Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 263. (Read 2032248 times)

Next day. I will sleep.

there you go again.

every attribute you seem to have, he seems to have.  every attribute he seems to have, you seem to have.

If Bitcoin does not compete with Paypal and Visa then it will NEVER compete with gold and central banks.

The reason is that physical presence matters. Gold is physical and has only two serious rival metals: platinum and silver. CB fiat is made physical by government power: legal tender for printed cash and debt-money backed by taxation and guns (although through incompetence, fiat is proving a failed experiment).

Bitcoin also has a physical presence: its ecosystem of users, companies, on-line services and large mining network. Take those away and it becomes just another Worldcoin, Yacoin, Litecoin or Auroracoin.

Bitcoin, the software can be copied many times, and its principles can be adapted in new ways e.g. NXT and Monero.

There is no useful scarcity for a digital currency unless that scarcity is backed by a physical presence, an ecosystem.

Capping the Bitcoin network at 1MB blocks is an assumption that enough of an ecosystem has been established that this particular instance of digital currency cannot be overtaken by a larger ecosystem, a larger physical presence, by one of the alternatives. This is a huge assumption which is not viable because the Bitcoin ecosystem footprint in the world economy is miniscule. Only when volumes approach Visa-scale can people sit back and consider that Bitcoin is seriously competing with gold and central banks. Even then, it can't remain standing still.

Cypherdoc is correct.

Nick Szabo and Oleg Andreev are both wrong. I don't care what their credentials are, in this matter they are not thinking clearly.

If Bitcoin does not compete with Paypal and Visa then it will NEVER compete with gold and central banks.

The reason is that physical presence matters. Gold is physical and has only two serious rival metals: platinum and silver. CB fiat is made physical by government power: legal tender for printed cash and debt-money backed by taxation and guns (although through incompetence, fiat is proving a failed experiment).

Bitcoin also has a physical presence: its ecosystem of users, companies, on-line services and large mining network. Take those away and it becomes just another Worldcoin, Yacoin, Litecoin or Auroracoin.

Bitcoin, the software can be copied many times, and its principles can be adapted in new ways e.g. NXT and Monero.

There is no scarcity for digital currency unless that scarcity is backed by a physical presence, an ecosystem.

Capping the Bitcoin network at 1MB blocks is an assumption that enough of an ecosystem has been established that this particular instance of digital currency cannot be overtaken by a larger ecosystem, a larger physical presence, by one of the alternatives. This is a huge assumption which is not viable because the Bitcoin ecosystem footprint in the world economy is miniscule. Only when volumes approach Visa-scale can people sit back and consider that Bitcoin is seriously competing with gold and central banks. Even then, it can't remain standing still.

Cypherdoc is correct.

Nick Szabo and Oleg Andreev are both wrong. I don't care what their credentials are, in this matter they are not thinking clearly.

Oleg is a programmer too. Szabo retweeted it thus presumably agreeing with it.

At Visa scale it would not run decentralized any more. Meaning it would not run on their home computers any more.

I know what he meant because I think as a programmer does.

Programmers are precise and mean what they say. A period mean end this statement.

pm'd

I will come back to this after some sleep.

of course not.  as long as you continue to constrain it to 1MB.

His left eye was losing vision. My right eye is 90% blinded. Whoops.

This is really comical. Are you under stress because of the court case? You are acting strange.

I suggested you get on Skype so you can see me on web cam. But you refused.

every attribute you seem to have, he seems to have.  every attribute he seems to have, you seem to have.

You are losing your sanity dude. It is really pitiful to watch you go on this delusional tirade. Me not a programmer, hahaha.

Btw, Armstrong is a very skilled programmer.

but i don't think you are a programmer.  i think you're Armstrong.

Oleg is a programmer too. Szabo retweeted it thus presumably agreeing with it.

At Visa scale it would not run decentralized any more. Meaning it would not run on their home computers any more.

I know what he meant because I think as a programmer does.

first off, Szabo didn't tweet that.  Oleganza did.  the word "start" is juxtaposed btwn 2 forms of the word "compete".  it means "start competing".  

second, even a non-programmer such as myself realizes that Oleganza would never claim Bitcoin won't even "start running".  it IS running currently.  he would have said something like it can't "scale".

everyone should read those 3 links.  i have the most upvotes of the community; votes which include those of programmers and those who disagree with me as it is a net difference.

i used to be intimidated engaging those with a programming background.  somehow i thought that anything they said would be backed up by some computer simulation or research data i didn't have access to.  or some basic computer knowledge that i had not been trained in.  after all, in my profession before anyone dares spout any claims there has to be a double blinded comprehensive treatment control study done over a prolonged period of time that needs to prove statistical significance that one has done or can point to have been done.

i've learned, most disappointedly, that this is not the case for most coders and programmers.  what they claim or tout to be fact is simply a logic test.  armchair logic.  like the Peter Todd's of the world and TPTB_need_war.  they don't do any testing or simulations of any kind.  they think that their logic is somehow superior to non coders.  and they think simply by applying logic they can understand how Bitcoin will perform.  well, they have mostly all been wrong.  very few of them saw it.  and not TPTB_need_war.  he needs to explain how someone like me, a non coder, figured this out before he did.  granted, i am pretty good with computers and even better now since 2011.  but i will tell you, it was mostly my knowledge around economics, trading, and game theory which allowed me to figure out that Bitcoin had so much promise.  but what is clear from TPTB's comments is that he totally rejects that.  that is called arrogance or hubris.  or more likely obfuscation from a plant.  please re-read how bizarre his posts truly are.  it's baffling.  

from today.  TPTB and Armstrong think in lockstep about Summers:

We are simply drowning with people in charge who have no real world experience. According to the former US Treasury Secretary and Harvard economist Larry Summers “the world suffers from a savings surplus and therefore threatens to fall into a secular stagnation.” He looks at the world through fogged glasses – not even a rose colored pair. He claims that now for decades to come we will have to adjust accordingly to slower economic growth and increasing economic and social problems. The reason for this is that in some countries such as China and Germany, people saved too much, rather than consume or to invest. Therefore, they exported their savings abroad and thus led to an oversupply of savings, for there is no sufficient demand. Summers’ solution –  the cash-free economy.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/armstrong_economics_blog

Because you aren't a programmer. Szabo is.

You are most possibly right. I probably lack of the appropriate knowledge; nevertheless I have (as stated) said that he "passed one test", which (clarifying further for those who misunderstood) that his "model" is proven to be working. What I'm not sure about is that it's based on a computer model ie: a relational database mining s/w that includes every single economic data out there, that is able through calculations to extract an accurate prediction within a chaotic model.

To put it into perspective, as a theoretical physicist, I rest assure you that such a model is defined as "unpredictable". If you know more on the matter, I'd be honoured if you satiated my curiosity and obliterate my ignorance. I can certify that I'm more than capable to understand (even though it will take some more time than most geniuses in here) subjects from IT to QM (nevertheless, I stopped a while ago, being productive on the 1st one). Thanks in advance for your help.

but then he sure isn't smart putting so much faith in one guy.

i'm pretty sure he meant "start competing".