Topic: Beyond Bitcoin hangout Tomorrow (Friday) @10AM EST (Read 1150 times)

And put the altcoins are nearly 1/1000th of that 0.01%:

 

37 in and growing!

16 people in already.  join us from beyondbitcoin.org/mumbleinfo

Well this discussion has been amazing.  I am looking forward to seeing any of you who are interested in joining the conversation to head over to beyondbitcoin.org/mumbleinfo and get set up with mumble.  Looking forward to this

Yes and then the general public speculator spigot will open some and the price will rise on general public money until some other shiny object appears, but none of that will do much to give people a reason to use it. Some of the speculators probably won't even use it this time, since they will be buying ETFs, etc.

We don't disagree. I'm just rounding 0.01% of the population down to "nobody" for simplicity. Okay, as originally stated by me above, we disagree by about 0.01%. Fine.

0.01% for Bitcoin makes going "beyond Bitcoin" (the title of this thread) rather silly, unless you are the Larimers and looking for more hype to sell to investors and keep getting paid for another year or two.

Bitcoin is dead and forgotten by the general public until it breaks ATH again.  Once that happens, the theme park reopens.  After breaking ATH, they will figure someone, somewhere, smarter than them has decided it works good enough to transfer money around and that it was not a fly by night event.

Not entirely true. I used Bitcoin to receive funding/donations/loans and mostly not for HODLing. This was cross-border without hardly any fees and no need to know the identity of whom I was dealing with. We bypassed the bank wire tsuris.

Many have used Bitcoin to do "anonymous" activities.

Sorry I think you are wrong here smooth. Bitcoin has a use case for large value transfers. This is why I think Monero may have more value than people realize now.


Agreed, but note they don't accept the other altcoins because the other altcoins don't provide that traffic (free advertising) boost and the altcoins aren't liquid enough to hedge to fiat they want to be paid in.


Disagree. It is just that the use case is a fairly small % of the population. No one has yet focused on the masses use case. As you know, I am focused on that with my non-existent vaporware.


Well I agree when they have no adoption and no viable plan to attain it. Bitcoin investors shouldn't pay for adoption until the adoption is already there.

That is my plan.

That's not going far enough.

Nobody wants to use any of this shit, Bitcoin included. Stores that accept Bitcoin usually do so via payment processors and auto-dump it. Accepting Bitcoin via payment processors is like an affiliate program for them; they don't care about the currency at all, it is just about traffic.

It just all doesn't serve any purpose that any sane mainstream person would care about, outside of a SHTF scenario. So until then the whole crypto phenomenon is a waiting game (which makes long term HODLing sane as speculation, but you don't need most altcoin features for that).

Trying design after design in a futile effort to chase "adoption" is churning investors to pay developer salaries. Bitshares investors are among the biggest suckers, since they paid (and I guess continue to pay, although I don't follow it closely) the Larimers to develop something which serves little to no purpose as decentralized crypto but can now be used as a vehicle to be paid again by banks for "blockchain".

Good point. Note r0ach I think I will do something about this, but we will see...

Gresham's law - all alts are dumped for BTC.  No stores will accept them until they get their own dollar pegs and then they might climb the ladder of store of value.  It's funny how only Darkcoin and Eth seemed to have made any progress in that, but it was from pump and dumps and Darkcoin was then de-listed like Eth probably will be in the future.

Your too negative    Everyday I read the news: Capital controls, war on physical cash, confiscate precious metals, Panama papers, etc...  I feel we are just ahead of our time and actually using our brains unlike the sheeple.  With crypto it's going to take a lot more shit hitting the fan before the sheeple stop paying attention to sports and open their eyes.

When will the revolution happen where people take back financial control?  War's are no longer fought with tanks, its all financial once you start looking around.  Who actually owns who?   

Consensus systems are another topic altogether which I do not personally believe may ever be "perfect."  I do feel we are still in alpha stage with any of the current models however I appreciate all the hard work that are going into these experiments.

In my opinion the real problem is that nobody wants this shit, and for the narrow market of people that do want it, Bitcoin is good enough. Therefore Bitcoin gets 99% of the adoption and the rest, whether bickering or productive collaboration, more or less gets nowhere.

There's also a lot of low-attention-span going on, where everyone wants their favorite consensus system (including Bitcoin) to take off like a rocket, and when it doesn't the reaction (Larimer's in particular) is to assume that something must be wrong with it and some other variation is needed. When in reality we are in the middle of a blizzard and it makes no damn difference what flavor your ice cream happens to be, because no one wants any ice cream right now.

This is of course the "assume good faith" model. In the bad faith model, the parade of "improved" systems are more a mechanism to churn investors to keep funds flowing to the developers, like some sort of sick penny stock boiler room.

R0ach, my point is there is no consensus among the developers on this forum(this is a GOOD THING for thinking outside the box).  We do not know if one chain or another will gain mass adoption at this point, regardless of their strengths or weaknesses.  A simple start of getting intelligent people together to discuss crypto can lead to interesting developments and or cooperation which benefit all parties.

Too much bickering about each others projects.  These are all experiments at this point in time in which will require adaptation just like human nature.

When you said "mining for block reward" I thought you had already assumed dumping Bitshares' closed-system validation. My point was that you need mining, but not necessarily (subsidy/inflationary) rewards. Fair point that economically-significant transaction fees are almost nonexistent, which basically agrees with what I said in the second paragraph above.

I think you forgot Bitshares is deterministic block production, so it would have some pretty big difficulties incorporating mining for transaction fees.  Especially when the only coin anyone currently uses for economic activity to cause transaction fees to exist is Bitcoin.

If you think a blockchain can work at all without a block reward then you probably don't need one for permissioned mining. A miner can enter the system by mining for tx fees, which must be paid by existing participants in order to transact.

This does have the unfortunately (failure) equilibrium you pointed out in a slightly different context, where no one transacts but everyone just hodls at some high fantasy price and pretends they are rich.

I once viewed Bitshares as one of the better alternatives should Bitcoin PoW fail for some reason, but since all closed entropy systems are in fact technically permissioned ledgers and not anti-fragile, with no real fault or state recovery without central administration due to being recursive, I'm not sure there is a whole lot to gain by falling back on systems like this anymore.  They are distributed but not decentralized.  The Bitshares forum is honestly way too much of an echo chamber now with people who would just not want to hear or admit facts like this.  Anonymint probably agrees with most of this, so yea, the last thing you would probably want is Larimer debating Anonymint.

Bitshares will probably need to evolve in a different direction from it's current model, but nobody wants to admit major structural changes are needed, and they would likely violate the social contract that's already been violated 50 times by bringing back mining.

Mining with a block reward is definitely required (either with transaction fees as block reward, perma inflation, or both).  If you don't know why, read my thread:

IOTA - Permissioned ledger Russian extortion scheme

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/iota-permissioned-ledger-russian-extortion-scheme-1414866

Both Come from Beyond and Larimer have created systems without quantifying what makes Bitcoin a decentralized system in the first place, as can be done in one sentence as I demonstrated in that post.

Would be nice to see members such as TPTB join and openly discuss with Dan crypto technology and direction.  Many users around here often highly criticize different projects without realizing progress has up's, downs, successes, and complete failures.  More then one project will eventually become "successful."

Community needs to come together and realize projects can adapt for the environment and aim for mass adoption.