Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 565. (Read 2032291 times)

Robert Murphy:

http://understandingbitcoin.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/2014.12-Understanding-Bitcoin-v1.pdf

I think a 'throw under' for Bitcoin at its current level would have to be at least in the low $200s

i'm a fan of long term charts.  this is the 20 yr weekly $DJI.  btwn Jan 2000 and Sept 2002, the rectangle, the Dow drops for 2.75 years straight.  long, drawn out drops don't bother me esp when the fundamentals are sound.  you can also see the even longer "throwunder" back to 2002:

That sheep looks so violated.

Oh, so you are just an OT pumper.  I thought otherwise for some reason but I don't remember what it was.

this is a very nice picture to help understand how and what cypherdoc is and will become.  i think they have great promise to collect and demonstrate the separability of the BTC unit with it's one-time owner cypherdoc.

maybe yes, maybe no
maybe rain, maybe snow ...

not just BTC but all currencies have recently fallen vs. the USD. analogies only go so far.

i've been meaning to put this chart up of the $DJI from the top in 10/07 to its bottom of 03/09.  of note is that this was a 1.5 yr decline which seemed interminable, which goes to show you just how long bear phases can run compared to what we've had in Bitcoin.  also, the oval highlights a 4 mo sideways consolidation btwn 12/08 and 03/09 during which everyone was convinced that the bear was over and that this represented the very best time to accumulate within a "bottoming" process.  but then look at the 3wk long "throwunder" as labelled in this chart.  THAT was in fact what killed loads of bulls in a final panic that threatened to destroy the traditional fiat system.  i remember vividly watching the minute by minute action during that period and it seemed surreal and somewhat artificially contrived to the downside as there was no real panic selling but a steady grind downwards to grind out the last vestiges of optimism.  it succeeded as at the bottom of 03/09, there were just 2% bulls remaining.  in retrospect though, that clearly  was the time to buy  when looking at where we are now:



here is Bitcoins analogy, imo:

Those are technical objections to what you wrote because what you wrote and the conclusion you reach depend entirely on statements about how the community would react. Do I need to quote them for you? If I'm not mistaken NewLiberty already did so.

I think this recent engagement with Jorge provides a window into just how hard the next stage of bitcoin adoption will be.

Many of us leap into Bitcoin once we understood it, because we were already politically aligned to it's ideology and saw a chance for Bitcoin to realize what we had already been looking for.

However this is a very small pool of people compared to the population at large. The next pools of people are those who are indifferent and those who are outright hostile/opposed to what Bitcoin represents, with the majority most likely being hostile.

Jorge is good example, he is a CS professor being paid by the state to spread misinformation. If you were already politically aligned to believe in government control of money (so they can "adjust" the supply "grow with the economy"), you are already motivated to be against Bitcoin and would accept Jorge's line of reasoning without question because it agrees with your world view. Expect more and more of his type of "analysis" to appear in credible sources.

To overcome this very real adoption hurdle I think Bitcoin can only win by becoming more and more functional and needs the ability for market participants to create and explore new functionality.

This is why I believe the sidechains are interesting and should be pursued (the concept not necessarily the current implementation).

I went quiet during the last round of sidechain discussions since it's hard to properly discuss it in thread format, but I've come to believe that economic interests by participants is what will enforce proper behavior and make the concept work. A lot of the concern seems to be poking holes in what is possible technically with sidechains, but I think economic interests would win. BTW, I believe the same is true for Bitcoin, it is economic interests that make Bitcoin work, not technical. I'll try to expand on that later.

That said I've come to completely agree with Adrian and cypherdoc that sidechains will ruin the incentivization system of Bitcoin, which is mandatory for it to function as an independent and decentralized system. If sidechains are implemented as is, I would seriously question the viability of Bitcoin to survive after block rewards become dependent on fees.

However I think there are straightforward solutions to this, largely by structuring them as childchains and not sidechains. Children chains should be forced to merge mine with their parent chain, in effect contributing all of their hash power to the parent and making the parent have the sum hash power of all children, whereas the a parent chain can mine on it's own and does not have to merge mine with anyone else. I'll try to describe this in more detail later when I have time, and then you guys can tell me where it's all wrong

TL;DR I think the concept of sidechains is needed for the next stages of adoption, but is unworkable in it's current form. So we need to find and propose the right form of a sidechain concept.

this is a very useful article to help understand how and what OT is and will become.  i think they have great promise and preserves the inseparability of the BTC unit with its blockchain:

http://monetas.net/monetas-brings-colored-coins-to-btcd/

CFB is anything but typical    That's why I like him.

good that you don't run in the same direction. and even better that you don't generalize. 

read this to understand how the federated server SC model won't work:

http://monetas.net/why-central-banks-will-race-to-adopt-the-blockchain/

Bitfinex continuing to drag everyone up.  Don't hesitate.

You are a typical bitcoiner, sir. You guys always go to personality level when run out of counterarguments.

Yes, I was trying to understand what the SC proposal was all about.  Seems it is the fable of the elephant and the blind men, so I gave up on that for now.  But the motivation, at least for some people, seems to be a way to save bitcoin from some risk.  The discussion went into 51% attack, so I posted my understanding about that.  I did not see any technical objections to what I wrote, only different beliefs about how the community would react.  Well, each one is entitled to their opinion on that.


Oh, thank you.


Well, I am 64, I am not a Beatles' song, I do not have regular hours, it is school vacations, and I have a big pile of exams to grade.  And I noticed that someone was wrong on the internet.


I would appreciate that, thank you.  

+1

Please note how he started to post on this thread a few days ago (asking questions about sidechains)
and then he slowly started to broaden the scope of his questions to bitcoin fundamentals and increase posts frequency.

Each of is post contains valid reasoning and seems legit, you have to take a step back to see what I think is his real agenda.

Looking at JorgeStolfi account activity by time I wonder even if it is used by more then one person:



Having said that I think the best course of action is leaving him (them?) alone, IMHO.  

That's why I'm saying you need TrollDAR™ to spot the fallacies before the contagion spreads. Enjoy your popcorn.

  Nevermind.
Back to popcorn and watching trolls.

I call that container Google. There is a Google search bar on this forum.