Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 397.

Zangelbert Bingledack

legendary

Activity: 1036

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Peter R on April 29, 2015, 12:17:26 PM

Lastly, and unrelated to the topic of who processes the payments, I liked this comment:

Quote from: David Andolfatto

Finally, the proposal for Fedcoin should in no way be construed as a backdoor attempt to legislate competing cryptocurrencies out of existence. The purpose of Fedcoin is to compete with other cryptocurrencies--to provide a property that no other cryptocurrency can offer (guaranteed exchange rate stability with the USD).

Imagine two competing digital currencies: Bitcoin vs Andolfatto's version of FedCoin, identical except for the monetary policy part (Bitcoin is bitcoin and 1 Fedcoin = 1 USD). Which would the free market choose?

I don't see how they could be identical while maintaining the peg, unless the Fed used its financial power to buy 99.9% of the coins and continue to mine almost all of them, then sell them onto the market if the price got too high. They can raise the price if it gets too low, but they can't do anything about it being too high unless they own most of it. In which case they could save a lot of money by just doing it Ripple-style and premining almost all the coins.

Of course in that case I suspect a popular fork would arise where the Fed's balance is set to zero Cheesy

Or actually, people would sell their Fedcoins off for bitcoins, insofar as they wanted an asset that couldn't be inflated at whim - same as people do now from fiat to BTC. Except now Bitcoin has the Fed's endorsement as a concept so the title of this thread will be validated in spectacular fashion. It would be an awesome result for the Bitcoin price.

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1013

Quote from: Peter R on April 29, 2015, 12:17:26 PM

Imagine two competing digital currencies: Bitcoin vs Andolfatto's version of FedCoin, identical except for the monetary policy part (Bitcoin is bitcoin and 1 Fedcoin = 1 USD). Which would the free market choose?

Depends on how long they take to launch FedCoin and really get it widely deployed.

Rational actors would prefer to hold their funds in the currency with the lowest monetary inflation and only trade into the other one for the time needed to make a purchase.

In 2015 it's within the realm of possibility that some might save in FedCoin instead of Bitcoin.

It would be harder to make that case in 2020 after the third reward halving, however.

rocks

legendary

Activity: 1153

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Peter R on April 29, 2015, 12:17:26 PM

Quote from: Sup221 on April 29, 2015, 10:59:04 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on April 29, 2015, 10:56:17 AM

also, i thought that the trolls said that banksters couldn't give a hoot about Bitcoin? it's too small, too geeky, no one wants decentralization, banksters are pure, yada, yada...

That's exactly my point. Banks will never use the bitcoin blockchain for several reasons.

This reminds me...I recently came across this interesting article from back in February "Fedcoin: On the Desirability of a Government Cryptocurrency" by David Andolfatto (from the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis).

The article is about how to create "FedCoin," a cryptocurrency similar to Bitcoin, except for the monetary policy part. Instead of a floating exchange rate, the Fed maintains a credible peg between FedCoin and the USD. But that's not what I found interesting...

...what I found interesting is that he seems to believe that miners would be needed to process transactions in order to keep FedCoin free from KYC requirements:

Quote from: David Andolfatto

...the e-version of the USD will probably be subject to KYC restrictions, which is unlike paper cash. To the paper cash feeling, we'd need to let the book-keeping done by disinterested third parties, like Bitcoin miners.

What a difference wording makes. Instead of "anonymous miners" that the the likes of Jeffrey Robinson (author of BitCon) claim would never be trusted for important financial transactions, these entities are now "disinterested third parties" and connotatively objective. They have no reason to be interested in any particular transaction, so why not objectively follow the protocol?

Quote from: David Andolfatto

...to keep Fedcoin free of KYC restrictions, we probably don't want the Fed involved in processing these payments.

Lastly, and unrelated to the topic of who processes the payments, I liked this comment:

Quote from: David Andolfatto

Finally, the proposal for Fedcoin should in no way be construed as a backdoor attempt to legislate competing cryptocurrencies out of existence. The purpose of Fedcoin is to compete with other cryptocurrencies--to provide a property that no other cryptocurrency can offer (guaranteed exchange rate stability with the USD).

Imagine two competing digital currencies: Bitcoin vs Andolfatto's version of FedCoin, identical except for the monetary policy part (Bitcoin is bitcoin and 1 Fedcoin = 1 USD). Which would the free market choose?

That is a fascinating find, Thanks.

It is an acknowledgement of sorts that in order to keep a system honest and running correctly, it needs to be structured as a DAC which functions outside of external influence or government control. What he is saying is in order to ensure the functionality of cash transactions (i.e. anonymous, irreversible and open to all) there needs to be no central trusted entity. And that if there is any central entity to a system, that damaging regulations (such as KYC rules) will be inserted.

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1010

Quote from: Sup221 on April 29, 2015, 10:59:04 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on April 29, 2015, 10:56:17 AM

also, i thought that the trolls said that banksters couldn't give a hoot about Bitcoin? it's too small, too geeky, no one wants decentralization, banksters are pure, yada, yada...

That's exactly my point. Banks will never use the bitcoin blockchain for several reasons.

This reminds me...I recently came across this interesting article from back in February "Fedcoin: On the Desirability of a Government Cryptocurrency" by David Andolfatto (from the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis).

The article is about how to create "FedCoin," a cryptocurrency similar to Bitcoin, except for the monetary policy part. Instead of a floating exchange rate, the Fed maintains a credible peg between FedCoin and the USD. But that's not what I found interesting...

...what I found interesting is that he seems to believe that miners would be needed to process transactions in order to keep FedCoin free from KYC requirements:

Quote from: David Andolfatto

...the e-version of the USD will probably be subject to KYC restrictions, which is unlike paper cash. To the paper cash feeling, we'd need to let the book-keeping done by disinterested third parties, like Bitcoin miners.

What a difference wording makes. Instead of "anonymous miners" that the likes of Jeffrey Robinson (author of BitCon) claim would never be trusted for important financial transactions, these entities are now "disinterested third parties" and connotatively objective. They have no reason to be interested in any particular transaction, so why not objectively follow the protocol?

Quote from: David Andolfatto

...to keep Fedcoin free of KYC restrictions, we probably don't want the Fed involved in processing these payments.

Lastly, and unrelated to the topic of who processes the payments, I liked this comment:

Quote from: David Andolfatto

Finally, the proposal for Fedcoin should in no way be construed as a backdoor attempt to legislate competing cryptocurrencies out of existence. The purpose of Fedcoin is to compete with other cryptocurrencies--to provide a property that no other cryptocurrency can offer (guaranteed exchange rate stability with the USD).

Imagine two competing digital currencies: Bitcoin vs Andolfatto's version of FedCoin, identical except for the monetary policy part (Bitcoin is bitcoin and 1 Fedcoin = 1 USD). Which would the free market choose?

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

VIX on the move:

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

breakdown starting to accelerate:

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

"uh, Janet, we got a problem..."

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Sup221 on April 29, 2015, 10:59:04 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on April 29, 2015, 10:56:17 AM

Quote from: Sup221 on April 29, 2015, 10:52:36 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on April 29, 2015, 10:04:03 AM

Quote from: ssmc2 on April 29, 2015, 09:36:16 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/magazine/how-bitcoin-is-disrupting-argentinas-economy.html?_r=0

"JPMorgan belongs to an association of big banks, the Clearing House, that has been confidentially putting together a “proof of concept” for a decentralized ledger, or blockchain, that would run on the computers of all the participating banks. According to people involved, this network, which is still in the conceptual phase, could allow instant transfers between accounts at all the member banks and eliminate the current risks involved in having billions of dollars in limbo for days at a time. For many bankers, the most valuable potential use of the blockchain is not small payments but very large ones, which account for the vast majority of the money moving around the world each day. The banks, though, are moving slowly, even as several start-ups are trying to use the Bitcoin blockchain to do the same thing on a global basis, cutting out the banks altogether."

When they inevitably realize that the only truly secure, decentralized blockchain is the original, well, you can't move "very large payments" with a 3.5 billion dollar marketcap. Wink

this is going to be beautiful.

I thought bitcoin was supposed to be anti-banking/fiat "Honest Money".

Now bankers are free to join the fun so it's all good?

also, i thought that the trolls said that banksters couldn't give a hoot about Bitcoin? it's too small, too geeky, no one wants decentralization, banksters are pure, yada, yada...

That's exactly my point. Banks will never use the bitcoin blockchain for several reasons.

Now, can you guys answer my previous question?

"I thought bitcoin was supposed to be anti-banking/fiat "Honest Money".

Now bankers are free to join the fun so it's all good?"

if your question is are they free to join the fun? answer: yes.
if your question is can they mold Bitcoin to their own definition? answer: no.
if your question is will they make money doing what's been described in the article? answer: no

in fact, they should be prepared to lose lots of money doing what they plan to do in the article.

Sup221

newbie

Activity: 2

Merit: 0

Quote from: cypherdoc on April 29, 2015, 10:56:17 AM

Quote from: Sup221 on April 29, 2015, 10:52:36 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on April 29, 2015, 10:04:03 AM

Quote from: ssmc2 on April 29, 2015, 09:36:16 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/magazine/how-bitcoin-is-disrupting-argentinas-economy.html?_r=0

"JPMorgan belongs to an association of big banks, the Clearing House, that has been confidentially putting together a “proof of concept” for a decentralized ledger, or blockchain, that would run on the computers of all the participating banks. According to people involved, this network, which is still in the conceptual phase, could allow instant transfers between accounts at all the member banks and eliminate the current risks involved in having billions of dollars in limbo for days at a time. For many bankers, the most valuable potential use of the blockchain is not small payments but very large ones, which account for the vast majority of the money moving around the world each day. The banks, though, are moving slowly, even as several start-ups are trying to use the Bitcoin blockchain to do the same thing on a global basis, cutting out the banks altogether."

When they inevitably realize that the only truly secure, decentralized blockchain is the original, well, you can't move "very large payments" with a 3.5 billion dollar marketcap. Wink

this is going to be beautiful.

I thought bitcoin was supposed to be anti-banking/fiat "Honest Money".

Now bankers are free to join the fun so it's all good?

also, i thought that the trolls said that banksters couldn't give a hoot about Bitcoin? it's too small, too geeky, no one wants decentralization, banksters are pure, yada, yada...

That's exactly it. Banks will never use the bitcoin blockchain for several reasons.

Now, can you guys answer my previous question tho?

"I thought bitcoin was supposed to be anti-banking/fiat "Honest Money".

Now bankers are free to join the fun so it's all good?"

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Sup221 on April 29, 2015, 10:52:36 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on April 29, 2015, 10:04:03 AM

Quote from: ssmc2 on April 29, 2015, 09:36:16 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/magazine/how-bitcoin-is-disrupting-argentinas-economy.html?_r=0

"JPMorgan belongs to an association of big banks, the Clearing House, that has been confidentially putting together a “proof of concept” for a decentralized ledger, or blockchain, that would run on the computers of all the participating banks. According to people involved, this network, which is still in the conceptual phase, could allow instant transfers between accounts at all the member banks and eliminate the current risks involved in having billions of dollars in limbo for days at a time. For many bankers, the most valuable potential use of the blockchain is not small payments but very large ones, which account for the vast majority of the money moving around the world each day. The banks, though, are moving slowly, even as several start-ups are trying to use the Bitcoin blockchain to do the same thing on a global basis, cutting out the banks altogether."

When they inevitably realize that the only truly secure, decentralized blockchain is the original, well, you can't move "very large payments" with a 3.5 billion dollar marketcap. Wink

this is going to be beautiful.

I thought bitcoin was supposed to be anti-banking/fiat "Honest Money".

Now bankers are free to join the fun so it's all good?

also, i thought that the trolls said that banksters couldn't give a hoot about Bitcoin? it's too small, too geeky, no one wants decentralization, banksters are pure, yada, yada...

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

$dxy continuing to roll:

TLT rolling too:

there is one other theory out there and it goes like this:

everything goes down except Bitcoin.

Sup221

newbie

Activity: 2

Merit: 0

Quote from: cypherdoc on April 29, 2015, 10:04:03 AM

Quote from: ssmc2 on April 29, 2015, 09:36:16 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/magazine/how-bitcoin-is-disrupting-argentinas-economy.html?_r=0

"JPMorgan belongs to an association of big banks, the Clearing House, that has been confidentially putting together a “proof of concept” for a decentralized ledger, or blockchain, that would run on the computers of all the participating banks. According to people involved, this network, which is still in the conceptual phase, could allow instant transfers between accounts at all the member banks and eliminate the current risks involved in having billions of dollars in limbo for days at a time. For many bankers, the most valuable potential use of the blockchain is not small payments but very large ones, which account for the vast majority of the money moving around the world each day. The banks, though, are moving slowly, even as several start-ups are trying to use the Bitcoin blockchain to do the same thing on a global basis, cutting out the banks altogether."

When they inevitably realize that the only truly secure, decentralized blockchain is the original, well, you can't move "very large payments" with a 3.5 billion dollar marketcap. Wink

this is going to be beautiful.

I thought bitcoin was supposed to be anti-banking/fiat "Honest Money".

Now bankers are free to join the fun so it's all good?

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: justusranvier on April 29, 2015, 10:41:54 AM

Poll needs an option for market-set limit

that's what "no limit" refers to.

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1013

Poll needs an option for market-set limit

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

just to memorialize the results of last poll:

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

new poll

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

continuing to look the hell out:

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: ssmc2 on April 29, 2015, 09:36:16 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/magazine/how-bitcoin-is-disrupting-argentinas-economy.html?_r=0

"JPMorgan belongs to an association of big banks, the Clearing House, that has been confidentially putting together a “proof of concept” for a decentralized ledger, or blockchain, that would run on the computers of all the participating banks. According to people involved, this network, which is still in the conceptual phase, could allow instant transfers between accounts at all the member banks and eliminate the current risks involved in having billions of dollars in limbo for days at a time. For many bankers, the most valuable potential use of the blockchain is not small payments but very large ones, which account for the vast majority of the money moving around the world each day. The banks, though, are moving slowly, even as several start-ups are trying to use the Bitcoin blockchain to do the same thing on a global basis, cutting out the banks altogether."

When they inevitably realize that the only truly secure, decentralized blockchain is the original, well, you can't move "very large payments" with a 3.5 billion dollar marketcap. Wink

this is going to be beautiful.

ssmc2

legendary

Activity: 2002

Merit: 1040

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/magazine/how-bitcoin-is-disrupting-argentinas-economy.html?_r=0

"JPMorgan belongs to an association of big banks, the Clearing House, that has been confidentially putting together a “proof of concept” for a decentralized ledger, or blockchain, that would run on the computers of all the participating banks. According to people involved, this network, which is still in the conceptual phase, could allow instant transfers between accounts at all the member banks and eliminate the current risks involved in having billions of dollars in limbo for days at a time. For many bankers, the most valuable potential use of the blockchain is not small payments but very large ones, which account for the vast majority of the money moving around the world each day. The banks, though, are moving slowly, even as several start-ups are trying to use the Bitcoin blockchain to do the same thing on a global basis, cutting out the banks altogether."

When they inevitably realize that the only truly secure, decentralized blockchain is the original, well, you can't move "very large payments" with a 3.5 billion dollar marketcap. Wink

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

As am archival full node operator, I appreciate the deeper understanding I'm getting from this discussion.

just in the last couple of days I have been renegotiating my yearly vps contracts serving up full nodes. My specs were 2GB RAM and 60GB disk space. From past experience I didn't want to increase my rate but wanted to decrease RAM to 1GB and increase disk to 100GB for future growth in the next year. I have about 1GB swap RAM which allows me to do this. After some back and forth with the sales manager they agreed. It's my intention to always be there with archival node service, if not via multiple paid vps service, at least with single home and business service.

I really like this utxo discussion. It's been helpful.

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 397. (Read 2032286 times)