why I think cryptocurrency market is a fake

[Bitcoinpro]

7 transactions a second is alot considering it can handle very large amounts

alt currencies will fill the roles of lower denominations to reflect the higher risk

can't see many people breaking a network to steal pennies being traded with the

risk of being caught, its the same reason why people don't manufacture their

own metal coins, though it would be a relatively easy scam to pull off.

Once you break a network it becomes relatively worthless aswell which makes

the scam even less attractive.

[1714777765]

1714777765

[1714777765]

1714777765

[1714777765]

1714777765

[1714777765]

1714777765

[phillipsjk]

7 transactions per second makes a currency eligible for reserve currency? USA just needed to win the WWII to impose dollar....

If the Banks succeed in taking over Bitcoin, they will have access to networks that can handle more than 1MB of data every 10 minutes*. With 100MB blocks, Bitcoin can handle up to 700 transactions per second (CPU might start to become the bottle-neck).

Bitcoin appears to be the first secure network application in the history of mankind. It does not have to be imposed by force: because it is far superior to what has come before.

*Note: My full node uses about 100GB of it's 300GB cap every month (works out to less than 1Mbps).

[sidhujag]

Network speeds are increasing and cost of memory is decreasing fast enough to not have to worry about tx speeds or block sizes.

[ponzinomics reloaded]

Velocity of money (lack thereof) is the real reason why gold standard was abolished...

what is exactly the problem with velocity of money in 1971?
https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Facrossthestreetnet.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F08%2Fvelocity.png%3Fw%3D604%26h%3D362&t=546&c=Q2yWtX2Pv1qKlg

Sorry, no government/central bank makes any monetary decision on the basis of velocity of money.

not funding the war which was the indirect reason in 1971 to overturn the law...

a rise in military spending caused by the Vietnam War gradually worsened the overvaluation of the dollar.

End of Bretton Woods system
The system dissolved between 1968 and 1973. In August 1971, U.S. President Richard Nixon announced the "temporary" suspension of the dollar's convertibility into gold.

https://www.imf.org/external/about/histend.htm

??

[sidhujag]

Answer the first question first... and not sure where you got your pic from but m2 didnt look so good in the 70s..

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2013/Apr/Velocity_Of_Money.gif

velocity is the output not input.. the end result is the velocity. It needs to rise to sustain the new supply. Its a ponzi scheme as soon as gold was given up.

[ponzinomics reloaded]

Answer the first question first... and not sure where you got your pic from but m2 didnt look so good in the 70s..

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2013/Apr/Velocity_Of_Money.gif

velocity is the output not input.. the end result is the velocity. It needs to rise to sustain the new supply. Its a ponzi scheme as soon as gold was given up.

well, there are several velocities of money depending on the monetary aggregate that you use (mine was from MZM), link in previous page, but:
* still I do not see any problem in the chart
* no central bank makes any monetary policy decision on the basis on velocity of money

But, I think this debate of velocity is heading us nowhere anyway.

[sidhujag]

Answer the first question first... and not sure where you got your pic from but m2 didnt look so good in the 70s..

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2013/Apr/Velocity_Of_Money.gif

velocity is the output not input.. the end result is the velocity. It needs to rise to sustain the new supply. Its a ponzi scheme as soon as gold was given up.

well, there are several velocities of money depending on the monetary aggregate that you use (mine was from MZM), link in previous page, but:
* still I do not see any problem in the chart
* no central bank makes any monetary policy decision on the basis on velocity of money

But, I think this debate of velocity is heading us nowhere anyway.

M2V is the one that's usually more important.

Again you're not reading between the lines.. but that's fine. M2V tells us that there were problems that needed to be rectified and hard limits were being reached (kinda like the debt ceiling today and how they kept raising and now will just lift indefinetly. Again it is an OUTPUT it is the health indicator. You can't use it as input.

This is why I called this thread an anonymint thread because he did the same thing... made accustations and built a base off of information then jumped to conclusions (atleast 10% of population being collectivists because they are gay or whatever you wrote). Finally he would jump off to a profound conclusion based on this info like bitcoin is doomed to fail as is...

[ponzinomics reloaded]

This is why I called this thread an anonymint thread because he did the same thing... made accustations and built a base off of information then jumped to conclusions (atleast 10% of population being collectivists because they are gay or whatever you wrote). Finally he would jump off to a profound conclusion based on this info like bitcoin is doomed to fail as is...

Ok, thanks, I have gathered enough information from the industry

Regards

[sidhujag]

This is why I called this thread an anonymint thread because he did the same thing... made accustations and built a base off of information then jumped to conclusions (atleast 10% of population being collectivists because they are gay or whatever you wrote). Finally he would jump off to a profound conclusion based on this info like bitcoin is doomed to fail as is...

Ok, thanks, I have gathered enough information from the industry

Regards

I would do like people said read the links, listen to the podcasts... the core devs know better... also I advice to read between the lines and think critically... bitcoin may never be a reserve currency.. its more of a commodity right now... maybe it will be... point is we don't know.. but saying its a fake market is a bit naive on you're part without qualifying it as such.

Read up on smart contracts, full turing scripts, prediction markets and otherthings that open up on the blockchain that we coudln't do before... then try to apply it to a future forward and even if your 10% right you should see that in general there is something there... not just a bunch of nerds pumping each other up as early adopters.

[tzortz]

Fiat is also fake then.

[turvarya]

Are you really putting some stereotypes into that argument? Making fake data. So, you can quantify something for the sake of your argument.

puf, I suppose you are a female. Well, the direct answer to your question is no. Regarding the fake data, I do not know if we need to discuss that, in current society, there are more emotional people than rational, and that emotional people is (generally) collectivist. No sure if it is issue for this thread. This is enough for my last point. If you want to discuss about sex battle maybe we should open another thread. For me is unclear to what point I should answer you.

I am neither a female nor a homosexual, but that you assume that, just shows how you think. I am also a rationalist(I don't think, anybody who knows me, would describe me as emotional) and as a rationalist I don't just accept fake data. All your assumption (female=collectivists ; gay=emotional; emotional=collectivists) don't have any scientific backing, do they?
And yes, it is an issue for this thread, since you, the OP, throw it into this discussion and didn't provide any real data about it.

[ponzinomics reloaded]

I am neither a female nor a homosexual, but that you assume that, just shows how you think. I am also a rationalist(I don't think, anybody who knows me, would describe me as emotional) and as a rationalist I don't just accept fake data. All your assumption (female=collectivists ; gay=emotional; emotional=collectivists) don't have any scientific backing, do they?
And yes, it is an issue for this thread, since you, the OP, throw it into this discussion and didn't provide any real data about it.

Well, is interesting what you say, but I think you make some mistakes. Sorry, your nick confused me with a girl. First thing clarify I commented about emotional and rational, not about better or worse.

Second, I do not think you understand what a rationalist is. Actually is a very distorted word. A rationalist does not want neither data nor science, wants arguments and concepts. This is why I do not feel myself obliged to provide data. However, is true, I made an assumption. And it would require a whole thread to demonstrate when I think (maybe I am wrong) is quite obvious that there are more collectivists in society that individualists.

Last, I did not say female = collectivists, I did say average of female is probably collectivists. Happily, there are exceptions everywhere. But I am not sure that you are aware of the actual meaning of these words.

Update: http://www.slobodaiprosperitet.tv/sites/default/files/images/ayn_rand_when_you_see.preview.jpg

[TinaK]

Velocity of money (lack thereof) is the real reason why gold standard was abolished...

what is exactly the problem with velocity of money in 1971?


Sorry, no government/central bank makes any monetary decision on the basis of velocity of money.

not funding the war which was the indirect reason in 1971 to overturn the law...

a rise in military spending caused by the Vietnam War gradually worsened the overvaluation of the dollar.

End of Bretton Woods system
The system dissolved between 1968 and 1973. In August 1971, U.S. President Richard Nixon announced the "temporary" suspension of the dollar's convertibility into gold.

https://www.imf.org/external/about/histend.htm

??

History is always similar surprisingly!

[turvarya]

I am neither a female nor a homosexual, but that you assume that, just shows how you think. I am also a rationalist(I don't think, anybody who knows me, would describe me as emotional) and as a rationalist I don't just accept fake data. All your assumption (female=collectivists ; gay=emotional; emotional=collectivists) don't have any scientific backing, do they?
And yes, it is an issue for this thread, since you, the OP, throw it into this discussion and didn't provide any real data about it.

Well, is interesting what you say, but I think you make some mistakes. Sorry your nick confused me with a girl. First thing clarify I commented about emotional and rational, not about better or worse.

Second, I do not think you understand what a rationalist is. A rationalist does not want neither data nor science, wants arguments and concepts. This is why I do not feel myself obliged to provide data. However, is true, I made an assumption.

Last, I did not say female = collectivists, I did say average of female is probably collectivists. But I am not sure that you are aware of the actual meaning of these words.

In fact my nick is gender-neutral, which was a mistake I made when I created it many years ago

I might repeat myself, but a stereotype is still not an argument. I just get to often in discussion, where people throw in prejudice as facts. Yesterday a coworker just throw in again, that refugees get € 1000 a month for nothing, which I already told him weeks ago that it is some made up data from right wing nutheads, he could easily disprove by himself, by googling it. Did he google it? No, he just ignored my suggestion.
(Sorry, I got carried away)
Rationalism without data proofing don't really fit in my opinion, since prejudice is definitively on the emotional site. If that would be a valid way of arguing, I could make up any data that proves what I want to prove.

Furthermore: Now, throwing in term like "average" and "probably" doesn't make a difference. Again, I have to often been in discussion, where people though it would make their argument better.

But I know, you are not really interested in that. I see that often in financial discussions. It is so easy to show a graph e.g. about GDP-growth or market shares. But when it comes to things, that are not easily quantified, people make just BS-assumptions for the sake of their argument.

[fulgurite]

perhaps it is because  cryptocurrency market is not stable now, and lack of regulation.

This would be solved by a functional analysis of the 'domain' demonstrating validity, is not it? Is there such a paper on the community? Furthermore, does current body of knowledge of economics provides such a foundational framework to build this analysis on top of it? To clarify, my "analysis" is carried out from the opposite school of economics

(By 'domain' I am referring to monetary architectures, not to enterprise service buses).

Off topic: if it does not, where is heading us Brisbane and the like?  

but i do think it will continue to be unstable in the next few years.

[sobitcoin]

Much text wow lol

[sobitcoin]

Hi, this is my first message in the board so greetings everybody.

Well, I have been following the cryptocoin market for a while. I have felt the temptation to get involved quite a few times since it looks the only promising initiative to allow citizens decide their own future. By the way clarify that I am a libertarian, Austrian advocate, despite I am aware of flaws in Austrian economics which makes me a bit a Popperian more that a Hayekian. As an IT contractor I have got involved in projects for Central Banks and Statistical Offices in Europe so I known a bit how the mainstream works and what they intend.

Despite I have thought getting my hands dirty on the crypto world, my (few) approaches to it has been always disappointing. I see that main cryptocoin providers has run away of proposing any ideological battle. Nobody speaks about what ethics is (against morals), what negative liberty means, why the current scientific method (as the foundation of current monetarism) is a logical mistake, what is the difference between positive and normative economics, and what I see in the bitworld is: bits, block chains, mining and hardware. Nothing else. Dissappointing.

So, which is my conclusion of this? If you realize, most of the cryptocompanies have been created out of investors, which instead are feed by Federal Reserve, by BoJ, by ECB injections and by the full mainstream economic machinery. They are no proposing anything new but looking for an alternative way to balance their investments. And this is in my opinion a thief. They have stolen the initial Shatoshi idea, they have occupied it, emptied of any content and they look for to do more of the same carry trade business.  

I have created a discussion board (http://ponzinomics.org/) which I have maintained for 3 months and this is my first attempt trying to hit the market to propose the battle of ideas. The board sits on current mainstream economics and the "current real world", trying to enroll people from all ideologies and trying to make them understand how current system works as a whole. Obviously, as an Austrian I want to convince others why Austrian ideas are better than keynesian models based on the scientific method, but I want to hear opinion of others as well. I have not found this proposal in any place on the whole web, so if you challenge the idea, I want to create a community about it and maybe "evangelize".

That said, I want to hear your opinions about why cryptoworld is not a fake since is funded by the mainstream and does not propose any new ideas just other way to do more of the same thing.

Everyone thinks they understand it.  I always chuckle at day traders... speculators.  It's 5 years old. Nobody, has the experience, to give a knowledgeable judgement on its value.

[IBGigglin]

That's so good.

[mistercoin]

While I agree with you on some points, most I do not. It is like everything in life. An idea is born---> The idea is loyal, true and honest---> A handful of idiots copy it, deface it, and tear down it's initial ideology---> Others follow, but see the idiots for what they are, and copy, but stick to the original philosophy.

Same with, say, a community. You get mostly good people, but there are always that few complete dickheads.

[ponzinomics reloaded]

I decided analysing a bit more in detail this issue because, I like the cryptos proposal, but I think some requirements must be guaranteed to prevent cryptos becoming the currency of poor people. For the moment, I have just extracted some paragraphs from Hayek's book Denationalisation of Money. I will go further with another Austrian authors in the next few days and, at the final, I will wrap all up in a thread. Then I will update this one. Just, clarify that I am not against cryptos, at all, but looking for how to guarantee that they can be successfully adopted.

Regards