Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 482. (Read 2032286 times)

Last time I checked gateways worked just fine and they can't undermine the trust-less nature of the transactions. "Trust" comes into play because gateways hold your fiat currencies in the network for you, which solves the irreversibility problem of bitcoin. Irreversibility is a BIG problem, and makes bitcoin perfect for scammers.
For the record, I am not endorsing or shilling for ripple, I just take it as an example that you CAN have distributed ledger technology without being forced to adopt an overpriced cryptocurrency.
I would use Hyperledger as an example more, but they are still working on it.

"plus it's all based on debt, another huge problem."
^Your idea of an alternative is a fairy tale that can't work in today's world.

no one cares what you repeat.  no one's listening to you.

Ripple is a failure.  just a couple of months ago all the gatesways had to defer to one centralized gateway b/c of network problems.  nothing that catastrophic has ever happened to Bitcoin.  plus it's all based on debt, another huge problem.

price is strengthening.  no two ways about it.

-I repeat, 100% decentralisation (even tho bitcoin is not) is preferable only by bitcoin cultists. RL can't force transactions on anyone on the network and the network can be run by other individuals with a network of validators even if RL were to fail tomorrow, that's as much decentralisation as you need. The rest is cultists stuff.
-See above.
-doesn't change the fact that is artificial and 100% replacable by any shitcoin. Gold is not.
-It is used for itself, what more do you need me to say?
-In case you didn't get it, I don't give a shit about "sound money" austrian economics bullshit, I don't give a shit about gold and I don't think gold is better money (lol) than fiat currencies. I just can see that the comparison bitcoin-gold doesn't make sense.

1. It's high volume only because price is lower (1k BTC at $1200 ≠ 1k BTC at $250). Check the volume on USD and poof, no difference:




2. Last time the 1 week MACD shifted to green, it was at $650-$680 right before the crash.

• The ripple network using the consensus protocol doesn't need an overpriced token to secure the network. Same for Hyperledger and others. The bitcoin network claims to be decentralised but mining centralisation (for example the possibility of mining cartels and not knowing if the same entities own different mining pools) issues undermine such narratives. Also, 100% decentralisation is preferable only by bitcoin cultists
• can be solved in ways that don't force you to adopt a volatile, irreversible, unusable currency only paranoid libertarians, get rich quick schemers and drug dealers need.
• and why is that? It just makes it 100% arbitrary and artificial
• Sure, when the earth will be a wasteland and mankind is over gold won't be valuable. But right now gold has intrinsic value for the Jewellery industry, people use it for itself not just as medium of exchange, a unit of account, or a store of value. Bitcoin has literally less intrinsic value than baseball cards or beanie babies
• yes there is, if people use it for itself and not just as medium of exchange, a unit of account, or a store of value

you can see that we formed a proper, highly capitulative bottom on 1/14.  the long term MACD continues to strengthen:

thanks.  i try to keep it level-headed, technical, and intellectual.  takes alot of work and time but it is well worth it.  most of the guys in here have been around from the beginning, know their stuff, and have the ability to engage in abstract thought.

unfortunately we have to put up with the likes of NJHJT and NLC from time to time.

Intersting thread! It's so much nicer in here than the wall observer. I might be able to learn something from the seniors here. go bitcoin!

• Distributed ledgers are not possible without a native token. At least not in a desirable, decentralized way.
• It does have a point. The point being to solve the Byzantine Consensus problem.
• Mathematically enforced scarcity ­is much better than physical scarcity.
• People wear gold around their neck because it is valuable, not the other way around. There was once a time were king's crowns were made out of aluminium
• There is no such thing as "intrinsic value"

One chart says it all. Bitcoin transaction volume in USD:


https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume-usd?timespan=2year&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=7&show_header=true&scale=0&address=


Lowest level since may 2014.

Not used for (legal) uses as a currency, but mostly as a speculative get rich quick instrument.

Buterin is right.
Distributed ledgers can be useful, cryptocurrencies, not really.

Only in a proof-of-work/proof-of-stake system you need a coin (that doesn't have a point as a currency and brings more problems than it tries to solve) to secure a distributed network.



Regarding scarcity: bitcoin's scarcity is 100% artificial. If you want to compare it to gold:

-Gold as a material is not replaceable, bitcoin is theoretically replaceable by any shitcoin.
-Gold has intrinsic value (Jewellery industry), bitcoin has no intrinsic value at all.



I'm far from being a gold bug (I don't give two shits about gold/silver or austian economics in general, actually), but I just can see that the comparison doesn't make sense.

That may be part of the reason people don't understand the value of strong hard money. However, it is different from the reason they don't understand why a blockchain without an integrated currency (not subcurencies, tokens, or assets) doesn't work, as Joe Coin explained well enough. That's just ignorance coupled with for example in Vitalik's case bit of wanting to do something different and pray it pays off because its supposedly unfair that it is too late (his words, paraphrasing) to be an early adopter of Bitcoin. That's a rather sad misconception because if Bitcoin works buying at 1000 USD (much less 200 USD) still means a 1 000x return or more.

I think part of the reason this view exists is most people do not properly understand scarcity or what scarcity truly means, largely because western society has not experienced scarcity for several generations. If you do not understand scarcity it is easy to brush off the value of BTC and focus on the Blockchain because it is scarcity that gives BTC value.

Since the FED was created there has been no scarcity for money and this coincided with both an energy and a technology boom which resulted in an abundance of energy, materials, steel, plastics, goods, etc. We have lived in an age of utter abundance for generations. With that has come a cavalier attitude toward money and basic goods, most people assume these things will always be there. (Yes we have inequality and people who lack access to both food and money, but because of the central bank printer governments can fund a large safety net, no one really worries that they will starve because food stamps and disability will kick in).

Few today really understand how scarce goods behave, because there are very few truly scarce goods today. Land is another example of a scarce good, but I'm not sure what else is today.

Bitcoin however is the perfect example of a scarce good. The last bubble started at the same time as ASIC mining took off, which meant that for a while most mined coins were held and not sold. The result was a price spike that no one could stop. That is increasing demand against a scarce good.

you guys probably been all around that but since vitalik is desperately gesticulating to pitch his zombiechain..

fair article there:

http://www.joecoin.com/2015/02/crypto-20-and-other-misconceptions.html

how is that helpful to society when you, the acct holder, can change/alter them?

He's simultaneously totally wrong and completely right.  

How he's right:
The concept of a database with per record access protection is incredibly useful.  For example, you'll be able to actually receive electronic financial statements or other legal documents and not worry that they will be retroactively changed without your knowledge, because your private key is needed to change them.  You could even imagine a bank that cannot change your USD balance without your OK...

For many of these databases tokens are unnecessary.  The cost of maintaining the database is simply part of ongoing operations just like databases today.  Ethereum is overly complex for this task.  Bitcoin is overly complex.  You could throw out all the mining logic, most of the scripting, etc because the DB does not need to be decentralized.

How he's wrong:
The killer app for a "database with per record access protection" is money because money is memory.  So Bitcoin.

One of the reasons to increase the total number of coins is to remove the long-term deflation pressure. That is one of the issues possibly affecting Bitcoin that is pointed out by Varoufakis in the reading I provided in my earlier post.