Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 255. (Read 2032248 times)

on reflection cyphor would have probably been band from may other threads, 

Here is what I think could be transaction pricing in bitcoin:

Scenario:
Current max transactions per day * 1000
Existing card companies integrating bitcoin as another currency.

In short, the existing card companies have a cost of about a dollar per transaction, a little less for country specific cards. Extra cost for single or double currency conversion. Clearing time is weeks to months.

Since some qualities of blockchain transactions are better, a price of 10 dollars per blockchain transaction could end up as a balance (but see below). We will have large transactions on the blockchain, plus smaller transactions where the payment providers can not supply a high quality service.

The interesting point is that this will change the payment providers also. It is noteworthy that the clearing of payment provider transactions are not done directly, but via the bank system which is a payment system by itself, that means it is a two tier clearing, involving a multitude of banks. So clearing of bitcoin transactions in the payment system can be more direct and therefore cheaper, pushing down the price of card transactions. If the payment providers can do it cheaper, they can take pressure away from the blockchain, thus reducing the cost of blockchain transactions also.

Finally, since clearing in the bitcoin payment provider realm can be done quickly and cheaply on the blockchain, the structure of those providers can change from being global payment providers to being national companies with less rigid agreements with overseas companies. This will increase competition and take down cost.

Summa summarum; even with blockchain constraints, we can have a large share of all payments denoted in bitcoin. That is not a reason to artificially constrain the blockchain, of course. The more transactions made possible on the blockchain, the better the overall system will be.

merely for the opportunity to troll me would be one reason.  but i suspect that doesn't explain it all.

I rarely discard a hypothesis and don't in this case.  I see very limited evidence for the assertion however.

you know you're in that flock, you know.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't have much difficulty identifying bozos and simply ignoring their stuff in-line without the help of censorship or ignore lists.  Indeed, skimming their stuff sometimes to keep tabs on the various sides of an argument.  Certain people (e.g., justusranvier and cypherdoc) command a reasonably sized flock because they have chosen a particular angle and tuned their techniques appropriately.  Skimming some of their stuff can shed some light on the disposition of a reasonable number of followers in the ecosystem and it can be done with efficiency.

i have to agree with tvbcof on this one (whoa!).

we've had disagreement about info you published yourself in one of your moderated threads about me that was incorrect and that you weren't willing to correct at first.  watching others get info deleted by you on request was quite frustrating for me.  i definitely got the sense that there was an asymmetry of power that a moderator has when being able to censor the info only he deems necessary.  i don't think it's fair especially when it got down to me feeling as if i had to beg.  sure, someone is always posting incorrect info about me but i suck it up and try to debate for the truth.  

to be fair, even the moderators around here, like BadBear, are notorious for censoring what they don't like.  unlike you, those guys really piss me off b/c oftentimes it was out of retribution.  overall, i'd never create a moderated thread.

another way to look at this is that are we (meaning ALL of us in the community) really prepared to be the real resistance fighters in this war on USD hegemony?  i'll admit right here that i am not.  i live here in the US, have a family to take care of, and i provide a valuable service to my community.  i am not prepared to sacrifice this.  but dollars to donuts we'll have idiots like LukeJr, marcus, iCE, and MPEX stepping up and claiming they would gladly be those resistance fighters. c'mon, do you really think they would not roll over in an instant to give up Bitcoin if jail time threatened?  no way.  they are loud mouth bombastic blowhards.

the real resistance fighters are the ones mentioned above.  those desperate enough, hungry enough, willing to steal, hawk, crawl down holes, or fight just to get the next meal.  we need to get Bitcoin into their hands as quickly as possible.

Every reasonably advanced thread is indistinguishable from magic, and therefore attracts non-intelligence and trolls like a honeypot. Letting them destroy the vestiges of readable discussion that might once have existed, is your holy commission. 

Bet you don't even have a thread as you seem not to care about your readers even that much 

and it will be those ppl who will most resist gvt censorship of Bitcoin.  but only if they are given a chance to use it reliably & cheaply.  we should all want to give it to them, not out of altruism, but out of our own greed; as in greater security of our coins and in creating digital gold.

sell in May and go away.

oops, it's June?

Good. These things are not necessary for bitcoin proliferation: Education, economic or otherwise, gigabit internet, high end phones, savings. It is not those things that have kept the people of North Korea, Eritrea, Venezuela or Haiti back, it is nonfreedom, or governments. The only thing that is necessary for people to flourish, is hunger, or swung positively, lust for life.

I personally make it a point to never comment on any moderated thread if I notice that status.

I use moderation as a gauge of credibility.  Very few people moderate 'their' thread, and it seems to be people who tend to be on an opposite side as me.  Sometimes it is the reverse though.  I am always disappointed to see this.  There are some people who are at least trolls and possibly shills who are on MY side of the 1MB argument.  I enjoy their work often enough, but don't find them very credible.  When they moderate a troll post it quashes whatever credibility is left.

Moderation of a thread is for weak-ass losers IMHO.  I might as well use reddit or some similar bullshit platform if censorship appealed to me.  I respect the degree of freedom that theymos employs in operating this platform and his mods very rarely censor except in the most extreme situations (and I think they are shit-caned when they are caught acting otherwise.)  I'm glad that theymos does offer the ability for people to moderate because it is one more tool to help separate the wheat from the chaff.

Actually, I may suggest on the meta board that more attention is called out to moderated threads.  Perhaps a more visible tag in the subject.

This is a good question.  I will ask around.  We need to first divide the problem into 2 systems:

1. Internal accounting for an external client.  Lawyers and many government sponsored projects need to carefully account for their time, for example.  The ability to track all the coins backwards lets you do that in a way that can't be retroactively "massaged"

2. Straight internal accounting.

I can make some guesses right now though... the point of keeping the actual $ away from the internal txns is to eliminate internal fraud.  However, there can be lots of other non-fraud issues -- like why is it always such a shocker when projects go over budget?  Examination of spending on an internal blockchain can show these trends before the annual monster audit.


In terms of security, there are lots of choices.  The most likely candidate would be where everyone runs SPV wallets, and the finance department runs a few trusted miner nodes.  We don't need to solve trustless consensus for this application -- the finance dept is not going to be 51%ing their own network because no mining reward, and blacklisting addresses is essentially a feature (if someone gets fired their CoCoin is automatically reaped for example).  What they really need is a database with immutable per-record signatures tied to company employees.    

Difficulty is "nice to have" because it makes it very hard in practice to rewrite the blockchain with a fake one starting from six months ago (say).  But even if the finance dept bought 100x its baseline mining capacity to do some massive 6 month ago fork of the blockchain to a completely fraudulent record, it would take massive company-wide participation in the fraud since everyone would have to surrender their private keys.

posturing bullish again.  i like it, as my thesis is that Bitcoin will do well in a major downturn in traditional financial mkts:

this one is interesting as it seems to be forming the same double bottom BTC is.  what "might" expect a move here first before the BTC exchanges, as it has easy access to fiat liquidity:

and then there's marcus who popped in here taunting all of us in glee of a trainwrecked thread.  almost as if he had something to do with it...i doubt it but who knows.

the disturbing thing he said was that him and his centralized crew of authoritarian devs were going to "show us who is driving this airplane" or something extremist like that.  you can go look it up from yesterday.  that is a big problem.

my contention is that there are plenty of bright, motivated devs out there who would show greater humility and core values to what Bitcoin represents as a public good.

the real question is why that internal accounting wouldn't continue to be more efficient and even more secure using a traditional SQL database?  are they really having any internal accounting fraud to incentive them to set up an entirely foreign means of accounting that could be subject to unknown types of hacks from the outside or even inside?  what drives security of this model?  can't be POW.  w/o POW why couldn't it be gamed?

The debate is: is centralization of development the path to decentralization of nodes?

You just need 1 ring to rule them all.

lukejr who has abused this power in the past is part of a small block of Core developers, who argues the majority of developers think that 1 ring to rule them all central development is good.

There are other developers who are invested in technologies that will benefit from a delay in block size increase.

They also argue that we need decentralized nodes but they should use the centralized consensus of their development group

And developers outside that group aren't lead developers. (Paraphrasing nullc)

This approach is centralized control of nodes, it's not the decentralized goal I'm invested in.

A lot of large companies, especially those that operate semi-autonomous business units use internal accounting to handle transactions between these units.  So a project manager might have a budget of 1M and he purchases marketing services from the mkting dept, engineering from the dev group, etc.  But obviously money is not actually moved around...

You can see how a private intra-company blockchain could be very useful here, for auditing and real-time tracking purposes.  For external services, you would even "pay" CoCoins to the financial dept. and they would cut and mail a check externally.

This BNY effort is probably the first step towards a consulting business setting this up for companies.


EDIT: yes you have a great point about gold.  And hopefully the same will happen with diamonds (grown in a lab).  Sometimes I think that the best way to handle some of these areas with horrible human rights records is to leave them alone.  But, as we learned with conflict diamonds, realistically and unfortunately that only works if they don't have anything the first world wants.