Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 32. (Read 2032266 times)

Bitcoin is explicitly non-democratic.  Populism has no power here.

Does not convince many. Not here and not there.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1144606.60

Excellent (and blessedly succinct) argument by analogy.  "Hostile/malicious fork" descriptive power just doesn't have the same je ne sais quoi as "controlled demolition."

Not exactly.  I'd still buy BTC if I had none, but I'd buy more gold.  This ratio is 'bearish' for Bitcoin very much because of the futility and destructive potential of trying to make it scale via stone-ax methods and the traction that idea seems to have here in Tardville.

I would add that I could see making gob-smacks of money in the (likely) eventuality that Google-class operators decide to adopt it and make it into Paypal-II (rather than just kill it off.)  That certainly could happen and the world is full of idiots so it just might fly pretty high.  They supporting it is probably the best bet to keep more dangerous related technologies from getting a foot-hold.  That doesn't make me 'bullish' really though I won't turn down the offer to capitalize handsomely should the opportunity present itself.

Sounds like a bearish bitcoin post.

Am I right?

You are a master at decorating a plot with arbitrary fluff as though it means something.  I still LOL at the color one you did and how you 'updated' it.  It still blows my mind that there were so many mouth-breathers panicing because 'we are so close to the red'.

In this plot, the trends are mildly non-linear _against_ the point you are trying (probably successfully) to make.  And there was no particular block size pressure at the arbitrary point where you choose to point the arrow.

Let me propose a different read.  I currently own way more BTC than I would buy if I were taking a position at this point in time.  They are left over from when the price was lower and there is a fair amount of risk and cost in balancing so I sit tight.  If I needed a place to sink a windfall in cash, it would certainly be favorably distributed toward PM's and that is much more the case because you guys are trying to destroy Bitcoin in the way that it is valuable to me.  Unclear if you will succeed, but it's a very large risk point.  Anyway, I'll bet that there are many many other people in my situation.  We can expect the trend to continue until a balance between Bitcoin's fairly high inflation rate and the desire to hodl Bitcoin match.  Of course all manner of factors can shift the 'propensity to hodl' so it is not going to be some sort of stable point for a long long time and maybe never.

If you Bloatchainers were designing aircraft, the 747 would have 1/2 inch cable attached directly from the pilot's yoke to the elevator just like the ultralight were such a thing works quite well.  The idea of a trim-tab would never have been thought of.  Nor would the aircraft be able to be controlled.  I think that about the only bloatcoiner smart enough to see this clearly is Mike Hearn, and that is exactly why he has put in the effort to make XT.  Classic controlled demolition.

As a quick thought: I'm worried about centralization issue. (yes :/)

First thought is what you are proposing could effectively creates an arm race in mining and node connectivity which will most likely prove to be out of reach of regular users.

Possibly centralizing these nodes farms & miners geographically because of internet politics.

It is an interesting idea but I'm still thinking it through. Should get you a reply by this weekend.

Sure.



 

Brg444, what do you think of my last response to your comment about moving the block size limit out of the consensus layer?

For how long?

From what I understand the issue you are describing is a lack of liquidity in the market and poor information on actual trades. With time this supply will be absorbed by the market until equilibrium is reached again.

I do appreciate the point you are making and it is true that as it stands the price signal is not necessarily clear enough to make it a valid indicator of the network value. Price discovery still?

I'm not sure why your strokethrough "nodes" though. I don't see any way you could suggest they are somewhat an indicator of network growth...

there is a lot of standard deviation but I dont think it is outside of the mean, If i was to give it my humble 0.02BTC guess, i think Blockstream have done bitcoin a big favor by threatening to introduce Sidechains, it adds a lot of uncertainty to the projected success of bitcoin, that's given many investors an opportunity to buy in during this downturn and forced large holders let coins go.

I for one believe the depressed growth in price is largely influenced by the risk of bitcoin failure, and i suspect we'll see a lot of action when we get new information and certainty on Block size.

your 66% wrong but I'm unwilling to prove it and so are all the other hoarders, but to help you understand, if Satoshy had to sell 20% of his bitcoin holdings, that's roughly 1% of the market cap (an estimates 1,000,000 BTC belonging to Satoshi) the total market cap would drop from about $3.8Bto a generous guesstimate of $140M at around $10 per BTC.

So as you can see selling 1% of Bitcoin has a distorting ability to reduce the market cap by a whopping 96.23% (and this is the metric you feel is the most accurate metric to measure bitcoin's value and growth?)

So in other words if Satoshi tried to liquidate 20% of his holdings he would reduce the value of the remaining 80% by about 99.62%. the reason big holders are holding is because of game theory, market cap is not the metric invested interests are watching, its a mirage.  

Bitcoin picked up gold's duty which it could never successfully fulfill anyway.

You haven't been paying any attention if you actually attempt to step into this thread and claim with any credibility that gold and Bitcoin are totally different?

Every intimation that put gold in front of bitcoin is a pure speculation. Are separate entities that have totally different duties. It is enough to tell that gold is not currencies (and never will be) and that bitcoin is currency (even not full as such by some) and maybe will be a reserve toll. Being totally different make them incomparable. So put in one thread both of them with the intent to compare those with each other is not correct in my point of view.

Is that so? I do remember Raystonn used to project the value of the network using Unique Addresses^2. Peter R had his own transactions version. That seemed like it could work back in 2014. In both cases I believe we've seen at least 100% increases while the market cap has not quite followed.

I'm curious what both charts would look right about now but I'm afraid it would invalidate both theories. The reason might be that no one knows exactly how to quantify the amount of users in the network.

While that is a perfectly valid observation. Market cap is at least the most precise indicator of historic growth in the value of network we have at hand.

Not users, not nodes, not transactions.

I'm not sure where your cumming from 444, but reading your comments elsewhere you seem to be bullish on bitcoin but reading your contributions here you seem oblivious to where that value comes from.

there is a nice correlation to Metacafe Law when it comes to Bitcoins value, its the best we have.

I dont think your humble enough to learn, and you defiantly overconfident enough in your ignorance to depart any wisdom.

Just so you know brg444 the market cap is not a valid metric, its a shortcut to understanding the value stored in bitcoin, its not a leading metric but a wagging tail, here oda.krell illustrates the point nicely. unfortunately the real insight was only intended for those who pay attention it's been deleted on porous :-( .

You seem to make the mistake of thinking I'm proposing it as a realistic scenario. That's not what this is about. This is a thought experiment.

How exactly do you propose this work, will they have more incentives or motives to enter the system when the 80% of humanity that lives on less than $10 a day are included?

Of course in reality the scenario is orders of magnitudes smaller but the idea is the same process I describe is unfolding incrementally on a lesser scale.

Users, anyway, are not a quantifiable metric in this network, are they?

I did, seems idealistic, imitating people that divide the market cap of gold by the number of bitcoins. The few top 1% wealth owners I've met seem highly unlikely to convert their entire net worth to private keys, storing m of n in various places, subject to destruction, theft, and system collapse with zero recourse.

"Large streams from little fountains flow, Tall oaks from little acorns grow."