason to invest money right now when there is no money to be made right now.

This post by cunicula is so on point.

Definitely saving this for later usage.

If $10M is the case, then I believe the same could be accomplished with about 1/10th that amount. Offer Oprah a $1M USD donation to her charity of choice if she'll air an hour long show consisting of interviewing 2-3 Bitcoin notables. With Oprah knowing that her endorsement carries weight, she can hedge her portfolio by investing in Bitcoin herself. She'll then put a nice positive spin on Bitcoin, and toward the end of the show, Gavin (example guess), informs the audience to reach under their seats, whereupon they'll find USB sticks pre-loaded with 100 BTC.

The goal now is for the reader to try to accomplish a similar feat--Bitcoin awareness--at an even lower expenditure outlay.

The other option is that us so called hobbyist keep chugging along with hopes of one brainfart going viral.

~Bruno~

[wachtwoord]

If we get enough/all the "hobby businesses" to accept Bitcoin, even if it takes a while of slow persuasion, it becomes a part of the vernacular. That is much more powerful than a large entity promoting it. There isn't any reason to rush into this headlong; slowly but surely is the way to do it.

This. Remember the tortoise wins the race

[Phinnaeus Gage]

If we get enough/all the "hobby businesses" to accept Bitcoin, even if it takes a while of slow persuasion, it becomes a part of the vernacular. That is much more powerful than a large entity promoting it. There isn't any reason to rush into this headlong; slowly but surely is the way to do it.

This. Remember the tortoise wins the race

I lost money on such a race. Damn Achilles for giving the tortoise a head start.

[cunicula]

If we get enough/all the "hobby businesses" to accept Bitcoin, even if it takes a while of slow persuasion, it becomes a part of the vernacular. That is much more powerful than a large entity promoting it. There isn't any reason to rush into this headlong; slowly but surely is the way to do it.

This. Remember the tortoise wins the race

If you wrote down an economic model of this system, then one possible outcome of "hobby business" development would be permanent stagnation at the current level. Another possible outcome would be worldwide adoption. The bridge between stagnation and worldwide adoption would be a 'big push investment' carried out by a centralized owner. If you don't have a centralized owner, then 'big push investment' will never happen and the currency will stagnate forever. This is the main basis for economic theories of why most countries in the world remain trapped in poverty, while others such as China, South Korea, Japan, etc. have grown rich under an authoritarian central state. You want bitcoin to look like Africa, then just let it continue to remain fragmented. If you want it to grow, then you will need a strong central authority to own and develop it.

[benjamindees]

This is the main basis for economic theories of why most countries in the world remain trapped in poverty, while others such as China, South Korea, Japan, etc. have grown rich under an authoritarian central state. You want bitcoin to look like Africa, then just let it be. If you want it to grow, then you will need a strong central authority to own and develop it.

I see you've left out a particular large, successful economic powerhouse from your false assertion...

[cunicula]

This is the main basis for economic theories of why most countries in the world remain trapped in poverty, while others such as China, South Korea, Japan, etc. have grown rich under an authoritarian central state. You want bitcoin to look like Africa, then just let it be. If you want it to grow, then you will need a strong central authority to own and develop it.

I see you've left out a particular large, successful economic powerhouse from your false assertion...

For worms like you, Richard II said it best..."Villeins ye are, and villeins ye shall remain"
Now, get back to breaking rocks before I call the overseer.

[benjamindees]

Actually, cunicula, you make a good point there.  And it's one that I have considered a lot lately.  Ultimately, though, I just don't think any type of centralized model is going to be compatible with Bitcoin.  There is a need for more large institutions, and more cooperation, true.  But it's like herding cats at this point.  It will take a while.

Ultimately, we aren't the equivalent of Africans in the global market.  That was my point.  We are capable of defending our economy against raiders, large and small.  And we can do so using superior technology in the hands of informed, self-interested individuals, the same way America has for the last 300 years.  In the long run, we will be better off for it.

[molecular]

I don't subscribe to the necessity of a big money central player needing to commit to bitcoin for it to gain traction (in the sense of broad adotpion).

All we need is some time (in which we will work, not only babble about). Rick Falkvinge put it nicely in his talk at the conference in Prague: [quoting freely] A disruptive technology takes about 10 years to get from its inception to blossoming.

For bitcoin this means 2019.

One thing from the last posts is very true: leaning back and waiting for others to do the work will not help.

I for one will stick with this experiement until it fails or succeeds and I will not be crying for outside help, either. If it fails, it's either because the idea doesn't fit the current times or because we are reluctant or lazy. I don't think the latter is the case, too many brilliant and motivated people are commiting large parts of their lives to bitcoin for that to be true. I also don't think the former is true, but that's more of a gamble and only time will tell.

[cunicula]

One thing from the last posts is very true: leaning back and waiting for others to do the work will not help.

I for one will stick with this experiement until it fails or succeeds and I will not be crying for outside help, either.

You are ignoring the fact that I proposed a solution that doesn't require any outside help...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75029

[cunicula]

Your idea for a (superficially) Bitcoin-like currency with a corporate model is really a trojan horse to create a dictatorship.

If you are capable of logical reasoning (which I doubt), please provide a logical argument. Otherwise, please do not communicate with me or respond to my posts. You have nothing of value to say.