Topic: ETH = Game Over - page 2. (Read 40467 times)

hahahahaha

If you had not been following some of dinofelis's recent posts in this thread, he is not the kind of guy that would let actual real world facts get in the way of his various monetary theories.   

Ethereum Price Technical Analysis – ETH Relatively Muted

Ethereum price recently traded near $11.91 where sellers appeared and pushed the price down versus the US Dollar. The ETH/USD pair is currently trading lower and moved below the 100 hourly simple moving average. However, there may be no break, as there is a bullish trend line formed on the hourly chart (data feed via SimpleFX) of ETH/USD. It may...

Link

The Ethereum is a good coin, but if it is not developed actively, it will be replaced another good coins.

ETH ethereum still good coin
you can see all new altcoin majority is dev coin use token etherum
majority use platform etherum

if eterum die and game over much altcoin can die too

Well then just wait, the market has a good way of correcting itself. But in my theory price spearheads value, and then value catches up slowly.

Bitcoin was under 200 euro for a year, and in that year the value had really catched up since the 2013 bust, so probably the price increases since then were legitimate.





Yea but bitcoin is by far the most secure, with the simplest code, highest economy, highest userbase, and above all highest life expectancy.

Why would anyone store their savings in Novacoin? https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/novacoin/




Yes it takes away value from gold, which is already overrated. With things like this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/american-with-121-pounds-of-gold-arrested-in-bolivia/

I am not sure gold is so much a superstar anymore. It is losing it's shine.



If Jonny buys 1 BTC, while Kevin has 638$ in USD.  Jonny in 1 year will probably have higher wealth than Kevin, due to inflation.

Jonny now will have more wealth to consume OR invest than Kevin.

It doesn't increase the ratio of investment/consumption, but it does increase both by a net effect. It's just inflation stealing away your purchasing power, so by opting out from inflation, you will have more money to consume or invest.

Besides it's a chicken-egg problem, for consumption you need entrepreneurs & investors, and vice-versa. So you need both at a healthy ratio of whatever, and this generates positive economic increase for Bitcoin.



Yes, that is why Bitcoin is more than just a financial asset. It's value is subjective, based on their investor's beliefs.

Right now Bitcoin's main value comes from either wealth storage, or as a hedge against bank bail-ins. So most investors not necessarly invest at the optimal price, but at whatever price they can get in to store their money.

Ask the Venezuelans, they dont care about bitcoin's price, they just don't want to suffer a 1500% inflation with the bolivar.

So bitcoin has more value packaged inside it, than it seems at first look, it's not just a silly internet token, it's meant to store money safely, and that is really priceless.

So if bitcoin were to raise to A 100 billion market cap, it would not make it more overvalued than it is now, it would just mean that more millionaires/billionaires are interested in securing their wealth.




Well bitcoin is not a traditional monetary asset, so this formula might not be entirely accurate. It fails to consider other valuation factors.

Using bitcoin to pay on a gambling site, is indeed true usage of bitcoin with a competitive edge. 

Listen, I'm NOT saying that bitcoin is worthless.  I'm simply saying that bitcoin's market cap, at the moment, is dominated by other things than its usage (namely what I call "greater fool theory") and I don't think that's a good thing.  That's all.

It would be way better that bitcoin's market cap was more in agreement with its usage as a store of value/currency, and much less as a "greater fool theory" asset.

I think that some people here are confusing the critique I'm having on the current way bitcoin is TRADED and the actual value of the bitcoin system.  It is a bit like when I'm saying that feeding caviare to the pigs is a bad idea, that I'm criticising caviare.




Again, that's real bitcoin usage.  That's not what I'm complaining about.


That reasoning of the deflationary spiral only holds if the asset you're talking about is the main/sole currency.  It doesn't make sense if there are myriads of "value storage" competitors.

I know how this goes:
- I produce value and I get money for it.  If I use that money as a store of value, during that time, I've put net value into the economy, and I don't pump it out again by consumption.  So I let everyone else "profit" from that value during a certain time.  This happens through the deflationary effect that my holdings generate: me holding money increases the demand for money, and hence (through Fisher !) other people's money's value, with ideally the same amount as I refused to consume directly but put in.

However, in the case of just holding bitcoin over holding fiat or gold, this implies just a SHIFT from fiat or gold to bitcoin, not an overall increase in "monetary asset value".  If I were *in any case* holding value, I do not change anything to the economy by preferring bitcoin over gold.  I just decrease gold's value and increase bitcoin's.

Moreover, this deflationary effect doesn't increase the buying of capital goods over consumption goods (which is what investing is about).  It will increase the buying of goods in the same ratio.  If other people are mainly consuming, then my value will be used for consumption, not for acquiring capital goods.

If I explicitly invest in production, then my investment will explicitly improve the amount of capital goods, and increase economic production in the future.

This is why "holding value" is not investing.  It is letting value to the others, in the same ratio consumption/capital as they used to, the time I put this value aside.  And moreover, if it is just a choice of WHAT store of value, then this only plays on the relative prices of both storages.


Its value is not used to buy production capital, and it doesn't produce (much) value - the only value it produces, is the competitive edge it brings over other means of storage of value.  This is why its price shouldn't be much higher than strictly necessary for the value it produces.

If a company worth $1000 000,- in production capital, can produce, say, for $100 000,- yearly, with a yield of 10% yearly, that's way, way better than a company that needs $ 100 000 000,- in production capital to produce the same value yearly, namely $100 000,-., with a pitiful yield of 0.1%.

The "company worth" of a monetary asset which is unavoidable, is given by Fisher's formula.  If it needs to transport $1000 000 000,- a year and it needs to be kept on average, say, 2 weeks, then a market cap of $ 40 000 000,- is unavoidable.  That's comparable to the "capital goods" in a company, and the market cap of its stock.  If by transporting $ 1000 000 000,- a year, it brings a competitive edge of $1000 000,- a year (that's the value that is PRODUCED by bitcoin, over other systems), then with its given market cap, it has a yield of 2.5%.

However, if by speculation, the market cap is blown up 10 times more, to $ 400 000 000,-, it still doesn't produce more "competitive edge" than before, namely $ 1000 000,- a year, but now its yield is only 0.25% which is worse.

That's my whole point.


But I agree with that.  That doesn't change the fact that a monetary asset's "capitalisation" is given by Fisher's formula.

Under Sustained Attack, Ethereum to Introduce Hard Forks

Ethereum is still in trouble, the much-celebrated blockchain platform has been suffering from a sustained attack for weeks now. Under attack, the cryptocurrency based smart contracts platform is now looking at not one but two consecutive hard forks.

According to a recent announcement on Ethereum’s official blog, these “very crafty” attackers have been uncovering one vulnerability after another in Ethereum client implementations and protocol specifications to hinder the performance of the network...

Link

Ethereum Price Weekly Analysis – ETH/USD Approaching Break

Ethereum price ETH fell sharply this past week against the US Dollar and surprised many traders. It traded as low as $11.48 where the bulls appeared and prevented further losses. The price is currently forming a critical contracting triangle pattern on the 4-hours chart of ETH/USD (data feed via SimpleFX). It may play a major role for the next move in the near term. The upper trend line of the triangle pattern is also coinciding with the 23.6% Fib retracement level of the last drop from the $13.34 high to $11.48 low...

Link

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/57p0bv/a_quick_note_on_how_the_call_gas_cost_increase/?st=iucbqo9l&sh=4e279f3f

A quick note on how the CALL gas cost increase will affect contracts. self.ethereum
Submitted 7 hours ago by vbuterinJust some guy
One of the features of EIP150 increases the gas cost of every type of call from 40 to 700. This gas cost is in addition to memory gas costs and the gas provided to the child; for example, if you currently call a contract with 300 gas, then the child gets 300 gas and the parent pays 340 gas (assuming no memory expansion), post fork the child would still get 300 gas but the parent would pay 1000 gas. So calls to contracts that provide less than 700 gas are not affected (unless the child itself consumes an opcode whose price has been greatly increased, but there are very few situations where this is the case).

Existing contracts often use msg.gas - 40 to determine how much gas to send to call a child; because currently a call costs 40 gas, msg.gas - 40 basically means "send the child as much as we can". However, with the patch, msg.gas - 40 + 700 = msg.gas + 680 so these contracts would all be trying to send too much gas to the child. This is remedied by adding a rule that if a call tries to send the child too much gas, instead of failing the child is simply sent the maximum amount of gas that it can get. Hence, if your application relies on calling a contract with 50000 gas and you're used to sending transactions which (post base costs) have 50001 gas, and the cost now increases to 50680, then you can simply bump up the gas in your transactions slightly and it will again work.

Aside: nonlinearity sucks
Some have asked why we need to up the gas costs linearly and why we can't either have a quadratic cost (pay N2 for N calls) or just a hard limit on the number of calls and suicides per transaction. The answer is that this is a very bad idea that opens up new classes of attacks that contract developers now have to worry about. For example, there may be a parallel to the call stack depth limit attack (which BTW thanks to the 63/64 rule in EIP150 will no longer be a concern) where an attacker makes 99 calls, then makes the last call to the victim contract, and the victim contract fails in some unexpected way.

Memory already has a quadratic gas cost, and this has already annoyed us because it means that there is no way to budget a fixed amount of gas in order to expand memory by a fixed amount. So we're actually trying to move away from having a host of weird hard or nonlinear limits that make reasoning about contract development hard.

That is true, but there are services that are exclusively run through bitcoin.

Sure any gambling site can accept any currency, like, doge, ether, etc... but still the most used currency is bitcoin. So bitcoin has a competitive edge and not just that it has special characteristics that make it the most preferable currency.

So the crypto economy will grow on Bitcoin no doubt, other altcoins will be part of it, but BTC is the big show.


Just as say Myspace ran the social media for a time ,but now it's exclusively Facebook, both are similar projects.  Facebook is just as a social construct as Bitcoin, so bitcoin has it's independent value just as any other project.









It is, people keep putting a % of their salary in bitcoin, so the size does matter. Besides they are enjoying it's services, be that gambling or shopping vintage cloths:

https://duosear.ch/



Or electronics shoppers like phone gadgets, raspberry pi computers and other stuff
https://duosear.ch/



In a deflationary currency there is no difference. In bitcoin saving/hoarding/investing is pretty much the same. You hold the coins so that other people can spend it's value or re-invest it for other projects:

-They take risk and might not receive them back due to losses
-You hold the value of the coins and become a bigger % shareholder / capita if other people sell



Read my post again. And you make no sense BTC, first you say that speculators buy/sell is bad, now you say that speculators holding is bad? Make up your mind.






And what is exactly the difference between a stock and bitcoin, technically?

It's an enterprise, it's global, and it stores value like an asset (stock). Now it may pay out dividend if you are a miner, but otherwise at least it goes up (for almost 7 years straight)

And as a bonus it's a currency. So it holds all the values of a stock, but in a form of a currency that is tradeable. So bitcoin is both a stock, commodity and currency combined. It's a totally new genre of financial asset.

So you cant talk about it in the old sense.



I dont like reading keynesian nonsense. I already told you that in a deflationary enviroment  saving/hoarding = investing.







Well given that billion of $ already went down the toilet, they are not very good money managers.

But if some real scientists would have bought bitcoin in 2009 with a few thousand dollars, they might have made a breakthrough by now with all that money they'd made so far.







But the dollar is controlled by a central bank and it has tons of overleveraged instruments built on it, of course its not good for them.

But bitcoin is pretty much independent of all that market manipulation. Look at BFX hack , nobody cares, nobody will bail them out. This is a true capitalist system, there are no too-big-to-fail banks.

Bitcoin so far had a higher YOY return than it's inflation, maybe perhaps in its first years. I mean last year 149.12% return  with only 9% inflation. You have to be kidding me.


Look at the EUR, no yearly returns and probably a 5% yearly inflation .

Upon reflection, one more clarification that I want to make in terms of this aspect of this topic.

The main essence of your argument seems to be:

1) bitcoin does not provide sufficient levels of utility and value beyond speculation to be significantly as an investment or otherwise blah blah blah in other words, bitcoin is almost exclusively speculative to the extent that speculation versus utility matters.
2) speculation is insufficient as a motivating factor for any investment (currency or otherwise) to be sustainable beyond "greater fools" investment.
3) based on 1 and 2, bitcoin is not sustainable beyond "greater fools" investment.


I don't give a shit if your logic is 100% sound, and surely your logic could be 100% sound, and your argument can still be nonsense. 

As you should already realize, we largely do not agree about point 1, and there is a lot there in point 1, but you want to go on and on and talk about point 2 and point 3 and how you arrive at point 3 and how your logic is so wonderful and all of that, and in the end, who gives a shit? 

If we cannot agree about point 1, then we are discussing this matter from differing foundations, and in essence the only point that matters in order to make further progress is point 1.

We have sufficiently discussed point 1, and there is a lot of speculation and facts in point 1, then it is not going to matter if your logic is great and if your point 2 is wonderful.  In the end, it remains substantively important that we do not need agree on point 1. 

We can have varying degrees of opinions regarding point 1, and there is nothing wrong with that, but I do not see any real purpose of continuing to argue all over the place regarding irrelevant topics, such as your point 2 and your logic, etc etc.. .. in that regard, we can agree to disagree.. and that seems to be mostly regarding point 1, which have their own variety of facts and logic contained therein.

Ethereum Price Technical Analysis – Trend Line Resistance Holding

Key Highlights
ETH price continued to challenge an important resistance area against the US Dollar, but failed to break it.
There is a bearish trend line as highlighted yesterday on the hourly chart (data feed via SimpleFX) of ETH/USD, which is acting as a resistance.
The pair is slowly stabilizing, and may attempt another break of the trend line resistance.
Ethereum price is currently trading below a resistance trend line and struggling to break it. If the ETH bulls succeed, it may call for an upside move.

Link

O.k... now you want to play dumb in order that we have to regurgitate all of the various bullshit that we have already covered.

Largely the bad facts is your failure and refusal to give value to speculative value in bitcoin, subjective value and the extent to which even small amount of utility (such as 5%) can cause speculative value and subjective value to have greater importance than what you are attributing to such factors.





Bitcoin is sufficiently open, and miners can choose the extent to which they want to invest in mining to the extent that they think that it may be profitable for them in the short term or the long term.  Some may win and some may lose, and there are definitely costs of the system, but in the end, the system still has value in spite of the various costs of mining and securing the network through mining.. aka proof of work.




yeah, you are rehashing, and concluding that there is no value to this, when it should be fairly obvious that you are wrong about your conclusion about whether there is any value left after the costs of mining.



Sure that is true, but we have rehashed over and over and over, so it seems a bit laborious to continue to repeat matters, and easier just to say "nonsense" ... Actually some of your nonsense kind of seems to speak for itself, anyhow.




Your conclusions can be avoided and denied for many of the reasons that I have rehashed several times already.

I have no problem with you choosing to invest or not into bitcoin based on your conclusions regarding its future, and other folks have differing evaluations, and they will choose their extent of investment and their extent of allocating assets towards bitcoin.


By the way, do you invest in bitcoin?  how much of your assets?  do you short it?  or do you just make nonsensical assertions on forum without investing in order to attempt to save others from investing?

yes.. currency seems currently as bitcoin's main value proposition within the secure decentralized immutable value storage and transfer.  There is no other system that is close to bitcoin, so it remains quite amazing at the moment.  6 months down road, we could have another assessment, but at the moment, bitcoin seems pretty decent and it seems that there can be reasonable ways to invest 1% to 10% of your quasi-liquid investment assets into bitcoin and that would be a reasonable approach at the moment, even though not too many folks are currently making such investment into bitcoin, and sometimes it can take quite a bit of work to figure out a reasonable way to tailor any kind of new investment class, such as bitcoin, into your life in a way that is comfortable for personal particulars.



There should be no problem pegging value of bitcoin to fiat for a kind of contract that would be paid in bitcoin at the fiat value at the time of the execution.  Whether bitcoin is involved at all will depend upon whether folks considered it useful to involve bitcoin, for example, if I am going to send money to you, it may be better for me to send in bitcoin, because I have no idea who you are, and I don't really have any inclination to want to meet you or to get to know you any better.  Not at the moment.  ahahahahaa



In the near future, I'm not using any fucking supposed "smart contract" to automate any portion of my contract with you, unless you can propose some kind of reason that it would bring value to our arrangement.  I also shun away from a large number of monthly automated payments because I want to verify every month before I pay.  That may be my own personal inclinations, at least for now.




I don't know why you are going on and on about this because I already asserted that it seems dumb to create a contract that is linked to the value of a volatile asset, such as bitcoin.  So you are making shit up in order to argue about stuff that is largely not in contention, but then at the same time, you want to tie these negative attributes to bitcoin?  hello?  Snap out of it.




Sure, we could bring in automatic payment in circumstances that we know the payment is made once the conditions are filled, and yeah, that would be a good use for a smart contract, if we know the system can detect and/or escrow sufficiently.

Some more hard fork.

https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/10/13/announcement-imminent-hard-fork-eip150-gas-cost-changes/

Announcement of imminent hard fork for EIP150 gas cost changes

Posted by Martin Swende on October 13th, 2016.
During the last couple of weeks, the Ethereum network has been the target of a sustained attack. The attacker(s) have been very crafty in locating vulnerabilities in the client implementations as well as the protocol specification.

While the recent patches have led to an overall increased resiliency in the client implementations, the attacks have also demonstrated that a lower-level change to the EVM pricing model is needed.

For many users, the most visible consequence is probably that they are having difficulties getting transactions included in blocks, and full nodes are facing memory limitations in managing the bloated state.

This is our strategy to address these issues:

As a temporary measure to minimize the effects of the most recent attack, we recommend all miners to lower the gaslimit to 500K gas.
A hard-fork based on EIP 150 version 1c will be put into effect at block 2457000. This will reprice certain operations to correspond better to the underlying computational complexity.
A second hard-fork will follow shortly after, aimed at reverting the current “state-bloat” introduced by the attacks. This second fork will serve to remove accounts which are empty; lacking code, balance, storage and nonce == 0.
We have implemented the changes required in the clients and are currently extending and adding tests in an effort to prevent the introduction of consensus-breaking vulnerabilities.

And as a reminder, the Ethereum Bug Bounty is open and includes the new hardfork-implementations.

What bad facts ?


Proof of work serves to make mutability difficult, and essentially serves to burn seigniorage, so that the currency creation doesn't bring much to the creator.   As seigniorage is in general seen as unfair, the burning of seigniorage makes bitcoin to be seen as a fair system, and hence can help create the belief system of its value (an openly scammy system has difficulties establishing a belief system of value).

Bitcoin economics is such that, apart for a small margin, competition between miners will destroy most of the created bitcoin value by PoW, and that's good, but at the same time, a huge waste, and a cost to the entire system, but which also provides for security of its ledger.



Just claiming that something is nonsense doesn't make it nonsense.

I divided the demand for bitcoin in two classes:
- the demand as a store of value (which would remain if bitcoin's price were known not to rise significantly in the future) which is the only sustainable demand a collectible can have - that store of value can be gold-like in the long term (call it M2, whatever), and store of value in the short term (currency).  The value of bitcoin as a store of value with a competitive edge over other stores of value is its economic contribution, and so its fundamental value.  This demand is independent of any consideration of future rise.
- the demand for it motivated mainly by the hopes for a price rise, which I call speculative, and which is the source of "greater fool theory".

I considered, that there is 20 times more demand motivated by the second reason than the first.  That is, if some god would come from the sky and let all potential bitcoin holders and buyers know that the price would remain essentially stable in the far future, I presume that demand and holding of bitcoin would drop a 20-fold today.  We more or less agreed on that (5% real usage, 95% in for "moon").

If you take these starting points, my conclusions cannot be avoided.

I always say "currency or longer-term store of value".  M0, M1, M2, MB and all other M-type asset classes are of this type.  They are *collectibles* functioning as *store of value*.  "currency" is just a word for "store of value in the short term".


And it doesn't have anything else, that's the whole point.  Its only value proposition is "store of value" (by definition, because it is a collectible without any cash flow or other contractual obligations linked to it).  It is like gold, silver, and dollars.  All of them stores of value, so "currencies" in the wide sense (that is, if you extend the hold times to longer than just between earning and spending on a regular basis, but for instance, to put value aside for a big expense later, or for retirement, or for one's children, like you would put gold aside).



So it is easier to make such a deal in fiat than in bitcoin, hence bitcoin has no competitive edge here.  Unless for one or another reason, we cannot do it in fiat (for instance, with a smart contract, or because it is illegal).  The value bitcoin has in this case over other systems is hence, most of the time, zero.


Sure, but these things are equal whether we take bitcoin or dollars as our means of payment.  It is only different if we use a smart contract.  If not, the risks are the same, but on top of that, with bitcoin, I have a volatility risk that is much lower with fiat.  So bitcoin has no edge, and is hence, as a value booster for the deal, totally useless.


It is less attractive, because a hedge against volatility is needed, which is much less the case, all else equal, for another payment system.  So if that volatility is too important, bitcoin loses entirely its value proposition as competitive edge over other payment methods.  Unless, as I said, I cannot use another method for one or another reason.  Then bitcoin has value, because without it the deal can't work.

Whether I will get paid or not is independent of the payment method, so it is not bringing in any competitive edge (unless I use a smart contract, to eliminate counterparty risk - THEN there is extra value to it).

Now, that's pure retarded.  Did you even read what I wrote?  For example, if you are using bad facts, then it does not matter how pure is your logic.. and I am not even gonna concede that you have good logic, when you are asserting such nonsense.




 More nonsense.. you definitely are not engaging with facts when it comes to understanding what proof of work is providing.




Your logic points are nonsense, largely based on your inputting of faulty facts, and we have gone over this at nauseum.

If the logic works, then the way one arrives at it doesn't matter, does it.


Look, there is a NET OUTFLOW of value from the bitcoin system, which is the cost of mining.  That's done on purpose: seigniorage has to be destroyed.   The higher the amount of seigniorage, the higher the amount of destroyed value from the bitcoin system. 

There is also value creation in the bitcoin system: the competitive edge people obtain by using bitcoin over other means of currency/store of value.  That competitive edge is essentially independent of the market cap, and hence of the value outflow.  I will make one exception: the competitive edge may increase somewhat because at higher value outflow, so at higher difficulty, the network is more secure ; however that higher technical security is offset by a higher incentive to attack it, so it is absolutely not certain that the real security of bitcoin increases (that is, that the probability that your transactions will be reversed, or that the network as a whole will entirely be corrupted decreases) if difficulty increases, with increasing market cap, and increasing incentive to attack.
So, one can conclude that the competitive edge that bitcoin's usage over the usage of other currencies/stores of value in a particular case can bring, is independent of market cap.  This "bringing of competitive edge" is the value creation of bitcoin in the economy.

The total value created by the bitcoin system is the competitive edge it brings for each transaction that is a genuine usage as a currency or a store of value, and is hence simply proportional to the amount of genuine usage, independent of market cap.

If the value destroyed by the bitcoin system is proportional to market cap, and the value created by it is independent of it, then one cannot conclude anything else but that the net value that bitcoin brings to the economy decreases with increasing market cap, no ?

However, the value it creates will increase with *genuine* adoption (that is, to use as a currency, or a store of value).

As such, we see that bitcoin's maximal value creation happens when all of its market cap is due to genuine adoption.  It is the minimal unavoidable market cap, given by Fisher's formula: a certain usage as store of value cannot avoid to cause a certain market cap.  THAT market cap is the point where bitcoin creates most value in the economy.

The higher the ratio of the actual market cap over the minimal necessary to sustain genuine usage, the lower the value the bitcoin system creates, and at a certain point, this can go negative.

In a formula:

U is genuine usage (amount of store of value, as a currency, or a longer term store of value)
S is speculative usage

M is total market cap: M = F x (U + S)  (F is a factor from Fisher's formula)

Created value is proportional to C = E x U, where E is the competitive edge that real usage of bitcoin brings over other systems.

Destroyed value by mining is D = m X M, where m is a factor that comes from mining.

Value balance of the bitcoin system: V = C - D = E x U - m x M = E x U - m x F x (U + S) = (E - m x F) x U - m x F x S

What we see is that, if the competitive edge bitcoin can bring to genuine usage, is larger than the market cap that that usage implies and the destruction of value by mining, so if E - m x F is positive, then bitcoin has the potential to create value (if that is negative, bitcoin is lossy in all cases, it has not sufficient edge to compensate for minimal mining).

We also see that the speculative part only decreases the value creation of the system.  In our case, S is 20 times higher than U, so this term could very well render bitcoin lossy.

That is my logical point.

You continue to seem to work backwards in your logic to arrive at the conclusions that you want in spite of actual facts and logic.

The only thing that makes any kind of sense in your above response is the speculative possibility that fees could go up based on potential increased costs, yet that speculation remains quite speculative and even defies logic to conclude that if more people use something the more it is going to cost.. when in actuality there tends to be a kind of economy of scale that takes place with increased adoption... hello?




Even though I conceded to the speculative possibility that bitcoin could currently be composed of 95% speculation, that still does not mean that we even agree about the utility of speculation that we have in fact gone back and forth about with my concern  that you seem to denigrate speculation too much, fail to give it any value and then assume that you somehow know what it is with such lack and denigrated value... brings you to ongoing nonsensical and ludicrous conclusions.



You could be correct if they are equally available to a person and their cost is similar, but in the "REAL WORLD" this assumption does not tend to be the case.  Folks do not have options to equally chose between currencies or payment methods, so they engage in various utilitarian calculations regarding which to use based on availability.  I am not going to be inclined to attempt to spend a Ruble in the USA, but I may well get away with spending a dollar in Russia.  Similar calculations of availability, acceptance and cost can be done for almost any payment method... whether you call it a currency or an asset or you call it late for lunch.


yes, with your comparative contrast analysis, every once in a while you may tend to be correct, and that is likely that speculation tends to increase volatility.. but it does not mean that speculation should not exist or be minimized or to somehow wish it away... We roll with the punches in terms of how much speculation is taking place and in what direction and how much volatility is anticipated based on such current speculation dynamics that we may or may not recognize or understand.




Who fucking cares?  No one is suggesting that volatility does not exist, and only you seem to be suggesting that it is some evil that needs to be eliminated.  To the best that you can, you prepare for volatility and protect yourself, and you see how volatility likely changes with the passage of time, and different assets and currencies have differing levels of volatility and different factors that affect their volatility.

At this time, economic experts are all over the fucking place regarding how they are trying to figure out how to classify bitcoin and considering whether it is a new asset class or not.  Therefore, there is likely going to continue to be volatility in bitcoin that is in directions that are all over the place and beyond any person's ability to project exactly - even though most of the logic suggest that future bitcoin volatility is likely to continue to include upward valuations in unit price and market cap.

And, whether this bears repeating or not, volatility is likely to go down with increases in market cap because it takes much more capital to manipulate prices - yet since bitcoin seems to be so immature and potentially early in its adoption phase, there can be all kinds of future combinations of speculation versus utility that remains very difficult to pinpoint how much is what and how much utility is being provided merely by the fact that its market cap is going up and allowing for much less price slippage with larger transactions.




Get the fuck out of here with your ongoing lame attempt to continue to attempt to pigeon hole bitcoin as a currency.  Sure bitcoin has currency attributes and even a large number of folks aspire that bitcoin becomes a currency, but the fact of the matter remains that bitcoin's market cap puts bitcoin currently at the m1 rank of 77, and surely m1 money is only the most basic of the kinds of currencies compared with other means of storage, investment, value transfer vehicles.  In other words, bitcoin is way down the road from being considered as any kind of stable, non volatile and widely accepted form of currency... even though it has some of such attributes, already.



Well, we are both dumb asses if we make such an agreement without protecting ourselves in some kind of way or making some kind of hedge.



Yeah, there are various ways to hedge, and you better have the 20 bitcoin's when it comes time to pay me, you fuck.... hahahahahaha... I say "you fuck" with endearment, because you have not failed or refused to pay, yet.  



I gotta be careful if I am entering into an agreement with someone who may not have the ability to pay, but with any venture, there can be a certain amount of risk, and questions concerning which of the parties should bear the risk (sometimes agreed upon beforehand, and other times, left quite ambiguous and maybe foreseeably yet ill-prepared-for becomes an issue after the fact).



It's neither more or less attractive as a means of payment if the parties take adequate precautions and have a decent understanding for what they are in for.  

On the other hand, if the parties do not sufficiently understand the risks then it becomes much more stressful and more difficult to prepare for what you do not understand.  That's true with anything, and if some asset or currency has a longer track record, then expectations can be more predictable, maybe almost as certain as the sun coming up.