Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 457. (Read 2032286 times)
I meant 2024 indeed. The author sees no practical value in the non-log calculations and made some rough assumptions on the future value enclosed in Bitcoin's present value. Just read it entirely, it is pretty well thought out.
Good grief that was long winded. Can we get a tldr concise version for the viewers or those that couldn't bare it? I read most of it and scanned the rest but most of the pricing charts were just lol boring and just plain 
.
. The article itself has a 'conclusion'. The author first sets up a theoretical framework for valuation and then applies it to Bitcoin. My interpretation is that reasonable price expectations until 2014 are between $10k and $300k, assuming the network continuous to grow exponentially.
I skimmed over it, but I believe his fatal flaw that leads to the ridiculously high estimates is assuming the price at any point in time does not already price in expected future growth.
The article itself has a 'conclusion'. The author first sets up a theoretical framework for valuation and then applies it to Bitcoin. My interpretation is that reasonable price expectations until 2014 are between $10k and $300k, assuming the network continuous to grow exponentially.
between $10k and $300k by 2024 maybe?
Good grief that was long winded. Can we get a tldr concise version for the viewers or those that couldn't bare it? I read most of it and scanned the rest but most of the pricing charts were just lol boring and just plain .
. The article itself has a 'conclusion'. The author first sets up a theoretical framework for valuation and then applies it to Bitcoin. My interpretation is that reasonable price expectations until 2014 are between $10k and $300k, assuming the network continuous to grow exponentially.
People *still* don't understand the problem that blockchains actually solve.
Yes, I keep coming across that a lot. It seems to me that a lot of people without the technical understanding just believe that "blockchain = something with 'bit' in its name or claiming some kind of decentralisation". As if absolutely every kind of decentralisation needed a blockchain. For instance, newbies with Bitmessage (P2P encrypted messaging) often keep talking about the "blockchain", even though there is nothing even coming close to a blockchain involved in Bitmessage.
Lightning payment channels just ended all FUD.
yup ... and some.
Payment channels technology are (another) game changer ... (multi-hop off-chain transaction routing, now that is the TCP/IP of money)
Lightning payment channels just ended all FUD.
so will Lawsky and the BitLicense shut out Rakuten?
why the hell do we ever invite Chris Larson to Bitcoin conferences?:
http://coinfire.io/2015/03/16/ripple-ceo-says-bitcoin-as-currency-unneeded-to-california-assembly/
http://coinfire.io/2015/03/16/ripple-ceo-says-bitcoin-as-currency-unneeded-to-california-assembly/
that strategy of buying both chains means they will lose money at some level when the dominant chain eventually wins.
Look at it not as individual assets but as a global ledger. If the global ledger represented by the combination of both (temporarily viable) chains, then if you buy say 1% of both chains, and one chain dies (goes to zero), you still own 1% of the global ledger. Any value that disappears from your coins on the losing chain would be redistributed to your coins on the winning chain.
I'll comment on the other points later, kind of busy now.
maybe.
lots of moving parts in that one that could invalidate the assumption. for starters, constant forking like i've described could decrease the value of the entire network from the getgo.
Yes I agree if done in poorly conceived and chaotic manner it would be destructive. Zangelbert Bingledack's original message indicated that exchanges would need to be set up to handle this properly in order to treat forks as a market question. Likewise wallets, etc. It is a significant undertaking, but in many ways likely less challenging, less complicated, and possibly with less risk of people losing money, than side chains.
More later.
that strategy of buying both chains means they will lose money at some level when the dominant chain eventually wins.
Look at it not as individual assets but as a global ledger. If the global ledger represented by the combination of both (temporarily viable) chains, then if you buy say 1% of both chains, and one chain dies (goes to zero), you still own 1% of the global ledger. Any value that disappears from your coins on the losing chain would be redistributed to your coins on the winning chain.
I'll comment on the other points later, kind of busy now.
maybe.
lots of moving parts in that one that could invalidate the assumption. for starters, constant forking like i've described could decrease the value of the entire network from the getgo.
that strategy of buying both chains means they will lose money at some level when the dominant chain eventually wins.
Look at it not as individual assets but as a global ledger. If the global ledger represented by the combination of both (temporarily viable) chains, then if you buy say 1% of both chains, and one chain dies (goes to zero), you still own 1% of the global ledger. Any value that disappears from your coins on the losing chain would be redistributed to your coins on the winning chain.
I'll comment on the other points later, kind of busy now.
when you say "just sit back with their cold storage coins and see which fork wins out", you're essentially saying the forks are close in properties (or at least difficult to choose between).
No I'm kind of saying the opposite. If they are not close in properties then one will quickly win out, and I think we all agree that is not a problem at all. It isn't a problem for passive participants, nor active ones.
so to be clear, i want to avoid the situation where 2 lengthy chains (20 blocks or more) get created repeatedly and frequently by protocol changes that aren't well thought out and not subjected to consensus building. sort of like what happened March 2013. that is the situation where ppl lose money. the only reason Eleuthria didn't lose out on all the blocks BTCGuild mined during that true "fork" was that Gavin, the BF, and the community donated BTC to make up for the lost block rewards they had mined. ppl like you and me who didn't have tx's layered on top of one another in those 20+ blocks didn't lose money but i think those who did (like many ongoing businesses that transact continuously) should have or did lose money despite the rollback. certainly they would have if the chain hadn't been rolled back and been left to die.
if you've never mined and lost a 50 BTC block reward from orphaning, it is painful, take my word. and that is just from a one or two block fork with orphan from everyday normal activity.
Quote
The minority of cases where the choice is more difficult, you basically have two choices. One is to pick one or the other (including status quo) essentially by fiat, or recognize that these decisions are difficult and let a market sort it out. I argue it is more important to do that now, when Bitcoin is tiny, rather than suffer long term from having made the wrong choice earlier when the costs of change were relatively insignificant.
again, letting the market sort it out means letting the losing chain die out resulting in losses for those who made the wrong choice out of hubris or ignorance. too much of that isn't good for confidence and growth.
Quote
I don't think we disagree that stability is important, I just think that stability at the multi-trillion dollar cap scale is better served by letting things sort out robustly and dynamically at the billion dollar scale, even if that introduces more risk short term (indeed that risk is what allows it to happen).
true
Quote
Take this whole block size thing. It's pretty clear no consensus will ever be reached. Doing nothing is an arbitrary decision. Making a change to 20 MB or 20 MB + {some growth rate} is also arbitrary. We're not going to "figure this out." I say let the market play out with the toy system we have today and whichever system thrives will be far stronger at the trillion dollar scale.
Also, with respect to new participants losing money, that is fairly easy for them to avoid. Just buy both forks in equal proportion. That puts them in the same immunized position as existing holders with cold storage. If you don't do that you are making a bet on which fork is going to win. There is nothing wrong with making bets, but no one is forced to make this bet, and every bet has a winner and a loser.
that strategy of buying both chains means they will lose money at some level when the dominant chain eventually wins. the exchange price would start to reflect that first as the coins on the losing chain start dropping in price. one could try to sell the losing chain coins and jump back over to the other chain but certainly there will be losers and then bigger losers. too much of that is not good for Bitcoin.
Fiatcoin is nearly here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/12/us-bitcoin-ibm-idUSKBN0M82KB20150312\
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/12/us-bitcoin-ibm-idUSKBN0M82KB20150312\
Quote
Unlike bitcoin, where the network is decentralized and there is no overseer, the proposed digital currency system would be controlled by central banks, the source said.
"These coins will be part of the money supply," the source said. "It's the same money, just not a dollar bill with a serial number on it, but a token that sits on this blockchain."
"These coins will be part of the money supply," the source said. "It's the same money, just not a dollar bill with a serial number on it, but a token that sits on this blockchain."
Nice. Now they won't even have to turn on the printing presses. Just type in a big number and hit enter.
I'm assuming this means we then get accurate insight into exactly what the money supply is. No more shadowstats! No more government handwaving about inflation!
Not such a bad thing?
Just a guess but fiatcoin's blockchain will probably be private, all clients essentially just client/server so money supply is obfuscated. Likely devices won't hold their private keys, or there will be a master private key that can spend from all accounts. No other way for the government to freeze accounts, implement asset forfeiture, etc.
Fedcoin is obviously a dumb idea. It's effectively the same level (or worse) of why-are-you-bothering-with-a-blockchain as doing a gold or silver "backed" cryptocurrency. If you have a fundamentally centralized system, then adding a blockchain just makes it more complex for no reason. Just fire up some servers and make a good API instead.
People *still* don't understand the problem that blockchains actually solve.
Yep, we are still so early.
Frankly, I'm amazed at the low level of sophisticated analysis coming out of IBM regarding Bitcoin. But then again, I bet much of it is being driven by Richard Gendal whom I have been even less impressed.
Perhaps IBM is a quintessential example of a big corporation who's benefited so greatly from inflation that they've been blinded.
If IBM manages to create fiatcoin then it will be great step for bitcoin.
- Using atomic swaps bitcoin <-> fiatcoin we do not need 3d party exchanges. It is 1. step how to convert fiat into Bitcoin.
when you say "just sit back with their cold storage coins and see which fork wins out", you're essentially saying the forks are close in properties (or at least difficult to choose between).
No I'm kind of saying the opposite. If they are not close in properties then one will quickly win out, and I think we all agree that is not a problem at all. It isn't a problem for passive participants, nor active ones.
The minority of cases where the choice is more difficult, you basically have two choices. One is to pick one or the other (including status quo) essentially by fiat, or recognize that these decisions are difficult and let a market sort it out. I argue it is more important to do that now, when Bitcoin is tiny, rather than suffer long term from having made the wrong choice earlier when the costs of change were relatively insignificant.
I don't think we disagree that stability is important, I just think that stability at the multi-trillion dollar cap scale is better served by letting things sort out robustly and dynamically at the billion dollar scale, even if that introduces more risk short term (indeed that risk is what allows it to happen).
Take this whole block size thing. It's pretty clear no consensus will ever be reached. Doing nothing is an arbitrary decision. Making a change to 20 MB or 20 MB + {some growth rate} is also arbitrary. We're not going to "figure this out." I say let the market play out with the toy system we have today and whichever system thrives will be far stronger at the trillion dollar scale.
Also, with respect to new participants losing money, that is fairly easy for them to avoid. Just buy both forks in equal proportion. That puts them in the same immunized position as existing holders with cold storage. If you don't do that you are making a bet on which fork is going to win. There is nothing wrong with making bets, but no one is forced to make this bet, and every bet has a winner and a loser.
forking is a tricky term and the concepts depend on how you define it. hard forks incorporating new innovations are fine as long as they are truly needed and the only effort needed is to download new software. but if it also forces participants to dig out cold wallets and make financial transfers to new coins or new sidechains, that is a big problem. many ppl will get left behind and will lose money.
As Zangelbert Bingledack defined it, existing participants would not need to do anything. They could just sit back with their cold storage coins and see which fork wins out, their ledger position guaranteed.
yeah, but to rocks point, we shouldn't want uncertainty in a money created by numerous forks causing constant choices. ppl don't want that headache. when you say "just sit back with their cold storage coins and see which fork wins out", you're essentially saying the forks are close in properties (or at least difficult to choose between). one group is going to lose money as one chain continues onward and eventually peters out as it becomes clear that the other chain is superior. that would not be good as that would result in losses. the reason i think this happens is that when it comes to the network of global money, i think the market will converge to one out of convenience, efficiency, and simplicity. sort of how the USD has been outright adopted by many countries today. it's easy.
hard forks are not to be created lightly. i realize that is not what ZB was advocating.
forking is a tricky term and the concepts depend on how you define it. hard forks incorporating new innovations are fine as long as they are truly needed and the only effort needed is to download new software. but if it also forces participants to dig out cold wallets and make financial transfers to new coins or new sidechains, that is a big problem. many ppl will get left behind and will lose money.
As Zangelbert Bingledack defined it, existing participants would not need to do anything. They could just sit back with their cold storage coins and see which fork wins out, their ledger position guaranteed.
the more forks, the more fragmentation of the community. we need numerical concentration in the long run.
There a conflict here though. What we need is more numerical participants, not just numerical concentration of a relatively tiny number of participants. Bitcoin at its current scale of usage will just wither and die (or be leapfrogged) if it doesn't grow a lot, so concentration of the existing users is fairly pointless. I don't think anyone disagrees with this?
The context of forking was allowing more rapid technical innovation, with the economic assumption that most participants would relatively quickly concentrate on one fork anyway, making that the successor.
If that economic assumption turns out to be untrue, then it is obviously the case that the needs of some participants or potential participants are very poorly served by one of the forks, and overall growth will suffer by failing to address those underlying needs.
i am referring to numerical growth and concentration of participants worldwide into the exisitng Bitcoin mainchain to maximize tx fees as we transition away from block rewards. this is essential.
forking is a tricky term and the concepts depend on how you define it. hard forks incorporating new innovations are fine as long as they are truly needed and the only effort needed is to download new software. but if it also forces participants to dig out cold wallets and make financial transfers to new coins or new sidechains, that is a big problem. many ppl will get left behind and will lose money.
the more forks, the more fragmentation of the community. we need numerical concentration in the long run.
There a conflict here though. What we need is more numerical participants, not just numerical concentration of a relatively tiny number of participants. Bitcoin at its current scale of usage will just wither and die (or be leapfrogged) if it doesn't grow a lot, so concentration of the existing users is fairly pointless. I don't think anyone disagrees with this?
The context of forking was allowing more rapid technical innovation, with the economic assumption that most participants would relatively quickly concentrate on one fork anyway, making that the successor.
If that economic assumption turns out to be untrue, then it is obviously the case that the needs of some participants or potential participants are very poorly served by one of the forks, and overall growth will suffer by failing to address those underlying needs.
Jump to: