Pages:
Author

Topic: Bitcoin adoption slowing; Coinbase + Bitpay is enough to make Bitcoin a fiat - page 16. (Read 67121 times)

sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250

China+Russia hit hard and the price plummeted. Why?

I also think it is because the govs of Russia and China know what they are looking at, a weaponized monetary instrument. They will punish users harshly for using it and there is no anonymity so users can be easily identified.

I imagine as well that an instrument that was safe to use would have a different effect.  

human liberationists need a "Thermopylae" to counter the trojan horse we have been given.

legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
http://gigaom.com/2014/04/07/bitcoin-will-be-part-of-the-global-banking-order-says-circle-ceo/

Quote
Summary: Bitcoin will one day be subject to global treaties and central bank interventions, predicts Jeremy Allaire, one of the virtual currencies’ biggest backers.

The future of bitcoin will be determined by central banks, standards bodies and corporate contributors. That’s the view of entrepreneur Jeremy Allaire, who used a Monday morning keynote address in New York to set out out a vision of the digital currency that is decidedly unlike the decentralized dreams of many early bitcoin backers.

Allaire, whose startup Circle is vying to taking bitcoin into the consumer mainstream, spoke at Inside Bitcoins, one of a growing number of event franchises capitalizing on a spike of interest in payments and virtual currencies.

According to Allaire, bitcoin’s emergence as a global payment platform will depend on governments altering anti-money-laundering laws, and helping bitcoin service providers integrate with the world’s existing banking infrastructure. In his view, the choice between bitcoin and conventional fiat currencies doesn’t represent an “either/or” proposition. Instead, he predicted the two systems will one day become intertwined through commercial banks and ATM networks.

More remarkably, Allaire also suggested that national governments could one day establish treaties to regulate bitcoin mining cartels, and act as market makers for bitcoin through their central banks.

And all these guys will prefer Ripple (for obvious reasons):
https://twitter.com/Ripple/status/450859716831629312
https://twitter.com/marleenvkammen
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mvankammen

As for the other uses that BTC can have (XRPs can be confiscated) only a truly anonymous coin can deliver them:
http://www.dgcmagazine.com/bitcoin-a-jack-of-all-trades-is-the-master-of-none/

On another note, what happened to the argument 'If they ban it the price will skyrocket!'?
China+Russia hit hard and the price plummeted. Why?

Because of Bitcoin's weaknesses (no real anonymity) - when they attacked it was wounded. An assault led to a retreat.

I bet that on a real anonymous coin that cannot be beaten, the fact that it will be almost immediately banned will really skyrocket it's value because it will be nothing else but a confession from the authorities of a DEFEAT!

We can't fight it otherwise (IRS, taint analysis -> loss of fungibility etc) so we just BAN it (like most countries in EU deal with assault rifles, WEAPONS!)...
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
http://gigaom.com/2014/04/07/bitcoin-will-be-part-of-the-global-banking-order-says-circle-ceo/

Quote
Summary: Bitcoin will one day be subject to global treaties and central bank interventions, predicts Jeremy Allaire, one of the virtual currencies’ biggest backers.

The future of bitcoin will be determined by central banks, standards bodies and corporate contributors. That’s the view of entrepreneur Jeremy Allaire, who used a Monday morning keynote address in New York to set out out a vision of the digital currency that is decidedly unlike the decentralized dreams of many early bitcoin backers.

Allaire, whose startup Circle is vying to taking bitcoin into the consumer mainstream, spoke at Inside Bitcoins, one of a growing number of event franchises capitalizing on a spike of interest in payments and virtual currencies.

According to Allaire, bitcoin’s emergence as a global payment platform will depend on governments altering anti-money-laundering laws, and helping bitcoin service providers integrate with the world’s existing banking infrastructure. In his view, the choice between bitcoin and conventional fiat currencies doesn’t represent an “either/or” proposition. Instead, he predicted the two systems will one day become intertwined through commercial banks and ATM networks.

More remarkably, Allaire also suggested that national governments could one day establish treaties to regulate bitcoin mining cartels, and act as market makers for bitcoin through their central banks.

hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
What we have now is the adjustment to the reality that the adoption curve is really log-logistic as I have shown, thus rpietila's claim from his linear adoption projection chart that the price should be $900+ is likely incorrect.

My best way to convince you this is so, is to note that there is no way the universe would remove all competition to make it so easy for lazy investors to become so insanely rich. To become very wealthy requires active knowledge in developing and managing. The universe doesn't hand great sustained wealth to people who make one lucky decision. Rather (even the greatest of all time such as Jesse Livermore) speculators always end up back at 0 eventually.

Bitcoin is not going to $0 and it is going higher eventually. But the rate of price appreciation will not be "to the moon" although another speculative frenzy might make you believe that one more time (to your great demise because next time it will really crash hard because adoption will have drastically slowed and there will be other vastly superior competitors taking over the ecosystem).

Btw, I have looked into the eye of the future of crypto-currency and I have seen that Bitcoin is going to be wiped out. I have seen some new designs in the past few days that blew my mind.

You are going to be hit with an onslaught of very serious altcoins and not just my designs.

hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
Agreed.

It is the same as the point about legalizing drugs. If we legalize and make access to botnets available to all, then the pricing equalizes and the criminals don't have a monopoly.

There are effective means for preventing and checking if your computer is hijacked.

We can't protect people against themselves, just as with drugs. Education is probably the best antidote to ignorance (but not necessarily education provided by the State, because then it teaches all that nonsense about we have to protect people from themselves and the earth is in danger from man, thus we need big government "solutions" which are really just a way for the elite to tax and steal, etc)

Once upon a time in the USA, I remember parents used to teach their kids common horse sense, and one could leave their front door unlocked without worry. There was a sense of community and the kids who did mischief were scolded but not put on Ritalin.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/06/inflation-is-not-always-caused-by-change-in-money-supply-deflation-is-engulfing-europe/

Quote from: Armstrong
If you really want to stop the violence, legalize drugs, tax them, and regulate them as they did with booze. That defunded the Mafia more than anything and the gun battles in Chicago ceased (like the song the night Chicago Died). As long as there is a tax-free profit to be made, you will never stop the violence.

Martin Armstrong is wrong on this point. It is important to refute him, because he arguing against anonymity.

Indeed legalizing drugs would lower their cost, make them more widely available, and thus through competition defund those Mafias that control distribution now. The taxing part has nothing to do with it! He conflated.

When drugs are illegal, non-criminals are unwilling to risk it to distribute them. Thus the criminals takeover the business.

I would prefer drugs weren't available, but the above is the economic reality. And it is not my right to impinge upon and judge for others what they want to do to themselves.
legendary
Activity: 1256
Merit: 1009
Quote
[clip]
Why do you say AWS is cheaper than buying hardware? I don't think so.
[clip]

Oops - I intended to say I would assume rented botnets are cheaper than AWS or buying your own hardware.  Because they cost the owner his time - whereas Hardware \ AWS involves getting Intel & Amazon their slice.  Morons are always cheap to find & exploit - I'm living proof Roll Eyes

Quote
[clip]
To facilitate this, we should make it super easy to deploy a botnet, such that any person can do it with a single click.  Wink
[clip]

Yes!  Fine with me - my biggest concern has much less to do with forcing legitimate mining than it does trying to insure a level playing field for all who get involved at the point they get involved.

Knowledge always has a hand up.  But to an extent long term mass adoption means leveling the playing field otherwise it turns into a pump and dump when those involved feel they've been contributing to the wealth of some clever person (KnC) who has found a way to exploit the system in a way it wasn't quite intended to be used.

Of course ... I dunno.  The fed seems to be doing ok  Roll Eyes
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
Matter, energy, and spacetime are all governed by the same physical laws. Life is a combination of the three acting in accordance to those physical laws.

I agree with you that this is the prevailing current theory.  I just think that in 50 years we will have an upgraded and different understanding of matter, energy, space time, and how life and consciousness play into these.  I know that is a weak argument in that I can't refute you with science.  I'm basically arguing the ridiculous point of "my imaginary science is better than your real science." It is just my gut feeling and gut feelings don't count for much in a forum like this.  So, I'll give it to you that you made the superior comment and I'll be left twiddling my thumbs hoping someday science upgrades proves me right.  Hahaha.  

Your opinion matters to me, and I am glad you shared it.  Wink
legendary
Activity: 1256
Merit: 1009
rdnkjdi, if the demand for botnets drives them to the same cost as purchasing the hardware, then no one is getting coins at lower cost than anyone else. Is that point clear?

The botnet owner gets a higher price for his botnets but that has no impact on the cpu coin's economy. I am happy if botnet owners make a lot of money, that is the only way people are going to learn to protect their computers and at least the hardware isn't sitting idle. The botnet owners are providing a useful service.

I just have a way of seeing paradigm shifts that others don't.

To an extent it makes sense.  Just like AWS price goes up if the price of coins go up to make it profitable to mine on AWS.

I'm going to have to absorb it.  Crypto is an easy way to monetize botnets - and my guess is that the guy who rents the botnet.  While he will pay more for it than he would have prior to this wildly popular CPU coin.  He will still be paying less per coin to generate than the person purchasing a new computer or renting AWS will.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
rdnkjdi, if the demand for botnets drives the price of renting or purchasing them to the same cost as renting or purchasing the hardware else where, then no one is getting coins at lower cost than anyone else. Is that point clear?

The botnet owner gets a higher price for his botnets but that has no impact on the cpu coin's economy. I am happy if botnet owners make a lot of money, that is the only way people are going to learn to protect their computers and at least the hardware isn't sitting idle. The botnet owners are providing a useful service.

I just have a way of seeing paradigm shifts that others don't.

For me most things other people think are immoral, are just economics.
legendary
Activity: 1256
Merit: 1009
Quote
[snip]
]If the cpu coin is widespread enough to drive sufficient demand, the price of Botnets will simply rise to match their hardware cost. They aren't unlimited in supply. Botnets compete for the same computers that users will want to use to mine with. No problem really if thinking big, only while small it is a threat.

Cloud computing won't have too much of an advantage, only the economies-of-scale on electricity mostly, but the wise small-scale miner can locate with microhydropower to beat them and the home miner doesn't care about electricity cost. The Tilera CPUs won't compete. If you mean admins hijacking their company servers to use their downtime, this is just a form of Botnet.

Also the word will get out. People will start reclaiming their computers from hijackers. Thus driving the price of Botnets up further.

In the near-term, the botnets won't have the right CPUs in most machines, so they will run inefficiently, something like an order-of-magnitude less than a recent Haswell.

Also the value of the coin scales to the value of the mining network, so if home users drive difficulty to the moon (because the electricity cost isn't significant compared to other appliances), they will also drive the price of the coin to the moon.
[snip]

The problem in my mind is wealth allocation.  When talking about decentralization - I think in terms of decentralization of power and release of new funds.  If the price of botnets rise.  Then isn't the wealth being released to those who own the botnets.  Granted - it might be he who winds up with the coin is purchasing the botnet.  So in reality he's just getting a good deal on amazon instances.

So really.  AWS, botnets, borrowing my companies resources are all the same issue.  Perhaps you are right on the generation of processors.  As botnets tend to be much older computers.

My opinion is still that hard drive space and memory as a requirements would help with the botnet issue, the farming issue (the cost of mining each coin mass produced would be closer to the cost of what the general public already owns - vs just a fraction of it (processor).  

I would LOVE to get behind a anonymous CPU only coin.  And honestly I think there are many who are on board with the idea of bitcoin or various alts who would feel the same.  Who are invested with the idea - but a little disenchanted with the massive centralization.

hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
Can anyone explain to me the intended meaning of the prior two posts?  Huh
sr. member
Activity: 567
Merit: 270
Are we sure we want it to be just another fiat ?

I would prefer something completely different. Different from anything already existing.

This is way my answer was 'no'
Cannot be fiat!
newbie
Activity: 52
Merit: 0
Are we sure we want it to be just another fiat ?

I would prefer something completely different. Different from anything already existing.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
The most ideal solution for anonymity on the public block chain is not Zerocash (Zerocoin) nor CoinJoin (current Darkcoin) for detailed reasons I won't fully summarize in this post.

And the most ideal solution for anonymity of your IP address (i.e. your connection to the internet) is not Tor nor a VPN nor I2P/Darknet (Anoncoin), which are often honeypots and you don't know when they are or not.

To be anonymous, you need both underlined types of anonymity.

The latter can be obtained in some cases with a unregistered mobile device or WiFi access, but this isn't readily available to everyone, the governments are trying to eliminate these options, and if you reuse them you are eventually correlated. There is a more ideal solution to the latter that doesn't require these.

Well one could make an argument that Zerocash (not Zerocoin) doesn't require the latter, because it hides even the amount of the transaction, but still the government can compel you to give up your password if they know you are sending transactions. Zerocash has other weaknesses which I think are unacceptable, e.g. if the setup was hacked you have no way to know if the coin suppy is being increased more than allowed and thus the money supply is always unknown and the 8.7ms (115 transactions per second) verification speed per i7 core means it might not scale well for micro payments. One thousand i7 cpu cores would be required to process 100,000 transactions per second, not including denial-of-service attacks transaction spam. That would probably force centralization of mining.
legendary
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1001
mining is so 2012-2013
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
The other reason the emerging markets will accelerate their decline after July 1, 2014 and dollar+NYSE will rally:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/06/the-man-who-thought-he-was-king-and-wants-to-rule-the-world/

Quote from: Armstrong
Quote
July 1st because of the new FATCA reporting requirements

If anything, it will cause a capital contract back in the USA and that is behind a dollar rally – not collapse.

FATCA was passed back in 2011 and introduced by one of the most dangerous Democrats on Capitol Hill – Harry Reid. He is as much a Marxist and so extreme left he makes the perfect bookend to match McCain who never saw a county he would not invade. FATCA was passed back in 2011 and ever since Americans have been thrown out of banks on a worldwide basis. I have reported how FATCA is destroying the world economy – not the dollar. It should be noted that highly unusually, FATCA was not subject to a cost/benefit analysis by the House Ways & Means Committee because nobody dared to look at what they KNEW was unconstitutional and treated ALL American citizens as economic slaves.

[snip]

Under international law, FATCA is clearly a violation for it is imposing requirements on institutions outside the USA over which they have NO territorial jurisdiction. FACTA considers the entire world belongs to the IRS.

FATCA requires foreign financial institutions (FFI) of broad scope – banks, stock brokers, hedge funds, pension funds, insurance companies, trusts – to report directly to the IRS all clients’ accounts owned by US Citizens and US persons (Green Card holders).

[snip]

If a [foreign] institution does not comply, the US will impose a 30% withholding tax on all its transactions concerning US securities, including the proceeds of sale of securities on that institution;s entire business.

In addition, FATCA requires any foreign company not listed on a stock exchange or any foreign partnership which has just 10% U.S. ownership to report to the IRS the names and tax I.D. number (TIN) of any US owner.

[snip]

thank you so much Nevada for infecting the world with this crazy Marxist. Even Hitler respected the sovereignty of Switzerland and did not invade them simply because Germans had accounts there. Reid respects no borders nor does he respect the Constitution or International Law.


jabo38, unfortunately I can't allow this to be the Proof-of-work 101 thread. I think you can get help on learning about proof-of-work in
other threads on this forum. Appreciate your participation. Hope you understand it is my role as moderator to keep the thread focused.
legendary
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1001
mining is so 2012-2013
Ethereum team mentioned something about forcing each of the miners to keep a copy of the blockchain on their hard drive to avoid pools all together.

[snip]

I'm just having a tough time seeing a good solution for mining to avoid centralization.  

I know the solution.  Lips sealed

I am a newbie to cryptocurrency so these could be stupid questions.  It seems like to me PoW is just kind of like a lottery and the bigger the ASIC, the better chances of winning the randomized lottery.  The point was to make people spend effort to earn bitcoin I think, right?  But really it seems like to me that what we need miners to do is secure the network.  That is the most important thing they do, right?  So, instead of making miners use lots of power to win a lottery and thereby indirectly secure the network, why not just assign the miners a direct role of securing the network and the miner that does the best job wins.  I read about in NEM, that they were thinking about a new system called PoI although I have no idea really what it means or how it works, but I think it was suppose to be something along those lines of rewarding nodes directly that processed the most transactions.  Would this be part of the answer? Or could it be?
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
I wonder what effect could a CPU coin have if it has too much value in the CPU industry, are we to expect Intel and AMD for example to withhold fresher iterations of their CPUs for private mining, or charge much higher, or the opposite way getting preorders that will fund their research at a faster rate?

If ever the coin has that much power, the coin can buyout Intel. I mean the home miners can all go buy Intel stock and vote for change in Directors.

If we get to that point, we already won. There would be so much social change already.

I don't think I am omniscient enough to predict all of the possible scenarios. Radical change is enough for me. Let's see where society takes it.

Any chance that your coin works with a UltraSPARC T2 chip?

AnonyMint has not and will not announce nor endorse a coin.

I have contemplated designs and for a properly designed cpu-only coin, no I don't think a T2 nor Tilera would have a per hardware $ nor per operational Watt advantage and in fact would be worse.
Pages:
Jump to: