Bitcoin Forum
September 25, 2021, 04:41:16 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 22.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Stop your BTC cheerleading and mass delusion and face the reality  (Read 10047 times)
SamTsuedo
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 01:34:55 AM
 #61

It doesn't have to absorb it all or be nothing. There are people who only use cash, won't use the internet, telephones, don't have a facebook, etc..It doesn't have to be a part of a lot of countries to succeed, just be used by a percentage of the population as a choice of payment. Just because Satoshi said it, doesn't make it true, it was just his personal opinion. Stop saying it like it's a scientific law.  This is just the start of Bitcoin. It will take years to develop and make more mainstream so the less techinically inclined people can use it and understand it. The sentiment of the forum right now is horrible. Yes, bears have been right this year, but they cannot predict the long term future of Bitcoin. Everyone needs to stop sh1tting on Bitcoin so people who google it don't come across so much negativity from people who are only trying to drive the price down and collect more coins for themselves. It scares people away and gives Bitcoin a bad name.

Just because Satoshi said it, doesn't make it true, it was just his personal opinion.

You gotta be kidding me. This is the written statement by a man who created bitcoin. You need a head check buddy.

1632588076
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1632588076

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1632588076
Reply with quote  #2

1632588076
Report to moderator
1632588076
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1632588076

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1632588076
Reply with quote  #2

1632588076
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
nakaone
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 500


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 01:38:24 AM
 #62

Please find a flaw in this: I can send $1B with a fee of 40 cents or less.

That is not a use case for the broad population. For the broad population there is no use case, other than as a get rich speculation.

Use cases?

1. Remittances -- very low fees compared to 10-15% of companies like western union
2. Self storage - Your accounts are not able to be "frozen" by 3rd parties
3. Portability -- You can travel to any country and immediately use your bitcoins without needing to transfer funds from one bank to another or pay additional currency exchange fees. If you tried to travel with a suitcase of cash you'd soon be broke/robbed
4. Not able to be used in Bail-ins: Example Cyprus stealing money from large account holders to bail-in their banks. And actually the G20 just agreed that bail-ins should be used before bail-outs by the IMF or the central banks....we are going to see a lot more bank failures and bail-ins in the near future
5. Known inflation/emission rate. : Take notice of argentina, or the QE in USA
6. the list goes on and on but if your too lazy to look them up then I'm going to stop here.

1. Convert to and from fiat is the same or more fees, plus much more hassle in many scenarios.
2. Just wait until the KYC regulations on the miners come once most of the users are accessing Bitcoin through Paypal and Coincase and other centralized choke points.
3. You need to convert to fiat before you can use it.
4. Ditto #2.
5. Bitcoin can be debased just like gold was debased in the 1800s, via fractional reserve loans denominated in BTC. Gresham's Law insures the public will adopt the most debased unit.
6. The longer your list, the more proof you provide that I am correct.

you sir may be a brilliant developer but horrible at economics - told you this at least four times this year Wink. point 2-5 are very valid use cases for bitcoin. your arguments are may be reasonable for certain countries - but never on global scale.
SamTsuedo
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 01:50:03 AM
 #63

To whom it may concern:

This thread was moved from Bitcoin Discussion to Speculation after cca. 1 hour

Incidentally the thread titled "What will you do if bitcoin price fall down to $100 ?" has been in the Bitcoin Discussion section for almost 4 days.

What are you afraid of mods? Free speech ?
Dilla
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588
Merit: 500


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 02:19:22 AM
 #64

It doesn't have to absorb it all or be nothing. There are people who only use cash, won't use the internet, telephones, don't have a facebook, etc..It doesn't have to be a part of a lot of countries to succeed, just be used by a percentage of the population as a choice of payment. Just because Satoshi said it, doesn't make it true, it was just his personal opinion. Stop saying it like it's a scientific law.  This is just the start of Bitcoin. It will take years to develop and make more mainstream so the less techinically inclined people can use it and understand it. The sentiment of the forum right now is horrible. Yes, bears have been right this year, but they cannot predict the long term future of Bitcoin. Everyone needs to stop sh1tting on Bitcoin so people who google it don't come across so much negativity from people who are only trying to drive the price down and collect more coins for themselves. It scares people away and gives Bitcoin a bad name.

Just because Satoshi said it, doesn't make it true, it was just his personal opinion.

You gotta be kidding me. This is the written statement by a man who created bitcoin. You need a head check buddy.



He may have created it, but he also may have slept through ECON 101. The ALL OR NOTHING demise works on very few things. No currency is used COMPLETELY worldwide. Gold isn't used worldwide. That doesn't mean they store no value. Your thread probably got moved to Speculation since you hint at the future of Bitcoin with what "Satoshi's All or Nothing Law". I'm sure what Satoshi was meaning was that Bitcoin must have a large market cap to have faith in its value to succeed, not replace every single dollar. Stop being such a bear.  Cheesy
UnunoctiumTesticles
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 02:35:43 AM
 #65

point 2-5 are very valid use cases for bitcoin. your arguments are may be reasonable for certain countries - but never on global scale.

Never huh?

Like all those who said silver would never fall again below $17. Like all those who said Bitcoin wouldn't fall from $1000 to $350. Yeah I was predicting all those in public, I even publicly predicted the $48 top for silver 1 year before it occurred.

Sorry you are just hot air. I have an analysis record which speaks loud and clear.
jaredboice
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560
Merit: 500



View Profile
December 11, 2014, 02:39:06 AM
 #66

By the way, Facebook was founded in 2004, it didn't even have positive cash flow until 2009 (5 years later!). As of January 2014 they still had ONLY 1.2 billion active users (10 years later!)

Facebook was launched to the public Sept. 2006.  Bitcoin also had a period before its Jan 2009 launch wherein it was tested by a smaller group. So thus Facebook is only 8 years old as a public service and has 1.2 billion users. Bitcoin is nearing 6 years old as a public service has about about 1000X less users. Sorry there is no comparison.

Ummm I've been using facebook since 2004.
jaredboice
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560
Merit: 500



View Profile
December 11, 2014, 02:42:30 AM
 #67

Just added a couple users to the ignore list, including the OP

I use these trolling threads as opportunities to identify the really desperate shills
And I get them on the ignore list immediaty
UnunoctiumTesticles
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 02:42:44 AM
 #68

By the way, Facebook was founded in 2004, it didn't even have positive cash flow until 2009 (5 years later!). As of January 2014 they still had ONLY 1.2 billion active users (10 years later!)

Facebook was launched to the public Sept. 2006.  Bitcoin also had a period before its Jan 2009 launch wherein it was tested by a smaller group. So thus Facebook is only 8 years old as a public service and has 1.2 billion users. Bitcoin is nearing 6 years old as a public service has about about 1000X less users. Sorry there is no comparison.

Ummm I've been using facebook since 2004.

Reading comprehension is very low in this forum. I was an early investor or user in some projects too. That doesn't change the fact that Facebook was not open to the general public until Sept 2006.

Just added a couple users to the ignore list, including the OP

I use these trolling threads as opportunities to identify the really desperate shills
And I get them on the ignore list immediaty

Forcing everyone to read about who is on your personal ignore list is pathetic posturing. Nobody cares. Stay on constructive discussion if you want to be relevant.
dropt
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1000



View Profile
December 11, 2014, 02:44:16 AM
 #69

Satoshi Nakamoto that Bitcoin will either absorb the total global economy which stands at $100 trillion now, or will cease to exist. Do you understand that the man who created Bitcoin is saying that there is no middle ground?


So again, the creator of Bitcoin has stated on record - written statement that BTC will either gobble up the whole of global economy or fail and cease to exist. The middle ground does not exist according to Satoshi Nakamoto. You may argue with me, but this is not me just making up things it is the quote / paraphrase of Satoshi's statement. This is one of the most important statements about bitcoin and yet everybody wants to avoid any talk about it.

Here's something to wrap your head around: people are fallible.  So what if S. Nakamoto made that statement, it doesn't make it a foregone conclusion.

Pecunia non olet
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 882
Merit: 102


PayAccept - Worldwide payments accepted in seconds


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 03:00:19 AM
 #70

tl,dr

this thread nails it with the OP

crypto will not fail but bitcoin could become insignificant faster than you would like it to happen. Inflation was never a good thing.

I'll dump my coins in the alts that provide a better model of emission of coins.

In case of bitcoins fail prepare for a serious boom in altcoins.

Cluster2k
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1695
Merit: 1018



View Profile
December 11, 2014, 03:08:00 AM
 #71

Let's talk about the reason most people must use Bitcoin?

They must use Facebook, because that is where their friends and family are.

I lead quite a satisfying life with plenty of family and friend contact without a Facebook account.  It can be done.
UnunoctiumTesticles
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 03:35:49 AM
 #72

...the gist of my argument and that is a quote or a paraphrase of the Satoshi Nakamoto that Bitcoin will either absorb the total global economy which stands at $100 trillion now, or will cease to exist. Do you understand that the man who created Bitcoin is saying that there is no middle ground?

...

So again, the creator of Bitcoin has stated on record - written statement that BTC will either gobble up the whole of global economy or fail and cease to exist. The middle ground does not exist according to Satoshi Nakamoto. You may argue with me, but this is not me just making up things it is the quote / paraphrase of Satoshi's statement. This is one of the most important statements about bitcoin and yet everybody wants to avoid any talk about it.

Can you please provide a link to the Satoshi statement in context? Was it on this forum?

I believe I know which theory Satoshi was ascribing too. It is called the Moldbug Monetary Theory. Moldbug is a central figure in the Dark Enlightenment.

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2011/04/on-monetary-restandardization.html

Quote from: Mencius Moldbug
Moldbug Monetary Theory (MoMT) is a post-Austrian theory of money. It is a minor refinement of Mises' standardization theory, which asserts that money is standardized by the demand for a standard medium of exchange. Rather, I assert, the demand is for a standard medium of saving.

...

You need to sell your silver and buy some new medium of saving X, which you will sell in 2030, in exchange for pizza, cruises and wine. What X should you choose? What X will get you the maximum pizza, cruises and wine?

Thus, the goal of the rational actor is to choose the X that everyone else will choose (assuming they choose right), but choose it first. In standards terms: pick the winner, be an early adopter.

...

We see the fundamental instability of monetary competition. Stable systems are buffered - they experience negative feedback. But this is very much a positive-feedback story. Whoever starts winning, can be expected to keep winning. A tiny breath of air, and the pencil, balanced on its point, falls over.

This explains some facts - for instance, why bimetallic standards are historically unstable. Across the millennia, governments are always trying to fix gold-silver ratios, and always failing. One money drives the other out by Gresham's law. But even if no one is so foolish as to fix this unfixable price, in the end there can be only one.

...

Consider the case of competition between ordinary 20th-century fiat currencies. These predictably depreciate against each other all the time - that is, different currencies exhibit different interest rates. Why doesn't all international currency competition collapse, as our gold-and-silver model has? Why didn't everyone in America in 1979 switch to D-Marks?

Good old forex has a very powerful buffer mechanism: the balance of trade. If country A starts to adopt country B's currency, country B's currency rises versus country A, which gives country B (ceteris paribus) a trade deficit relative to country A. This implies a flow of money from B to A: negative feedback. This feedback is absent from our gold-silver model because, and only because, we've assumed that gold and silver users are homogeneously distributed.

Moldbug is correct that the reason national currencies exist is because national governments exist. We don't individually trade internationally, thus most of us don't need a global unit-of-account, but the world is shrinking now and that is why now there is a push underway towards a global currency (or at least region currencies which regional free trade blocs, e.g. the Asian Union coming 2015 where there will be free movement of workers to any country in ASEAN).

What Moldbug is saying is that no matter what vehicles you might use to transact in, you will always be converting value back to the one monetary standard (one for your country or in the near future region or global monetary standard).

I believe Satoshi's point is that Bitcoin's value as an economic unit can not survive without taking over the world and becoming the monetary standard. And yes this is 100% correct. Even though Moldbug's timing was off, he correctly predicted How Bitcoin Will Die.

This doesn't mean Bitcoin won't live on as a bastardized payment mechanism folded into Paypal, Coinbase, etc.. But it does mean the economic unit of Bitcoin will not be what is traded long-term. Because the world population will standardize on a monetary unit and prefer to hold their balances in their unit-of-account.

Realize what unit-of-account means. It means you have no exchange volatility in your life. You can budget and plan.

So yes Bitcoin is mostly a speculation. It doesn't have the features to do a "coup" as Moldbug says.

And the blackswan is could anyone create an altcoin that could do that "coup"?

Well I have had an alternative theory based on Moldbug's theory. I figured out that the global economy could bifurcate. Meaning we might end up with one monetary standard for the Knowledge Age and another one for the dying Industrial Age.

Why? Because there is a Coasian barrier between the two, akin the logic above about barriers to direct trade across national boundaries.

I've detailed those arguments in my and AnonyMint's archives.

I know what I am doing. And I am so far out in the economics stratosphere compared to you neophyte wannebees, it is no wonder you don't understand me.

freequant
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 500


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 03:48:27 AM
 #73

I think there is some misunderstanding between OP and his opponents.

If my understanding is correct (OP correct me if I got it wrong) OP doesn't claim that blockchain technology is a fad and I see no statement in his stance that suggests that the future global financial infrastructure isn't going to be underpinned by cryptography and peer-to-peer technology. On the other hand, many people who react to OP's stance seem to be doing an amalgamation of the concept of crypto-currency and the specific instance of this concept that is Bitcoin and generalize any argument made against Bitcoin as if they were made against the technical breakthrough of blockchain technology at large and its relevance to the future of global financial infrastructure. Granted, the fact that Satoshi didn't dissociate the name of the concept he invented from the name of its first implementation participates to the confusion.

But let's step back and look at things objectively: Satoshi's major contribution isn't Bitcoin but blockchain technology in the same way as James Watt's contribution to technology is the steam engine with rotary motion as a general concept and not that specific 10-horsepower model that he initially patented and that back then was perceived to be his invention and was expected to take over locomotion globally. A few hundred years later nobody remembers that specific engine model he submitted and we are not even using steam powered vehicules anymore but everyone remembers James Watt as the guy who figured how to convert steam power into rotary motion and enabled a new era of mass transportation. So these people who feel outraged at the idea that Satoshi's invention is being riped off by copycats and Satoshi's credit and legacy diluted, don't worry: although it may seem from our current perspective that so called alternate currencies are parasites and that Satoshi's original invention is being abused and wronged somehow, it will appear in hindsight that this frustrating invasion of alternate currencies was indeed the path chosen by technological evolution that made it possible for blockchain technology to prevail eventually.

Technology as the extension of evolution in human realm will seek to fill any gap that would allow for improvement. We know that a faster transaction network is possible. We know that a transaction network with more bandwidth is possible. We know that a transaction network consuming less resources is possible. We know that a transaction network with more features is possible. We know that a transaction network more fit to existing global financial ecosystem is possible. And we know that technological evolution / progress will ensure that what is possible actually occurs. We therefore all know that a transaction network with faster transaction time, larger bandwidth, lower resources consumption, larger features set and more fitness to current ecosystem is bound to emerge and replace Bitcoin. Although this is a difficult truth to look at, convinced as we are that this would somehow be some betrayal to Satoshi's legacy, this is nonetheless the truth and history will show that no matter how many iterations and what the final form blockchain technology will take, Satoshi will forever be celebrated as the man behind this revolution.

The bottom line as far as this thread is concerned is that although blockchain technology has entered our technological genome for good, Bitcoin as its first instance is not here to stay and will necessarily be replaced by more advanced designs. I will not venture to speculate on timelines or the identity of possible contenders and it is very possible that the currency that will overtake Bitcoin hasn't been incepted yet but a quick look at market capitalizations will nonetheless confirm beyond doubt that the relative market share of Bitcoin is shrinking and prompt objective observers to realize that Bitcoin is losing ground.

Upon this realization, investors would be wise to start analyzing the market and consider hedging when they perceive that a viable contender has entered the market and appears to be gaining ground.
Pecunia non olet
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 882
Merit: 102


PayAccept - Worldwide payments accepted in seconds


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 03:53:11 AM
 #74

Satoshi Nakamoto that Bitcoin will either absorb the total global economy which stands at $100 trillion now, or will cease to exist. Do you understand that the man who created Bitcoin is saying that there is no middle ground?


So again, the creator of Bitcoin has stated on record - written statement that BTC will either gobble up the whole of global economy or fail and cease to exist. The middle ground does not exist according to Satoshi Nakamoto. You may argue with me, but this is not me just making up things it is the quote / paraphrase of Satoshi's statement. This is one of the most important statements about bitcoin and yet everybody wants to avoid any talk about it.

Here's something to wrap your head around: people are fallible.  So what if S. Nakamoto made that statement, it doesn't make it a foregone conclusion.



dropt, you are starting to talk in contradictions. I hope you are well. Is a full failure in bitcoin in your event horizon? If not: recalibrate.

UnunoctiumTesticles
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 03:55:35 AM
 #75

freequant, in How Bitcoin Dies, moldbug's point is block chain is perfect, except for one flaw. It can't survive politically. It is unknown yet whether some dark coin will provide the features necessary to resist takeover by the population-at-large which is not prepared for the lurch into the Knowledge Age (Oxford U. predicts 47% of current jobs to be replaced by automation before 2032). Thus the masses are going to support the government take over of Bitcoin and a monetary unit which serves their needs to steal from the productive and award to the weak and helpless. This is socialism.

The blackswan is an altcoin that escapes this dilemma. I believe I explained that the only way I can see it will be done, is by latching on to the Knowledge Age because of some feature that its needs that requires they not use the unit-of-account of the masses. I actually have an idea for this already. And I have shared it on the forums.

But nobody pays attention. Which is fine.
freequant
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 500


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 04:14:36 AM
 #76

The blackswan is an altcoin that escapes this dilemma. I believe I explained that the only way I can see it will be done, is by latching on to the Knowledge Age because of some feature that its needs that requires they not use the unit-of-account of the masses. I actually have an idea for this already. And I have shared it on the forums.
I'm interested. Can you share or PM me the link?
Muuurrrrica!
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 10


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 04:23:23 AM
 #77


The blackswan is an altcoin that escapes this dilemma. I believe I explained that the only way I can see it will be done, is by latching on to the Knowledge Age because of some feature that its needs that requires they not use the unit-of-account of the masses. I actually have an idea for this already. And I have shared it on the forums.

there is actually a few people roaming the forum with the same message. They all get ignored and laughed at normally. It's just not in the realm of the possible for 99% of the people around here.

freequant
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 500


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 04:24:33 AM
 #78

How the fuck does this serious monetary theory discussion end up on the Speculation forum? Hey moderators, move this thread to the Economics forum.
I second this. For the sake of Bitcoin itself if not for the sake of intellectual completeness, it's about time to stop acting as solipsistic ostriches and start looking at the competitive landscape. Failing to do so is a short cut to expedited extinction.
UnunoctiumTesticles
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 04:30:26 AM
 #79

freequant, I am not ignoring you, but I think I partially answered in my prior post. And I would much rather accomplish than talk. But I can't promise I will. If there is any serious group of capable developers that want to PM me, I do read. But I mean capable. Someone of smooth's caliber, but with more time to invest in it full-time.

And this is risky. Much easier to create a pump-and-dump than to really take on this challenge.
freequant
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 500


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 04:36:09 AM
 #80


The blackswan is an altcoin that escapes this dilemma. I believe I explained that the only way I can see it will be done, is by latching on to the Knowledge Age because of some feature that its needs that requires they not use the unit-of-account of the masses. I actually have an idea for this already. And I have shared it on the forums.

there is actually a few people roaming the forum with the same message. They all get ignored and laughed at normally. It's just not in the realm of the possible for 99% of the people around here.



That is called the problem of induction and is the very cognitive dead angle that is leading the whole financial industry in the very same wall at the end of every economic cycle. What's the point of aiming to take over Wall Street if we are not any wiser?
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!