do i misunderstand how the bitcoin client operates? if BTC gets widely adopted, just the massive amount # of ppl running the client alone will be enough to keep the blockchain safe and running?
Even if they mine while running the client, it won't be enough to keep the blockchain safe because of the huge computational advantage specialized hardware has over commodity hardware. However, if transaction fees aren't enough to incentivitize mining by then, it won't be worth attacking anyway. 
Topic: Bitcoin is not real money. (Read 4671 times)
do i misunderstand how the bitcoin client operates? if BTC gets widely adopted, just the massive amount # of ppl running the client alone will be enough to keep the blockchain safe and running?
The typical wallet clients don't change the block chain, they just read it. Mining is what maintains the blockchain. 
As for bitcoin they will never be all mined since the network is programmed to increase the money supply as a geometric series, 21 million will not be reached.
While 21 million will not be reached the reward will go to 0.00000000 BTC unless there is a protocol change. I can't remember the exact amount but it is just short of 21 million.
do i misunderstand how the bitcoin client operates? if BTC gets widely adopted, just the massive amount # of ppl running the client alone will be enough to keep the blockchain safe and running?
To the best of my understanding, there is an asymptote, there will never quite be 21 million, and the incentive for "mining" at that point will be collection of transaction fees, rather than mined coins. So the activity should really be given a different name at that point.
Isn't that the same as running out?
M
Wrong and wrong.
Earth is a limited planet, what are you smoking? Every resource is finite. If we know the exact amount of what is left and can actually be used of any given element is another question.
Earth is a limited planet, what are you smoking? Every resource is finite. If we know the exact amount of what is left and can actually be used of any given element is another question.
Wow, no need to get rude.
I'm glad you're so sure of yourself. You're in good company with the majority of scientists.
Let's take coal. Supposedly it was made over millions of years. Did that process suddenly stop? Therefore coal is still being "formed".
Same for oil.
What about water? Can we "use up water"? Sure we can pollute it to no end, but the earth has ways of purifying it.
Just because you don't think gold is regenerating doesn't mean it isn't. Can you prove it isn't? Didn't think so.
Quote
You should check the definition of a geometric series. Reward will be divided by half every 4 years or so, it is asymptotic by nature irrelevant of difficulty.
Apparently I misunderstood your graph, and you misunderstood me.
Miners are going to continue to mine at the same rate as they are now. That's the nature of changing difficulty. Yes, the number of coins per block will decrease as time goes on. But we will reach the end. If we don't, bitcoin is dead, because miners stopped mining.
M
To the best of my understanding, there is an asymptote, there will never quite be 21 million, and the incentive for "mining" at that point will be collection of transaction fees, rather than mined coins. So the activity should really be given a different name at that point.
I just checked and the article seemed pretty accurate! Perhaps its been reinstated or re written.
Wrong and wrong.
Earth is a limited planet, what are you smoking? Every resource is finite. If we know the exact amount of what is left and can actually be used of any given element is another question.
Earth is a limited planet, what are you smoking? Every resource is finite. If we know the exact amount of what is left and can actually be used of any given element is another question.
Wow, no need to get rude.
I'm glad you're so sure of yourself. You're in good company with the majority of scientists.
Let's take coal. Supposedly it was made over millions of years. Did that process suddenly stop? Therefore coal is still being "formed".
Same for oil.
What about water? Can we "use up water"? Sure we can pollute it to no end, but the earth has ways of purifying it.
Just because you don't think gold is regenerating doesn't mean it isn't. Can you prove it isn't? Didn't think so.
Quote
You should check the definition of a geometric series. Reward will be divided by half every 4 years or so, it is asymptotic by nature irrelevant of difficulty.
Apparently I misunderstood your graph, and you misunderstood me.
Miners are going to continue to mine at the same rate as they are now. That's the nature of changing difficulty. Yes, the number of coins per block will decrease as time goes on. But we will reach the end. If we don't, bitcoin is dead, because miners stopped mining.
M
Wrong and wrong.
Earth is a limited planet, what are you smoking? Every resource is finite. If we know the exact amount of what is left and can actually be used of any given element is another question.
You should check the definition of a geometric series. Reward will be divided by half every 4 years or so, it is asymptotic by nature irrelevant of difficulty.
Earth is a limited planet, what are you smoking? Every resource is finite. If we know the exact amount of what is left and can actually be used of any given element is another question.
You should check the definition of a geometric series. Reward will be divided by half every 4 years or so, it is asymptotic by nature irrelevant of difficulty.
there probably is a finite limit of precious metal in the world
This is a certainty as with any other resources on our little blue planet.
I won't get into how so many things scientists claim are certain turn out to be wrong.
Quote
As for bitcoin they will never be all mined since the network is programmed to increase the money supply as a geometric series, 21 million will not be reached. The difficulty of mining bitcoin tends to mimic real world mining where easy to mine resources are obtained first at low cost and as time goes by it gets harder and harder to obtained and requires either technological breakthrough or massive brute force investment.
This graph implies miners quit because they are no longer getting paid as much. If that's true, then bitcoin has a problem.
I think we will mine all the coins. Remember, difficulty adjusts to compensate for the network hashing power so that so many blocks are mined over a finite period of time. As long that stays true, the graph will never go asymptotic. Correct?
M
there probably is a finite limit of precious metal in the world
This is a certainty as with any other resources on our little blue planet.
As for bitcoin they will never be all mined since the network is programmed to increase the money supply as a geometric series, 21 million will not be reached. The difficulty of mining bitcoin tends to mimic real world mining where easy to mine resources are obtained first at low cost and as time goes by it gets harder and harder to obtained and requires either technological breakthrough or massive brute force investment.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Total_bitcoins_over_time.png
Wut? Bitcoins and metals are only real money.
Andy why you say that "bitcoin trades at over $10 a unit"? Money is a measure of things, not at other direction.
So more correctly to say (especially in bitcoin community) "dollar trades at less 100 mɃ a unit".
Andy why you say that "bitcoin trades at over $10 a unit"? Money is a measure of things, not at other direction.
So more correctly to say (especially in bitcoin community) "dollar trades at less 100 mɃ a unit".
mdude77 makes a very good point indeed. Under the FIAT model, currencies are limitless since they can be printed ex nihilo by any central bank/government. The strength of bitcoin comes from its decentralized nature and more importantly the intrinsic limited amount that can be generated (21 million), similar in this latter point as any precious metal.
Maybe the current economic terms should be updated to the following:
Currency: medium of exchange, unit of account, portable, divisible, durable, fungible (each unit is interchangeable)
eCurrency: all of the above and finite
Money: all of the above and a store of value
Maybe the current economic terms should be updated to the following:
Currency: medium of exchange, unit of account, portable, divisible, durable, fungible (each unit is interchangeable)
eCurrency: all of the above and finite
Money: all of the above and a store of value
And, actually, while there probably is a finite limit of precious metal in the world, it certainly isn't all available right now. So while it's possible we will some day run out of gold and silver to mine, I think we'll stop generating bitcoins first. That sort of gives BTC an edge over precious metal.
M
mdude77 makes a very good point indeed. Under the FIAT model, currencies are limitless since they can be printed ex nihilo by any central bank/government. The strength of bitcoin comes from its decentralized nature and more importantly the intrinsic limited amount that can be generated (21 million), similar in this latter point as any precious metal.
Maybe the current economic terms should be updated to the following:
Currency: medium of exchange, unit of account, portable, divisible, durable, fungible (each unit is interchangeable)
eCurrency: all of the above and finite
Money: all of the above and a store of value
Maybe the current economic terms should be updated to the following:
Currency: medium of exchange, unit of account, portable, divisible, durable, fungible (each unit is interchangeable)
eCurrency: all of the above and finite
Money: all of the above and a store of value
What wiki entry are we talking about? This one seems ok, but why does it have a silk road section? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin
I log into Wikipedia and find that somebody deleted most of the article. What do I find as a reason?
Reason: Most of this is not true. Bitcoin is not real money. It's toy money, etc.
What gives people the idea that Bitcoin is play money when it trades at over $10 a unit? Why can't people see it as real or are threatened by the idea of it being real?
What do you tell someone who says "Bitcoin is not real money."?
Reason: Most of this is not true. Bitcoin is not real money. It's toy money, etc.
What gives people the idea that Bitcoin is play money when it trades at over $10 a unit? Why can't people see it as real or are threatened by the idea of it being real?
What do you tell someone who says "Bitcoin is not real money."?
I would say, what's "real" money? Is that fiat green stuff called federal reserve notes that most people call dollars "real"? Most currencies today are "fiat" meaning they have "value" only because some government says it has value. Otherwise it's worthless paper. Look at Zimbabwe for an example of fiat currency.
BTC has a finite limit, which means no corrupt government (which most are) can inflate it to the fund their petty wars or payoff their political friends.
I'd say government currencies are government backed, BTC is crowd sourced backed.
Or something like that.
M
As previously stated, in economic terms what distinguish currency vs money are:
Currency: medium of exchange, unit of account, portable, divisible, durable, fungible (each unit is interchangeable)
Money: all of the above and a store of value
FIAT currencies (USD, EUR, YEN...) are therefore currencies as they do not store any value. As said above by bitcoin they are worth the paper they are printed on. This was not true before August 1971 when you could exchange your green paper for gold, but this is another story. Bitcoin fits perfectly the bill as a currency but not as money as it has no intrinsic value (like precious metals).
This James Turk (GoldMoney) interview of Félix Moreno de la Cova is relevant to the topic addressed in this post I would think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzHC7Pf2fk&feature=g-u-u
Currency: medium of exchange, unit of account, portable, divisible, durable, fungible (each unit is interchangeable)
Money: all of the above and a store of value
FIAT currencies (USD, EUR, YEN...) are therefore currencies as they do not store any value. As said above by bitcoin they are worth the paper they are printed on. This was not true before August 1971 when you could exchange your green paper for gold, but this is another story. Bitcoin fits perfectly the bill as a currency but not as money as it has no intrinsic value (like precious metals).
This James Turk (GoldMoney) interview of Félix Moreno de la Cova is relevant to the topic addressed in this post I would think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzHC7Pf2fk&feature=g-u-u
my $100 bill is worthless in ethiopia. you just think your $100 is worth something because it can get you something nearby, but its not backed by anything. If the whole system failed, i'd just be left with a fancy piece of green colored cotton paper that i could wipe my ass with. if you don't think it can happen to your US dollar, then i suggest you watch this documentary:
http://www.endoftheroadfilm.com
trailer:
http://youtu.be/YiLK98BWFqg
http://www.endoftheroadfilm.com
trailer:
http://youtu.be/YiLK98BWFqg
This is how I define "currency" - if someone is willing to take whatever I have in hand or other formats for the good / services that someone provides, that's currency. In that terms, BTC is not used anywhere, or at least used safely; my conclusion is BTC is not a currency yet.
Well, I've spent BTC on goods and services, so that makes it a currency -- unless your definition also include some sort of threshold.
This is how I define "currency" - if someone is willing to take whatever I have in hand or other formats for the good / services that someone provides, that's currency. In that terms, BTC is not used anywhere, or at least used safely; my conclusion is BTC is not a currency yet.
Jump to: