The coin itself is actually a counterparty asset so it exists on the counterparty protocol
Remember when Wall Street started making synthetic derivatives composed of mortgage-backed security derivatives? 
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 1008. (Read 2032266 times)
Now consider Storjcoin as a share and I think we end up with a contradiction. If I hold x% of the Storjcoins(shares), should I not earn x% of the revenue from the Storj network? If they were shares then I should. But I don't: the revenue flows to the nodes providing the service. The nodes are the shareholders! So Storjcoin is not a share.
What is Storjcoin then?
What is Storjcoin then?
Exactly, Storjcoin is not intrinsic to the Storj system at all. This can only end badly for the Storj developers, either they quietly phase out Storjcoin and make the system competitive against distributed storage networks that are frcitionless, or the system loses out to an unencumbered design.
My thoughts exactly (and I agree with your previous comment too).
But MoA is a smart guy. He thinks we're missing something. Are we?
I haven't looked into specifics of the StorJcoin economic model at all.
Like any division of ownership/labour/incentive structure if they don't get that right it will be a failed venture.
The ones that do and the analysts that dig in and find the right ones will make the right bets ... focusing on one failed application you might be missing the wider possibilities? Maybe fork the open source StorJcoin and bolt on the correct economic model and you'll have a winner?
Hey guys, Ryan here Storj Community President.
Caught the discussion happening figure I would help you out and give some answers
l
Storjcoin is not equity in storj.
Storjcoin is the token used to purchase storage on the decentralized cloud network
People running the application Driveshare(in development github.com/storj) will be able to sell excess hard drive space
The whitepaper describing this process is being reviewed right now and adjustments to it.
If you want to store something on the network you will use a metadisk node
Current public nodes
(note without drive share running these are early demos and not a decentralized application)
node1.metadisk.org
you can read the metadisk whitepaper here
metadisk.org/metadisk.pdf
People using metadisk will purchase space that they need using storjcoin
So therefore storjcoin will have value as it has a commodity directly attached to it.
This is a brief summary and there is lots of more information on the Storjtalk.org forums
Hope to see you there or send a reply here and I will do what I can to answer
how is Storjcoin secured and who holds the ledger?
The coin itself is actually a counterparty asset so it exists on the counterparty protocol
Storjcoin is not equity in storj. Storjcoin is the token used to purchase storage on the decentralized cloud network.
Right, it is just a token to be paid to the nodes for their work storing the data. Storjcoin pays no dividends and makes no promises to the user about how much storage each token will purchase. I cannot fathom why anyone buys them (outside of the greater fool theory and outside of actually using the service).
Naval said it himself in the video. devs can "sell" premined coins and the dev can hold back a % as a funding mechanism.
so in fact, the coins should represent shares in the company.
so in fact, the coins should represent shares in the company.
Yes, they should but they don't.
Appcoins are aether.
Now consider Storjcoin as a share and I think we end up with a contradiction. If I hold x% of the Storjcoins(shares), should I not earn x% of the revenue from the Storj network? If they were shares then I should. But I don't: the revenue flows to the nodes providing the service. The nodes are the shareholders! So Storjcoin is not a share.
What is Storjcoin then?
What is Storjcoin then?
Exactly, Storjcoin is not intrinsic to the Storj system at all. This can only end badly for the Storj developers, either they quietly phase out Storjcoin and make the system competitive against distributed storage networks that are frcitionless, or the system loses out to an unencumbered design.
My thoughts exactly (and I agree with your previous comment too).
But MoA is a smart guy. He thinks we're missing something. Are we?
I haven't looked into specifics of the StorJcoin economic model at all.
Like any division of ownership/labour/incentive structure if they don't get that right it will be a failed venture.
The ones that do and the analysts that dig in and find the right ones will make the right bets ... focusing on one failed application you might be missing the wider possibilities? Maybe fork the open source StorJcoin and bolt on the correct economic model and you'll have a winner?
Hey guys, Ryan here Storj Community President.
Caught the discussion happening figure I would help you out and give some answers
l
Storjcoin is not equity in storj.
Storjcoin is the token used to purchase storage on the decentralized cloud network
People running the application Driveshare(in development github.com/storj) will be able to sell excess hard drive space
The whitepaper describing this process is being reviewed right now and adjustments to it.
If you want to store something on the network you will use a metadisk node
Current public nodes
(note without drive share running these are early demos and not a decentralized application)
node1.metadisk.org
you can read the metadisk whitepaper here
metadisk.org/metadisk.pdf
People using metadisk will purchase space that they need using storjcoin
So therefore storjcoin will have value as it has a commodity directly attached to it.
This is a brief summary and there is lots of more information on the Storjtalk.org forums
Hope to see you there or send a reply here and I will do what I can to answer
how is Storjcoin secured and who holds the ledger?
^^^^
Thanks for the info! So at what price do you see silver to likely bottom out, and when? Just curious.
Thanks for the info! So at what price do you see silver to likely bottom out, and when? Just curious.
single digits.
Theres often a really harsh spike down, where people are having to sell because they have no choice. That is a perfect opportunity, like a fire sale. Buy when people dont even want to sell and its obviously too cheap but they got no choice anymore.
A large part of modern market is hot money or leveraged to speculate. When people get that wrong is when you see the sharpest moves occur. Really this doesnt mean silver is bad to hold but on that day or period of time however long, it'll be cheap from that flood or flush out of speculators. All the people who never wanted to own just bid for price rise then now are selling
It can go the opposite way such as when VW was shorted before a takeover.
Quote
What spawned the silver rally in 2011? And where do you see the silver price by end of 2014?
The crash jpm always seemed a bit silly. Who really needs silver so where it'll spike naturally. Im not sure but I think quite alot of consumption of silver declined with photography switching to digital.So 2011 followed the QE2 autumn announcement by the Fed. I would guess it was related to that as alot of bubbles seem to circulate fed or gov policy such as Fannie mae.
I think 10 to 20 for silver this year, I dont think it'll really take off. I do see silver as a bull market eventually as it is a monetary metal and we have an avalanche waiting when or if there is a reversion away from debt to solid trade again. Today still the world favours politics over business but since the net effect of government is self depreciation not profit for its backers, its a cost and an increasing one. If that is true we'll see this endless debt eventually collapse.
I would rather say 2015 as a guess and they will maneuver onwards in 2014. Increasingly the arguments will be hollow and fail, the only other alternative is war and a giant state control as in ww2
You can reduce the argument right down when you look at the broader economic context. Namely, why even use a service, however well it provides that service at a mechanistic level, that needs it's own special tokens? Unless the service fails as a concept without a built in currency, then the developers are adding friction to information services instead of continuing in satoshi's spirit of liberation as they claim to. It's all wrong from a plain information theory perspective, either you're a distributed TLD system or you're a currency. If you want to be both, expect inefficiency, confusion or conflict. Put another way, imagine if we all did this in commerce now? Shoecoin at footwear stores, foodcoin when you buy food but don't forget to keep some beercoin just in case you buy that at the same time. No beercoin? Hey, we convert at great rates! Doesn't take alot to see where that would end up... everyone who's not profiteering agreeing on something universal.
There will be a natural recognition that schizophrenic designs don't benefit users, and so Namecoin and Maidsafe will survive in their overall purpose as differentiated from bitcoin, but the token component cannot. If the tokens are not made optional or allow for direct access to the bitcoin protocol, then they won't compete well against rival systems that employ bitcoin as money and stick to addressing the actual problem they purport to solve.
Maybe all this appcoin insanity is a good thing.There will be a natural recognition that schizophrenic designs don't benefit users, and so Namecoin and Maidsafe will survive in their overall purpose as differentiated from bitcoin, but the token component cannot. If the tokens are not made optional or allow for direct access to the bitcoin protocol, then they won't compete well against rival systems that employ bitcoin as money and stick to addressing the actual problem they purport to solve.
It keeps Bitcoins out of the hands of people who've shown a lack of discernment, therefore they'll control a smaller fraction of the future economy.
Well, except for the developers who sell their scamcoins for Bitcoins.
You'd think the fact that the developers prefer to hold bitcoins over appcoins would be a giant red flag for potential investors...
it's not a good thing. Bitcoins are the only thing they can monetize with. they are a drag on Bitcoin b/c of all the scams and failures. they suck out valuable capital away from Bitcoin. they are means of getting something for nothing. much like POS which involves no work.
alas, most investors in cryptocurrencies will lose money. c'est la vie.
Naval said it himself in the video. devs can "sell" premined coins and the dev can hold back a % as a funding mechanism.
so in fact, the coins should represent shares in the company.
so in fact, the coins should represent shares in the company.
You can reduce the argument right down when you look at the broader economic context. Namely, why even use a service, however well it provides that service at a mechanistic level, that needs it's own special tokens? Unless the service fails as a concept without a built in currency, then the developers are adding friction to information services instead of continuing in satoshi's spirit of liberation as they claim to. It's all wrong from a plain information theory perspective, either you're a distributed TLD system or you're a currency. If you want to be both, expect inefficiency, confusion or conflict. Put another way, imagine if we all did this in commerce now? Shoecoin at footwear stores, foodcoin when you buy food but don't forget to keep some beercoin just in case you buy that at the same time. No beercoin? Hey, we convert at great rates! Doesn't take alot to see where that would end up... everyone who's not profiteering agreeing on something universal.
There will be a natural recognition that schizophrenic designs don't benefit users, and so Namecoin and Maidsafe will survive in their overall purpose as differentiated from bitcoin, but the token component cannot. If the tokens are not made optional or allow for direct access to the bitcoin protocol, then they won't compete well against rival systems that employ bitcoin as money and stick to addressing the actual problem they purport to solve.
Maybe all this appcoin insanity is a good thing.There will be a natural recognition that schizophrenic designs don't benefit users, and so Namecoin and Maidsafe will survive in their overall purpose as differentiated from bitcoin, but the token component cannot. If the tokens are not made optional or allow for direct access to the bitcoin protocol, then they won't compete well against rival systems that employ bitcoin as money and stick to addressing the actual problem they purport to solve.
It keeps Bitcoins out of the hands of people who've shown a lack of discernment, therefore they'll control a smaller fraction of the future economy.
Well, except for the developers who sell their scamcoins for Bitcoins.
You'd think the fact that the developers prefer to hold bitcoins over appcoins would be a giant red flag for potential investors...
Now consider Storjcoin as a share and I think we end up with a contradiction. If I hold x% of the Storjcoins(shares), should I not earn x% of the revenue from the Storj network? If they were shares then I should. But I don't: the revenue flows to the nodes providing the service. The nodes are the shareholders! So Storjcoin is not a share.
What is Storjcoin then?
What is Storjcoin then?
Exactly, Storjcoin is not intrinsic to the Storj system at all. This can only end badly for the Storj developers, either they quietly phase out Storjcoin and make the system competitive against distributed storage networks that are frcitionless, or the system loses out to an unencumbered design.
My thoughts exactly (and I agree with your previous comment too).
But MoA is a smart guy. He thinks we're missing something. Are we?
I haven't looked into specifics of the StorJcoin economic model at all.
Like any division of ownership/labour/incentive structure if they don't get that right it will be a failed venture.
The ones that do and the analysts that dig in and find the right ones will make the right bets ... focusing on one failed application you might be missing the wider possibilities? Maybe fork the open source StorJcoin and bolt on the correct economic model and you'll have a winner?
Hey guys, Ryan here Storj Community President.
Caught the discussion happening figure I would help you out and give some answers
l
Storjcoin is not equity in storj.
Storjcoin is the token used to purchase storage on the decentralized cloud network
People running the application Driveshare(in development github.com/storj) will be able to sell excess hard drive space
The whitepaper describing this process is being reviewed right now and adjustments to it.
If you want to store something on the network you will use a metadisk node
Current public nodes
(note without drive share running these are early demos and not a decentralized application)
node1.metadisk.org
you can read the metadisk whitepaper here
metadisk.org/metadisk.pdf
People using metadisk will purchase space that they need using storjcoin
So therefore storjcoin will have value as it has a commodity directly attached to it.
This is a brief summary and there is lots of more information on the Storjtalk.org forums
Hope to see you there or send a reply here and I will do what I can to answer
Now consider Storjcoin as a share and I think we end up with a contradiction. If I hold x% of the Storjcoins(shares), should I not earn x% of the revenue from the Storj network? If they were shares then I should. But I don't: the revenue flows to the nodes providing the service. The nodes are the shareholders! So Storjcoin is not a share.
What is Storjcoin then?
What is Storjcoin then?
Exactly, Storjcoin is not intrinsic to the Storj system at all. This can only end badly for the Storj developers, either they quietly phase out Storjcoin and make the system competitive against distributed storage networks that are frcitionless, or the system loses out to an unencumbered design.
My thoughts exactly (and I agree with your previous comment too).
But MoA is a smart guy. He thinks we're missing something. Are we?
I haven't looked into specifics of the StorJcoin economic model at all.
Like any division of ownership/labour/incentive structure if they don't get that right it will be a failed venture.
The ones that do and the analysts that dig in and find the right ones will make the right bets ... focusing on one failed application you might be missing the wider possibilities? Maybe fork the open source StorJcoin and bolt on the correct economic model and you'll have a winner?
Now consider Storjcoin as a share and I think we end up with a contradiction. If I hold x% of the Storjcoins(shares), should I not earn x% of the revenue from the Storj network? If they were shares then I should. But I don't: the revenue flows to the nodes providing the service. The nodes are the shareholders! So Storjcoin is not a share.
What is Storjcoin then?
What is Storjcoin then?
Exactly, Storjcoin is not intrinsic to the Storj system at all. This can only end badly for the Storj developers, either they quietly phase out Storjcoin and make the system competitive against distributed storage networks that are frcitionless, or the system loses out to an unencumbered design.
My thoughts exactly (and I agree with your previous comment too).
But MoA is a smart guy. He thinks we're missing something. Are we?
Now consider Storjcoin as a share and I think we end up with a contradiction. If I hold x% of the Storjcoins(shares), should I not earn x% of the revenue from the Storj network? If they were shares then I should. But I don't: the revenue flows to the nodes providing the service. The nodes are the shareholders! So Storjcoin is not a share.
What is Storjcoin then?
What is Storjcoin then?
Exactly, Storjcoin is not intrinsic to the Storj system at all. This can only end badly for the Storj developers, either they quietly phase out Storjcoin and make the system competitive against distributed storage networks that are frcitionless, or the system loses out to an unencumbered design.
Yeah, that's part of the point ... they aren't really shares in the traditional sense either nor money. They are totally new forms for representing value in a myriad of traditional ways simultaneously that the digital technology allows to do easily. They have some of the capital appreciation properties of shares, some of them have a coin allocation mechanism in proportion to current holders that is effectively the same as dividends. I'm sure there will be a lot more innovations too for hybrid, debt/stock convertible tokens that can be earned or bought or traded ... and sophisticated smart wallets that negotiate between users holding a range of digital assets to effect exchanges of value that are mutually beneficial to both parties. Like (digital barter)^2
Today's appcoins are disingenuous.
Ripple, Ethereum, Maidsafe, Storj, etc talk about their tokens as "postage stamps" or as "fuel" necessary to run their networks, yet there's this underlying feel of "yeah, but we can't stop people from speculating with them…ahem..ahem." I feel that appcoins are thinly-disguised attempts to profit from investor naïveté.
So what is the equilibrium value of an appcoin? If the appcoin is "fuel" to run the network, and if participating in the network is open and competitive, then the value of fuel needed to use the app will approach the marginal cost of running the app. As technology improves, the value should drop.
Moreover, does it not make more sense to run decentralized apps using bitcoin as fuel (or tokens pegged to bitcoin), and something like m-of-n oracles as the gateway between the networks? Oracles and the app networks would compete for these bitcoins, and the cost of using these services would constantly drop in price due to innovation and competition. Apps payable directly in bitcoin will thus become cheaper and better than closed-network "appcoins" like Storj or Ethereum, stealing the latter's market share. Appcoins that aren't pegged will devalue to zero (unless they somehow develop "money-like" properties but I highly doubt this).
Ripple, Ethereum, Maidsafe, Storj, etc talk about their tokens as "postage stamps" or as "fuel" necessary to run their networks, yet there's this underlying feel of "yeah, but we can't stop people from speculating with them…ahem..ahem." I feel that appcoins are thinly-disguised attempts to profit from investor naïveté.
So what is the equilibrium value of an appcoin? If the appcoin is "fuel" to run the network, and if participating in the network is open and competitive, then the value of fuel needed to use the app will approach the marginal cost of running the app. As technology improves, the value should drop.
Moreover, does it not make more sense to run decentralized apps using bitcoin as fuel (or tokens pegged to bitcoin), and something like m-of-n oracles as the gateway between the networks? Oracles and the app networks would compete for these bitcoins, and the cost of using these services would constantly drop in price due to innovation and competition. Apps payable directly in bitcoin will thus become cheaper and better than closed-network "appcoins" like Storj or Ethereum, stealing the latter's market share. Appcoins that aren't pegged will devalue to zero (unless they somehow develop "money-like" properties but I highly doubt this).
I'm inclined to agree somewhat about the disingenuity but are they really much different to some of the super speculative penny stocks that are out there? I mean one of these appcoins could actually become the next Google or Facebook or Dropbox or iTunes type app and it that case they are probably hugely undervalued. What their speculative value represents right now is the 0.1% chance that they could become a multi-billion dollar DAC (in effect). It helps to think of these "coins" as shares in a distributed corporation that is providing the service ... a corporation that does not need seed funding (lawyering/accountants), VC's (more lawyering/accountants) and IPO (even more lawyering/accountants)market makers, etc, etc ... they are a very efficient share/asset/ownership delivery mechanism.
Maybe we need to expand out minds past the *coin suffix perception into the digital realm where a "coin" is anything that represents digital value ... shares, property rights, digital keys to houses, cars, services.
I'm a big advocate for disintermediation so I'm not questioning the value of decentralized services like Storj. I'm questioning the value proposition of the app's token. I don't think you can view them as shares.
Let's consider a decentralized DropBox service. Nodes providing the service (storage) get paid for their work. If the pay is good, more nodes will join the network, thereby reducing the cost of storage for users. It's a competitive market. You can acquire an x% share in the network by providing x% of the storage capacity, and thus earn x% of the network revenue. So, you don't need to buy a share; you just join the network and you immediately have whatever share of the network that you're contributing! It's beautifully simple!
Now consider Storjcoin as a share and I think we end up with a contradiction. If I hold x% of the Storjcoins(shares), should I not earn x% of the revenue from the Storj network? If they were shares then I should. But I don't: the revenue flows to the nodes providing the service. The nodes are the shareholders! So Storjcoin is not a share.
What is Storjcoin then?
Moreover, does it not make more sense to run decentralized apps using bitcoin as fuel (or tokens pegged to bitcoin), and something like m-of-n oracles as the gateway between the networks? Oracles and the app networks would compete for these bitcoins, and the cost of using these services would constantly drop in price due to innovation and competition. Apps payable directly in bitcoin will thus become cheaper and better than closed-network "appcoins" like Storj or Ethereum, stealing the latter's market share. Appcoins that aren't pegged will devalue to zero (unless they somehow develop "money-like" properties but I highly doubt this).
You can reduce the argument right down when you look at the broader economic context. Namely, why even use a service, however well it provides that service at a mechanistic level, that needs it's own special tokens? Unless the service fails as a concept without a built in currency, then the developers are adding friction to information services instead of continuing in satoshi's spirit of liberation as they claim to. It's all wrong from a plain information theory perspective, either you're a distributed TLD system or you're a currency. If you want to be both, expect inefficiency, confusion or conflict. Put another way, imagine if we all did this in commerce now? Shoecoin at footwear stores, foodcoin when you buy food but don't forget to keep some beercoin just in case you buy that at the same time. No beercoin? Hey, we convert at great rates! Doesn't take alot to see where that would end up... everyone who's not profiteering agreeing on something universal.
There will be a natural recognition that schizophrenic designs don't benefit users, and so Namecoin and Maidsafe will survive in their overall purpose as differentiated from bitcoin, but the token component cannot. If the tokens are not made optional or allow for direct access to the bitcoin protocol, then they won't compete well against rival systems that employ bitcoin as money and stick to addressing the actual problem they purport to solve.
Today's appcoins are disingenuous.
Ripple, Ethereum, Maidsafe, Storj, etc talk about their tokens as "postage stamps" or as "fuel" necessary to run their networks, yet there's this underlying feel of "yeah, but we can't stop people from speculating with them…ahem..ahem." I feel that appcoins are thinly-disguised attempts to profit from investor naïveté.
So what is the equilibrium value of an appcoin? If the appcoin is "fuel" to run the network, and if participating in the network is open and competitive, then the value of fuel needed to use the app will approach the marginal cost of running the app. As technology improves, the value should drop.
Moreover, does it not make more sense to run decentralized apps using bitcoin as fuel (or tokens pegged to bitcoin), and something like m-of-n oracles as the gateway between the networks? Oracles and the app networks would compete for these bitcoins, and the cost of using these services would constantly drop in price due to innovation and competition. Apps payable directly in bitcoin will thus become cheaper and better than closed-network "appcoins" like Storj or Ethereum, stealing the latter's market share. Appcoins that aren't pegged will devalue to zero (unless they somehow develop "money-like" properties but I highly doubt this).
Ripple, Ethereum, Maidsafe, Storj, etc talk about their tokens as "postage stamps" or as "fuel" necessary to run their networks, yet there's this underlying feel of "yeah, but we can't stop people from speculating with them…ahem..ahem." I feel that appcoins are thinly-disguised attempts to profit from investor naïveté.
So what is the equilibrium value of an appcoin? If the appcoin is "fuel" to run the network, and if participating in the network is open and competitive, then the value of fuel needed to use the app will approach the marginal cost of running the app. As technology improves, the value should drop.
Moreover, does it not make more sense to run decentralized apps using bitcoin as fuel (or tokens pegged to bitcoin), and something like m-of-n oracles as the gateway between the networks? Oracles and the app networks would compete for these bitcoins, and the cost of using these services would constantly drop in price due to innovation and competition. Apps payable directly in bitcoin will thus become cheaper and better than closed-network "appcoins" like Storj or Ethereum, stealing the latter's market share. Appcoins that aren't pegged will devalue to zero (unless they somehow develop "money-like" properties but I highly doubt this).
I'm inclined to agree somewhat about the disingenuity but are they really much different to some of the super speculative penny stocks that are out there? I mean one of these appcoins could actually become the next Google or Facebook or Dropbox or iTunes type app and it that case they are probably hugely undervalued. What their speculative value represents right now is the 0.1% chance that they could become a multi-billion dollar DAC (in effect). It helps to think of these "coins" as shares in a distributed corporation that is providing the service ... a corporation that does not need seed funding (lawyering/accountants), VC's (more lawyering/accountants) and IPO (even more lawyering/accountants)market makers, etc, etc ... they are a very efficient share/asset/ownership delivery mechanism.
Maybe we need to expand out minds past the *coin suffix perception into the digital realm where a "coin" is anything that represents digital value ... shares, property rights, digital keys to houses, cars, services.
Today's appcoins are disingenuous.
Ripple, Ethereum, Maidsafe, Storj, etc talk about their tokens as "postage stamps" or as "fuel" necessary to run their networks, yet there's this underlying feel of "yeah, but we can't stop people from speculating with them…ahem..ahem." I feel that appcoins are thinly-disguised attempts to profit from investor naïveté.
So what is the equilibrium value of an appcoin? If the appcoin is "fuel" to run the network, and if participating in the network is open and competitive, then the value of fuel needed to use the app will approach the cost of running the app. As technology improves, the value should drop.
Moreover, does it not make more sense to run decentralized apps using bitcoin as fuel (or tokens pegged to bitcoin), and something like m-of-n oracles as the gateway between the networks? Oracles and the app networks would compete for these bitcoins, and the cost of using these services would constantly drop in price due to innovation and competition. Apps payable directly in bitcoin will thus become cheaper and better than closed-network "appcoins" like Storj or Ethereum, stealing the latter's market share. Appcoins that aren't pegged will devalue to zero (unless they somehow develop "money-like" properties but I highly doubt this).
Ripple, Ethereum, Maidsafe, Storj, etc talk about their tokens as "postage stamps" or as "fuel" necessary to run their networks, yet there's this underlying feel of "yeah, but we can't stop people from speculating with them…ahem..ahem." I feel that appcoins are thinly-disguised attempts to profit from investor naïveté.
So what is the equilibrium value of an appcoin? If the appcoin is "fuel" to run the network, and if participating in the network is open and competitive, then the value of fuel needed to use the app will approach the cost of running the app. As technology improves, the value should drop.
Moreover, does it not make more sense to run decentralized apps using bitcoin as fuel (or tokens pegged to bitcoin), and something like m-of-n oracles as the gateway between the networks? Oracles and the app networks would compete for these bitcoins, and the cost of using these services would constantly drop in price due to innovation and competition. Apps payable directly in bitcoin will thus become cheaper and better than closed-network "appcoins" like Storj or Ethereum, stealing the latter's market share. Appcoins that aren't pegged will devalue to zero (unless they somehow develop "money-like" properties but I highly doubt this).
@ cypher
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmi_3Q0w9kE&feature=youtu.be&t=15m49s (total 6 min)
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2ea79w/at_the_end_of_the_day_currency_language/
The above Naval Ravikant - you-tube, from Reddit I think sums up nicely the common ground that Bitcoin will always be the base reserve and the opportunity for alts or support services like OT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmi_3Q0w9kE&feature=youtu.be&t=15m49s (total 6 min)
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2ea79w/at_the_end_of_the_day_currency_language/
The above Naval Ravikant - you-tube, from Reddit I think sums up nicely the common ground that Bitcoin will always be the base reserve and the opportunity for alts or support services like OT.
... this guy is GETTTING IT.
Bitcoin combined with cryptofinancial technologies like an openTXS layer will let value information rip asunder all the BS lawyering and institutionalised graft intermediators incessantly stack on top of anything productive from its inception.
The writing is on the wall ... money, banks, corporations, States ... everything will now inevitably be renegotiated in the new language of value technologies, eventually.
@ cypher
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmi_3Q0w9kE&feature=youtu.be&t=15m49s (total 6 min)
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2ea79w/at_the_end_of_the_day_currency_language/
The above Naval Ravikant - you-tube, from Reddit I think sums up nicely the common ground that Bitcoin will always be the base reserve and the opportunity for alts or support services like OT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmi_3Q0w9kE&feature=youtu.be&t=15m49s (total 6 min)
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2ea79w/at_the_end_of_the_day_currency_language/
The above Naval Ravikant - you-tube, from Reddit I think sums up nicely the common ground that Bitcoin will always be the base reserve and the opportunity for alts or support services like OT.
i disagree with Naval's concepts.
1. @ 5min he talks about a Dropbox appcoin where instead of POW it uses Proof of Storage. WTF is that? he goes on to say that the appcoin derives its supply and demand from trading btwn those who provide and those who request storage. that's fine. but what happened to the POW security mechanism for the appcoin?
Not defending it, but here is some more info.
https://storj.io
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIf5QsYrCb0
Quote
2. he advocates for the appcoin networks-the problem is they all have identifiable creators (Satoshi stayed anonymous for a reason) and they are premining coins. creators can be thrown in prison and the premining would be a problem for me. are Satoshi's coins a problem for me? no, b/c he kick started his own mining after releasing the open source Bitcoin software and everyone was free to have mined back then if they had the foresight and the luck to have heard about Bitcoin. at this point, the general concensus is that he may never sell his coins or if he does, it will be when Bitcoin is @ $10000-100000. good for him. but everyone else who starts an appcoin w/o a POW security mechanism or a decent chance at developing a network effect isn't for me.
3. i view these appcoins as nothing more than the same business structures we have today in fiat. and they're just complicating things with an appcoin that actually might make things worse since they don't necessarily have a rational POW security mechanism for their coins.
4. these appcoins networks are just specialized closed source communities serving a defined function. they will never reach the size of a money system like Bitcoin.
5. money affects everyone round the world. this is why we have global participation in Bitcoin and this is critical to it's security. no one gvt can shut it down b/c gvt's disagree over the long run. their varied interests is what assures the game theory Nash equilibrium that keeps each of them in check as they each worry that the other might just be building secrets mines and support for Bitcoin.
6. as far as allowing these appcoins to merge mine onto the Bitcoin network? i view that as leeching. Namecoin, ok. it was an early merged coin and the DNS function could serve a valuable purpose in the future. but other appcoins/shitcoins? no way. i'm not a dev but from my understanding there does need to be some special code inserted into the mining software to allow merged mining and i doubt there is zero cost to that. also, why should we as Bitcoiner's allow an appcoin distract from what Bitcoin is trying to do? Bitcoin itself is not out of the woods yet so i will seriously resist any appcoin/altcoin/2.0 that tries to leech off our network.
3. i view these appcoins as nothing more than the same business structures we have today in fiat. and they're just complicating things with an appcoin that actually might make things worse since they don't necessarily have a rational POW security mechanism for their coins.
4. these appcoins networks are just specialized closed source communities serving a defined function. they will never reach the size of a money system like Bitcoin.
5. money affects everyone round the world. this is why we have global participation in Bitcoin and this is critical to it's security. no one gvt can shut it down b/c gvt's disagree over the long run. their varied interests is what assures the game theory Nash equilibrium that keeps each of them in check as they each worry that the other might just be building secrets mines and support for Bitcoin.
6. as far as allowing these appcoins to merge mine onto the Bitcoin network? i view that as leeching. Namecoin, ok. it was an early merged coin and the DNS function could serve a valuable purpose in the future. but other appcoins/shitcoins? no way. i'm not a dev but from my understanding there does need to be some special code inserted into the mining software to allow merged mining and i doubt there is zero cost to that. also, why should we as Bitcoiner's allow an appcoin distract from what Bitcoin is trying to do? Bitcoin itself is not out of the woods yet so i will seriously resist any appcoin/altcoin/2.0 that tries to leech off our network.
no change here. Bitcoin has devastated this asset:
https://www.goldbroker.com/en/news/paper-silver-market-250-times-size-physical-silver-market-526
What would you think happens when the 'tie' breaks, real is real, paper is worthless.
Think of a scenario, let's say a position of metric ton of pure silver. Will have some value
Think of it this way.
Speculators leveraged up free fiat from the Fed and bid up the silver market into the May 2011 peak. Now that the market has reversed, leverage is being margin called out of the silver market. Prices are collapsing as a result.
And?
and what? Bitcoin? are u kidding me? we're still in a large consolidation phase and the successive lows are still higher over a short 8 mo time period. this is just the pause before the next ramp.
Jump to: