Topic: Bitcoin adoption slowing; Coinbase + Bitpay is enough to make Bitcoin a fiat - page 20. (Read 67204 times)

I request we not discuss in this thread about any specific altcoin or altcoin project in this thread, because according to forum rules that should occur in the Altcoin forum. We can discuss about features we would like to see in an altcoin. We can compare and contrast with Bitcoin.

Any post related to the OP is welcome, but I really didn't want to hear that we should make a traceable public ledger so that we can make public officials honest. Nothing will ever make politics honest.   That is proximately as convincing as putting lipstick on a pig.

In other words, a so-called "bitcoin killer" currency will live up to all of the expectations many had for bitcoin but which never materialized when actually implemented. Instead what emerged was cartelization, centralized control of development, and interest from big financial players who want the same kind of guarantees offered by the fiat system.

A digital version of the current financial topology is innovative in that it satisfies many demands that currently exist so it is desirable but it isn't revolutionary and I think that was the hope many had for bitcoin when it was originally presented. You can see that hope is still alive in much of the bullish commentary you can read on this and other venues regarding the potential of bitcoin as the original cryptocurrency.

when they see the new concept realized they will immediately adopt

If this characteristic can be adopted for the platform it will only enhance the effects I mentioned briefly in my previous commentary. The crooked and incompetent exchange system is another weakness of btc that stands in the way of further adoption.

Cutting out the "middle man" reduces the insulating factor between individuals transacting a financial interaction.

Much of the crime that exists is due to the social alienation that is inherent in those brought up in a corrupt system. Most people know that the current social order is a mask for an exploitative relationship between capital and producers so they feel justified in looking out for themselves, and rightly so I might add.

So this platform not only represents a technical innovation it represents the potential for massive social change and liberation from enslavement to various flavors of collective production yet leverage the network effect for it's benefit in knowledge accrual and transmission.

Maybe mankind can leverage technical innovation to escape the cycle of wave function collapse. I'm starting to think it is a possibility. If so a society with very little interpersonal conflict ie crime is possible.

I think a lot of that is due to inertia. There are definitely some technical weakenesses inherent to the protocol that leave it vulnerable to a currency that fits the criteria set forth by the OP, namely true anonymity and ubiquitous mining.

If anyone could produce currency simply by participating in the network, perhaps on their mobile device but definitely without special gear, there will be widespread adoption and the redundency characteristics of a decentralized network.

This "network effect" coupled with true anonymity makes what is essentially a "weaponized currency" that can counter fiat, which is itself a weaponized currency. Not by attacking the status quo but by providing an innovation that produces a better system for knowledge accumulation and transmittal to the next generation. Humans are opportunistic and will take care of the granular details of massive social change on their own terms once the tool needed is available. It has always been this way. Thus the eternal arms race between the individual and the collective advances a step and levels the field for the individualized knowledge production specialist.

The more I consider the possibilities the more excited I am!

It is in it's beginning but I'm confident it will be realized. It's too revolutionary not be produced by those who share the vision of human liberation. The "next step in human evolution" so to speak  

DieJohnny,

I have addressed it, such as in my very first thread Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch over a year ago.

In the following quoted post which comes from upthread, I had written about the need for perpetual debasement to fund mining (because transactions fees is broken design for several reasons):


The upside is a 0 transaction fees design is a very attractive feature for consumers and merchants. And with a cpu-only coin, the debasement is going right back to the users of the coin any way. And it enables such a coin to be obtained autonomously without any other party nor exchange necessary. Even Bitcoin is being debased by 11% annually now. Of course exchanges should still be available, but they should P2P decentralized. No more Mt.Gox!

I had an entire thread about Bitcoin as Ponzi scheme in November 2013, although my view has somewhat moderated since there.

Also I have repeatedly stated glaring weaknesses in Bitcoin such as the 10 to 60 minute transaction delay.

Of course those issues need to be corrected in any altcoin that seriously wants to achieve widespread decentralized adoption.

Are you not interested at all in crypto-currency? Just curious.

My biggest complaint with your post is that you fail to address the more unsavory side of bitcoin and that it is bitcoins limited supply, speculative investment, Ponzi scheme similarities.

Bitcoin never was worth billions because it is agrees transaction tool, anyone that says otherwise is a fool or a propagandist.

The greed of humanity is hardly played out yet with bitcoin, bitcoin will drop in price only until the new wave of speculative coin buyers sweep in and start throwing mor money at these coins.

The actual purchasing power and transaction coolness of bitcoin is a stupid sideshow and isn't worth talking about as a legitimate mainstream feature until 2025

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-479742

I think it would be interesting to write an essay about some of these issues, to get everything together in one place.

If anybody wants to contribute some thoughts, I have just corrected my Bitmessage contact details in my profile. I didn't realise before, but the address had been cut short when I tried to paste it in...

Discussion continues over at the blog of the creator of "open source".

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-479716

this is the critical point

I would argue that there is at least one technologically better crypto-coin out there already just based on the number of alt-coins and the innovation and skills behind some of them.  BTC has the momentum in mind share, which is far more important vs. tech specs in this competition currently.  I'd stop short of predicting BTC is the dominant coin indefinitely, but it seems to be for the foreseeable future. 

I read through this thread and have to say, even though I think I only completely understood about 20% of it, it is quite a fascinating read.

Is this ultimate anonymity coin actually a reality, or is it just an unobtainable crypto dream? Is the knowledge and skillset out there in the coder community? Are people already working on such a coin? Will it be ready by 2016?!

Another reason that transaction fees don't work.

I am interested to read your posts and reply. Feel free to post again next day as you collect your thoughts for a while.

You would gladly pay a micro payment for downloading Linux if you knew you were supporting the developers, because you want to see it continue to improve and bug fixes to be made.

There are several business models which can fund open source. The business models that work depend on the granularity of creation. Linux is a huge (in man-years) monolithic creation, so it is limited to mostly corporate sponsorship funding models, e.g. RedHat. I expect this will be the crux of Eric Raymond's argument if he refutes me.

Some creations don't need to be modularized, e.g. composing a song isn't a huge initial investment. For the more complex creations, it is about getting our technologies of creation modularized. I was working on a computer language to do that by employing higher-order semantics from higher-kinded typing with pure functional programming, before I got sidetracked on Bitcoin. I will get back to that later.

So the idea is in order for you to make creations, you need to contribute micro payments to the modules you use in your mashup creation. An honor system will work because in the knowledge economy, reputation becomes so important. Who wants to use your modules if you are destroying the value of the economy or if you modules are usually of poor quality.

Your inhibition should decline when the modulars get smaller and more closely correlated to specific need you have to complete a project of yours. You will then see the creative value ("genius") in the person who created it and feel a symbiotic vibe, almost a personal connection with them.

As the modules get smaller, the politics decreases, because you can always find a module and culture to your liking.

Degrees-of-freedom is so elemental to attaining peace and prosperity.

This should be fun, it should be social, it should be friendly.

It is about freedom-of-choice, diversity, fitness.

Regarding Nerwork Value
How that Value translates into Price? My copy of linux which is very valuable to me, I got for free. I pay more for useless shit like bumber stickers, and flowers.
I put my trust in the Open Source, but not my money. Why I behave this way? (actual question).
Is there some inhibition in me to exchange physical tokens for virtual things? Is virtual micropayment going to ease this inhibition?
Will I put more money to creators if I have a 3d printer to create physical things?
The shift to a new paradigm has a lot of friction inside me.

Yes I know Last post truly.  Feel free to delete my noise.

Everything will be solved once you have even 1% of humanity doing autonomous knowledge production full-time.

The first computer was so clunky that they had to test 1000s of vacuum tubes if one malfunctioned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC



We are at the cusp.

And you are going to swept away.

thaaanos, I appreciated the discussion with you upthread. Please for time being limit your posts to 1 per day, because you are starting to repeat yourself, and remember you agreed to let me go program. If you have a significantly new argument, feel free to post it.


We don't need economists. The free market can anneal to optimized fitness when we don't obstruct it. There is nothing to be gained.

And we lose our privacy asymmetrically to the fatcats who will always be immune from any totalitarianism.


I don't agree, but it is irrelevant because Bitcoin will end up offchain fractional reserves.

There is no way we are going to force a public ledger on the fatcats.

The best we can shoot for is an anonymous ledger so we can opt-out of collective madness and keep our individual privacy.

If you want that kind of 666 tracking system, you go ahead and signup for government tracking. Some of us here don't want that, and we don't want to hear about it. You can make another thread for people who want the NWOcoin.


Sorry that idea is going no where here in this thread. The focus of this thread has clearly morphed and is now about the anonymous, automonous, privacy, individual rights coin. There are a lot of us who want that.

As far as I can surmise based on the votes and comments upthread and in my private message inbox, those who vote "yes" have listened to you and we didn't agree.

I am happy to inform that Eric says I am not banned as long as I can remain respectful and has allowed my input to be considered. I posted another summary of my idea.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-479608

A public ledger of transactions if augmented with more info about the transaction will certainly help to have a clearer understanding of where the economy goes. Instant statistics! probably an economist's wet dream.
The transparency of the blockchain will make it more difficult for Politicians to distort the reality. I think it is a great Idea (public ledger) on it's own.
I wouldn't easily discard that notion in searching for anonymity.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26865695

There are no ramifications even when corruption is proven and openly admitted to by offenders in public office.

For example, in Britain the other day, Culture Secretary Maria Miller apologised to MPs for her attitude towards an inquiry into her expenses. The Commons Committee on Standards ordered her to repay £5,800 to cover over-claiming of mortgage expenses after she failed to cut her claims as interest rates fell.

Miller actually made around £1 million in capital gains from the appreciation in real estate/property values after making these fraudulent claims. If a member of the UK public committed a similar offence, they would probably face around six years in jail. For Miller, a simple apology was enough to avoid imprisonment.