Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 341. (Read 2032265 times)

I agree with intangibility being a benefit, we might have different definitions here though, how are you defining this?

A problem for gold as money was always that most people did not seem to understand that physical gold was simply a means to a global ledger. Instead many thought gold as money derived it's value through some sort of value gold had in itself (i.e. as jewelry or metal), but this was wrong. An intangible ledger makes it very clear exactly what money is and separates it from any other forms of value. Money is simply and honest stable mechanism to keep score, it has no value other than that which we place on it.

I stop reading @"NYSE, the venerable institution..."

Seriously why do bitcoiners keeps on sucking up them masters arses?! Bitcoin is not here to save wall street's minions. Its here to bypass them.

PS: i dont want bitcoin to be linked in any sort with their reputation

I must thank all of you for the latest comments. Indeed this explains your angst against altcoins.

Since you have shared frankly. May I also without offending you?

The Knowledge Age cares about meritocracy more than it does for non-active knowledge workers to accumulate stored claims on the knowledge of those workers. The Industrial Age required your stores-of-value due to the economy-of-scale required for large fixed capital mass production. We are moving away from mass production towards individualized production and direct sales of knowledge to consumers of knowledge, thus economic decoupling of production from the requirement for stores-of-value.

Most of you stopped following Armstrong right at the time he told you gold would decline from $1600 to $1150 (as a first stop on the way to < $1000 probably $850ish). That was right about the time he started to ridicule hard money followers as tinfoil hats. You tuned him out because you didn't want to hear that your concept of money is all wrong.

Money is what ever society values most in the quality of money. It has never been the case that there was one exclusive store-of-value in the universe. I don't know in what absurd bubble of unreality you all could even fathom such a hypothesis?

Even the dollar has not been a universal money and store-of-value, although it has been a dominant one (but not forever). The NWO one-world reserve currency will not be the only store-of-value nor money used on earth.

You are conflating store-of-value with legal tender? Or what? Goldbugs spew so much nonsense it is exhausting to disentangle their delusions (especially when I am sleepy).

Edit: a shared unit-of-account is important when liquidity is paramount, profit margins are small, and fixed rates of return dominate. National currencies sufficed because direct B2B and B2C international trade has been insignificant. In a knowledge investing economy, there may be other attributes of money that are more important, such as the inability of money to interfere with freedom-of-production and meritocracy. I assert Bitcoin is losing this fundamental tenet, and as that becomes clear to the knowledge workers, they will leave Bitcoin for money which delivers the qualities they demand.

this is actually inspiring that all these divergent opinions still have the maturity and willingness to break bread together in the same room. i'm sure all their differing views were aired and hopefully some positive consensus will arise:

i see this as all positive:

"We are now going to use our name, reputation and global index provider stature to provide bitcoin values that the rest of the market can look to," says Tom Farley, who serves as president of NYSE, the venerable financial institution that has come to symbolize Wall Street and capitalism more broadly."

"New technology does not intimidate us, it excites us," Farley says, effectively summing up the new mindset of NYSE. Bitcoin in particular excited him, both because of the interest in the currency and the blockchain technology behind it, which serves as a transaction database. "It was that curiosity and also... let's not wait for this to fully evolve; let's get a seat early on and see how this matures."

http://mashable.com/2015/05/19/new-york-stock-exchange-bitcoin/

I think you just identified the motive.

i agree completely.  

altcoin early adopting devs and their supporters would rather have everyone switch to their "new, improved" altcoin for maximum individual profit at the expense of Bitcoiners losing value from having to be later adopters.  working to improve Bitcoin isn't sexy or motivational enough for most of them despite the fact that any BTC holdings they might have would likely increase in value from their contributions to the Bitcoin protocol.  most of them probably don't even have BTC hence there is no motivation for them to become later Bitcoin adopters (even though it is still EARLY).  

constantly switching to newer altcoins, even if they represent true improvements, is destructive to SOV.  thus, the whole concept of cryptocurrency as a SOV fails miserably.  they fail to see this thus their activities are destructive to the SOV concept.  ideally, they should help Bitcoin improve and keep all innovations on the mainchain so the market can develop confidence.  otherwise, as you say, we could be set back a hundred years.

i think the cryptocurrency market senses this which is why the relative value of all the altcoins to Bitcoin is decreasing.  eventually the losses will pile up and there should be a final capitulation of most altcoin supporters in deference to Bitcoin.

Were you one of those who said that the 2 times before when BTC was $600s and I said it was going to $300 (first time) and $150 (second time)? If not, get ready to be one of those soon.

Arrogant and correct. Would you prefer kiss ass and wrong? I am as humble as you are. If you want to have a rational, calm discussion, we can. If you want to fight, we can. It is your decision. I am your mirror.

here we go again.  will we break the $DJT support once and for all?

a bad sign; gold is turning down again:

Stellar had a small time window, which made it rather impractical for the 99% to claim. This bringing up another debated option how long should the claim window be open. I was open to both options; a claim period and open forever.

But it looks like open forever is the way to go. IMO spin-offs have not been tested to any degree of significance.

Conflating infinitesimal (spacetime) with vacuous is an error in my articulation, but not in my thought process (my visualization was a mathematical point, i.e. with no extent). An infinite speed-of-light would correspond to nothing, i.e. a vacuous spacetime. An undecidable problem is one where there doesn't exist an enumerable answer. An infinite quantity is innumerable.

My point was that without friction nothing can be observed (enumerated) and thus nothing exists:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=690

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat#Objective_collapse_theories


I tell you what I told CoinCube. I am not focused on this right now and it is not informational for you challenge someone who has requested to not delve into that topic right now because he is (I am) single-handedly programming and running a just launched social network, simultaneously taking on this thread, simultaneously redesigning crypto-currency, simultaneously interacting with a significant number of females (try that!). For you to expect that I simultaneously have the capacity to delve into theoretical physics is absurd unless you relish fooling yourself. I didn't even have enough free time to sleep last night. And right now I am supposedly superimposed 5 hours drive from where I actually am because of losing so much time in this thread today. And hoping to make it up by not sleeping and driving. Oh and let's not forget I have Multiple Sclerosis. Sheesh. Fuck off (because you are not interested in having a discussion but rather you want to take advantage when someone has their back turned and hide behind a sock puppet).


Or we can meet for a boxing match. It would be more informational about decoherence into reality. (I could utilize a human punching bag, that would be useful to me to relieve stress and continue my athletic climb out of the M.S.)

It seems the opposite point is more relevant: no one has yet been caught via blockchain analysis (though someone did put together a plausible-looking connection between DPR and Carl Mark Force IV because he didn't even use a mixer).

This isn't to say that no one will be caught, but that the motivation of the community, investors, devs, etc. to work on and implement more complete/default anonymity is based entirely on conjecture at this point (as, one might add, is the functional anonymity of the anonycoins). You can expect a surge in interest once the first arrest is made using chainalysis, and the problem will likely repair itself through something like JoinMarket.

Ring sigs could end up being a cleaner solution, but again, switching ledgers destroys everything the whole crypto movement is based on (store of value), so if pressed I believe the market will adopt the spinoff solution. Note that a premature spinoff is bad because the snapshot goes out of date, and there is Schelling point consensus to consider, so arguably we shouldn't expect to see a serious spinoff until the eleventh hour.

Yeah I'd like to see it done, though didn't Stellar already do it? I think there are still some technical kinks to iron out in order to get a more perfect "snapshot" of the Bitcoin ledger at a given time (Peter may be able to comment), but as an experiment and pedagogical tool it would be neat to try.

Since this is the hard money thread, I'd like to query the group:

How can one understand that Bitcoin is first and foremost about store of value and still be interested in the idea of an altcoin (alt-ledger) taking over Bitcoin?

To me, accepting the precedent that the ledger gets replaced when the protocol does, means throwing away the entire concept of crypto as a store of value. How would the market value any cryptoledger as a store of value if you had to actively switch out of it every few years (months?) as new protocols came along? Worse, you'd have to pick the winners correctly.*

I'm in the "we don't switch ledgers" club, because I think that's the only one the market will ultimately support. Anything else subverts the entire basis of money. It's pushing the proverbial red button on the whole concept of cryptocurrency. The only time to switch ledgers is when it is absolutely necessary to avoid total catastrophe. It should be a once in several centuries event, or at most once a generation (~30 years).

Perhaps the argument is, "We only do it once, because we just got this bit wrong with Bitcoin. This altcoin is the ideal form. No more changes after that." But to the market, the precedent has been set. Everyone knows what happens when some obscure flaw comes to light requiring another protocol change. Store of value goes *splat* again. The whole concept has been set back decades.

*Lottery ticket investing (Pascal's Mugging investing?) only works when the set of credible lottery tickets (investment candidates) is somewhat limited; if this dynamic takes hold there will be thousands of plausible "next top dogs" because the incentive will be overwhelming to create and cleverly market them.

Oh it is no tautology.  In fact, the elementary nature of your response has forced me to question your intellect.  I assure you, your Turing machine and your incomplete theorem will not help you win this war of attrition that you attempt to wage.  I will have no part in your battle of verbosity.  No!  At the call of a bell, my Pavlovian dogs will maul you into submission; and as you lay on the ground begging for mercy, only then will I unleash my Schrodinger's Cat upon you.  She will sharpen her claws on your back before falling asleep on your face, while you question the state of your wave function.  I will then toss your still breathing body into your Turing machine, where you will be tured for an eternity¹ until you come to learn the true pain of the halting problem.  

I shall once again leave this forum never to return.  


¹Or not, the problem is undecidable.  

lmao

I was planning to offer my thoughts on this avalance effect. So now appears to about the right point for me to jump in.

Someone asked me recently what I would do with the Bitcoins if I created an altcoin and sold coins in an ICO. I replied I would sell the Bitcoins and buy my own coin. I don't view Bitcoin as my unit-of-account (no one sells me anything with a constant BTC price over time), so I might as well hold the coin with the greater upside. The greater volatility and liquidity of the smaller float is a concern that has to be weighed for any short-term liquidity needs.

But readers should know that rpietila is not vested (at this moment) in anything I might do. So I do presume he is writing not with anything about me in mind, even though we are sort of close acquaintances from the past circa 2008 but had not communicated regularly since 2013 or so.


Bitcoin was not vulnerable to such a shift before because it was moving up and it was growing fast amongst the free thinking investor and technie demographics (masses don't count because they don't drive choices about fledgling upstarts). Altcoins that gained some momentum were eroded by profit taking back into Bitcoin (and their mistakes in distribution and lack of original code and design), e.g. Doggiecoin.

Bitcoin has now moved closer to the time where it will be offloaded to the masses (the greater fools) and the smart money will look for the next big trade. Suppose we have at least a 10 bagger on the way, probably much greater maybe 50 - 100X ROI. So still it is going to be a challenge to go against Bitcoin's price momentum. Thus I don't see a reverse wealth effect on Bitcoin as viable at this time, and thus if an altcoin rises too fast it will be taken out by profit taking cashing out to Bitcoin (unless it has an ideological fervor or distribution that prevent this ). I think any coin that wants to achieve it will have to pull in adopters from outside the Bitcoin community.

There is not yet a clear "go to" altcoin for this movement. Cryptonote/Monero has introduced a very important feature, but it is not yet clear if this by itself is enough to warrant an ideological+wealth effect stampede. I was told there is still a large (500?) ongoing community in the Nxt/jl777/SuperNet. I interject to rpietila's argument that the most likely scenario is not wealth effect alone, but an ideological fervor that inflames that budding wealth effect. So I am agreeing with him and Bitcoin supporters that the attitude towards altcoins of not adding anything significant is a justified allegation.

The arbitrage factor dominates for as long as Bitcoin is growing and the challenging altcoin doesn't appear to have the oomph to cross the chasm.

No altcoin is going to displace Bitcoin's dominance of the masses (at least not in pure crypto-coin market and on this cycle). Bitcoin has won that. But who wants to? That is they dying NWO system. The Winklevosses et al are going to cash out on the big move of the masses in by giving them accounts on the behemoths. They are selling the masses (chattel) to the NWO.

Edit#1: the scenario I envision is some altcoin is going to make a big move during the 2016 - 2017 period. In 2017, BTC will offloaded to the masses coincident with the peaking US dollar and US stockmarket bubbles. That altcoin is going to gain significant early adopter attention, but it will exhale and quiet down a bit (the usual pattern of growth for fledgling upstarts). Then later from 2018 or so, it could become a go to investment as the global economy moves into radical transformation and Bitcoin has already been dumped to the masses.

Just for the record, it should be clear from my past activity in this thread that I'm not as on board with the various consensus opinions (in this thread) as the bitcoin apologists who post here. I am frequently a dissenter or at least skeptical of the "justify bitcoin at all costs" camp.

Incorrect.


Correct.

Edit#1: Tortured for those readers who do not like the message. Socially engineered (and on multiple levels of perspective) because marketing is. I am interested in accomplishing a goal with a sincere outcome. It is not possible to make everyone happy all the time.

Is the ideology pitched by the Bitcoin folks here not confabulated (sufficiently misaligned with the facts) in some respects? It is not torture for those of us who see it failing the fundamental tenets? Did some of you not try to use social engineering and peer pressure to squelch our voices?

Edit#2: what is interesting is how some Bitcoin supporters view discussions about anything that is not an improvement to Bitcoin as treason or noise. I think they reason that if Bitcoin fails, our only chance fails. Because surely they could sell BTC and buy the superior coin and profit. So it must be some ideological reason they are so defensive. Perhaps it is the "safety in herds" and "fight or flight" underdeveloped prefrontal cortex instinct left over from primitive, post-paleozoic, hunter-gatherer epoch.

You can create unlinkability by creating a new payment address on each instance of receiving a payment, but as soon as you need to merge the dust left over as change from transactions, then you must have mixing (a.k.a. untraceability). Thus unlinkability is basically useless without mixing. Monero has both.

CoinJoin attempts to add mixing to any blockchain, but the problem is it is either jammable (by a determined Sybil attacker) or the anonymity must be sacrificed to master nodes (which is arguably an improvement over gmaxel's formulation if your threat vector doesn't include the State). I (AnonyMint) was the first person to point out the former in gmaxell's CoinJoin thread and I believe that is why he hates me every since. And I was the first person I believe to point out the latter in the Darkcoin thread and discussions with smooth et al in various threads reaffirmed that.

Cryptonote ring sigs mixing honors the critically important end-to-end principle of the internet, in that they are entirely autonomous and any dumb intermediary can transmit it to the blockchain for you.

Cryptonote does not obscure your IP address which is another vector of anonymity that needs to be improved. I believe I was the first person to point that out (both before Monero on Anoncoin thread and kLee can vouch for that as he was in that discussion and also first I think to raise that issue in a Monero thread which i believe led to proposal to add I2P).

Cryptonote does not help you if the government forces you to reveal your private keys under threat of dire outcomes otherwise. In other words, if you ever have a traceable funds that you tried to hide into or coming out of Monero mixing, this will fail to prevent the government from knowing you had the funds and thus the government can pressure you. So it is an all or nothing proposition in that threat context.