Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 630. (Read 2032266 times)
"In common technology parlance, the early adopters are the first 2.5% of the users. We are at less than 1% of potential users today, there is a long way to go."
How can you say that, with 13 from 21 million coins (roughly) already mined?
How can you say that, with 13 from 21 million coins (roughly) already mined?
I guess it means that the early adopter crowd has (at least potentially) more bitcoins then the rest.
15,300 addresses own 67% of bitcoins
and 119,000 addresses own 94% of bitcoins
https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html
Funny thing with all these gold guys who promote Bitcoin backed by Gold - I feel that is basically giving btc a massive compliment (even though the notion is ridiculous)
And that link to gold statement shows that he is not there yet.
Yes, as hilarious as it is, it is essentially a statement that it is a better ledger than anything that has come before.
Frankly those of us that buy and sell gold for bitcoin are essentially backing bitcoin with gold already.
Backing it with alpaca socks is also good though.
I'm not sure that's a good idea... I'm offering 2 pairs for redemption, let's see how that goes.
Joke aside. I think the ridiculous call for gold-backing of bitcoin shows us a couple of things:
- The metal-heads are under pressure to have a position on crypto
- outright rejection doesn't cut it any more
- blatant attack doesn't cut it any more (Peter Schiff: "bitcoin is worthless because you can divide a bitcoin and then you have 2 bitcoins", lol)
- so they try 'embrace and extend' or 'cherrypicking' aproaches (hence the gold-backing idea)
- those dudes are extremely encumbered by the mountains of metal they sit on (maybe it will turn out the metal is actually sitting on them and locking them down)
I'm still waiting for:
- they accumulate
- they recommend
I'm not sure what stands in the way: inertia? fear? lack of understanding?
but hey: maybe they're the smart ones and we're the idiots, right? ;-)
"In common technology parlance, the early adopters are the first 2.5% of the users. We are at less than 1% of potential users today, there is a long way to go."
How can you say that, with 13 from 21 million coins (roughly) already mined?
How can you say that, with 13 from 21 million coins (roughly) already mined?
I guess it means that the early adopter crowd has (at least potentially) more bitcoins then the rest.
The Internet is on Fire | Mikko Hypponen | TEDxBrussels
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKe-aO44R7k&app=desktop
great talk. Thanks for posting.
This is gonna be fun... When you buy one of his books on his site, you can get a "custom inscription" which it sounds like Jim personally hand-writes on the book. So I'll be buying one with a personal inscription regarding bitcoin that'll be utterly painful for Jim to write.
I'm taking suggestions. It can be up to 150 words.
Rickards has a fairly rational position on Bitcoin.
...
I disagree:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpYlc5oftM0
https://twitter.com/JamesGRickards/status/533057485264134144
^ He's overly negative and seems to be deliberately on the attack.
In fact, I wouldn't be all that surprised if his acceptance of bitcoin in his store was in the hopes that he would NOT see very many bitcoin sales just so that he could rant about measly volume after the holidays.
I'd maintain that this is a fairly rational position.
His criticisms in this piece are essentially:
1) We haven't seen it during an economic downturn.
2) Government's are causing problems for it.
Both are irrefutably true.
Agree that those are valid criticisms, but did you catch where he called bitcoin a "Neanderthal" currency that will "go extinct the way Neanderthals did"?
In any event, most of his current position seems to be a regurgitation of the fashionable ignorance of the day; ie: "the tech is cool, the currency is not". While I agree that that's better than being an outright hater screaming Ponzi or tulips, in Rickard's case, it still seems like he's in attack mode to me (especially in concert with his shameless zero-evidence ISIS remark), despite the supposed "nuance" of his stance.
We don't see these as insurmountable barriers, however most people do.
The market has bitcoin currently priced at about a 1% chance of success or less at its current valuations.
We are betting on the long-shot to win, and while I think we are in the right, it is rational to bet against us.
More importantly, if we do not recognize the valid criticisms against our position, we are both (a) insane and (b) unable to adequately overcome them.
The market has bitcoin currently priced at about a 1% chance of success or less at its current valuations.
We are betting on the long-shot to win, and while I think we are in the right, it is rational to bet against us.
More importantly, if we do not recognize the valid criticisms against our position, we are both (a) insane and (b) unable to adequately overcome them.
Agreed.
As for Rickards, if we make it through the coming down cycles and can navigate the government's attacks, he will have no criticisms remaining and we should expect he would adopt. Of course that could put him well outside the "early adopter" realm. Anyone who owns bitcoin now (or within the next year) would be an early adopter.
In common technology parlance, the early adopters are the first 2.5% of the users. We are at less than 1% of potential users today, there is a long way to go.
Check out this:
https://coinreport.net/james-rickards-takes-bitcoin/
His position is highly nuanced.
We'll see how his nuance evolves.
Funny thing with all these gold guys who promote Bitcoin backed by Gold - I feel that is basically giving btc a massive compliment (even though the notion is ridiculous)
And that link to gold statement shows that he is not there yet.
I think it is fine to give a break to people who take an intermediate position on Bitcoin. There is always an evolution in the thinking of an individual, and that is the learning process. There is also the very human temptation to think of ways something can be improved, without fully understanding it. We have seen enough of that on bitcointalk.
It is much better that someone accepts Bitcoin as a technological breakthrough, but thinks it needs to be formally "backed", than becoming another butthurt buttcoiner.
Funny thing with all these gold guys who promote Bitcoin backed by Gold - I feel that is basically giving btc a massive compliment (even though the notion is ridiculous)
And that link to gold statement shows that he is not there yet.
Yes, as hilarious as it is, it is essentially a statement that it is a better ledger than anything that has come before.
Frankly those of us that buy and sell gold for bitcoin are essentially backing bitcoin with gold already.
Backing it with alpaca socks is also good though.
This is gonna be fun... When you buy one of his books on his site, you can get a "custom inscription" which it sounds like Jim personally hand-writes on the book. So I'll be buying one with a personal inscription regarding bitcoin that'll be utterly painful for Jim to write.
I'm taking suggestions. It can be up to 150 words.
Rickards has a fairly rational position on Bitcoin.
...
I disagree:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpYlc5oftM0
https://twitter.com/JamesGRickards/status/533057485264134144
^ He's overly negative and seems to be deliberately on the attack.
In fact, I wouldn't be all that surprised if his acceptance of bitcoin in his store was in the hopes that he would NOT see very many bitcoin sales just so that he could rant about measly volume after the holidays.
I'd maintain that this is a fairly rational position.
His criticisms in this piece are essentially:
1) We haven't seen it during an economic downturn.
2) Government's are causing problems for it.
Both are irrefutably true.
We don't see these as insurmountable barriers, however most people do.
The market has bitcoin currently priced at about a 1% chance of success or less at its current valuations.
We are betting on the long-shot to win, and while I think we are in the right, it is rational to bet against us.
More importantly, if we do not recognize the valid criticisms against our position, we are both (a) insane and (b) unable to adequately overcome them.
As for Rickards, if we make it through the coming down cycles and can navigate the government's attacks, he will have no criticisms remaining and we should expect he would adopt. Of course that could put him well outside the "early adopter" realm. Anyone who owns bitcoin now (or within the next year) would be an early adopter.
In common technology parlance, the early adopters are the first 2.5% of the users. We are at less than 1% of potential users today, there is a long way to go.
Check out this:
https://coinreport.net/james-rickards-takes-bitcoin/
His position is highly nuanced.
I tend to agree. Plenty of experience from within the financial system and working with government, I hope his reading of govt reactions are wrong (meaning btc gets recognised on its merit as it matures or because it becomes a beacon of light in a shitstorm). His early statements on btc were awful, uninformed, fearmongering, but I think he is coming around; from ponzi pyramid scheme to accepting it on his website.
Funny thing with all these gold guys who promote Bitcoin backed by Gold - I feel that is basically giving btc a massive compliment (even though the notion is ridiculous)
And that link to gold statement shows that he is not there yet.
This is gonna be fun... When you buy one of his books on his site, you can get a "custom inscription" which it sounds like Jim personally hand-writes on the book. So I'll be buying one with a personal inscription regarding bitcoin that'll be utterly painful for Jim to write.
I'm taking suggestions. It can be up to 150 words.
Rickards has a fairly rational position on Bitcoin.
...
I disagree:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpYlc5oftM0
https://twitter.com/JamesGRickards/status/533057485264134144
^ He's overly negative and seems to be deliberately on the attack.
In fact, I wouldn't be all that surprised if his acceptance of bitcoin in his store was in the hopes that he would NOT see very many bitcoin sales just so that he could rant about measly volume after the holidays.
I'd maintain that this is a fairly rational position.
His criticisms in this piece are essentially:
1) We haven't seen it during an economic downturn.
2) Government's are causing problems for it.
Both are irrefutably true.
We don't see these as insurmountable barriers, however most people do.
The market has bitcoin currently priced at about a 1% chance of success or less at its current valuations.
We are betting on the long-shot to win, and while I think we are in the right, it is rational to bet against us.
More importantly, if we do not recognize the valid criticisms against our position, we are both (a) insane and (b) unable to adequately overcome them.
As for Rickards, if we make it through the coming down cycles and can navigate the government's attacks, he will have no criticisms remaining and we should expect he would adopt. Of course that could put him well outside the "early adopter" realm. Anyone who owns bitcoin now (or within the next year) would be an early adopter.
In common technology parlance, the early adopters are the first 2.5% of the users. We are at less than 1% of potential users today, there is a long way to go.
Check out this:
https://coinreport.net/james-rickards-takes-bitcoin/
His position is highly nuanced.
I tend to agree. Plenty of experience from within the financial system and working with government, I hope his reading of govt reactions are wrong (meaning btc gets recognised on its merit as it matures or because it becomes a beacon of light in a shitstorm). His early statements on btc were awful, uninformed, fearmongering, but I think he is coming around; from ponzi pyramid scheme to accepting it on his website.
Funny thing with all these gold guys who promote Bitcoin backed by Gold - I feel that is basically giving btc a massive compliment (even though the notion is ridiculous)
"In common technology parlance, the early adopters are the first 2.5% of the users. We are at less than 1% of potential users today, there is a long way to go."
How can you say that, with 13 from 21 million coins (roughly) already mined?
How can you say that, with 13 from 21 million coins (roughly) already mined?
Coins are not users.
"In common technology parlance, the early adopters are the first 2.5% of the users. We are at less than 1% of potential users today, there is a long way to go."
How can you say that, with 13 from 21 million coins (roughly) already mined?
How can you say that, with 13 from 21 million coins (roughly) already mined?
This is gonna be fun... When you buy one of his books on his site, you can get a "custom inscription" which it sounds like Jim personally hand-writes on the book. So I'll be buying one with a personal inscription regarding bitcoin that'll be utterly painful for Jim to write.
I'm taking suggestions. It can be up to 150 words.
Rickards has a fairly rational position on Bitcoin.
...
I disagree:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpYlc5oftM0
https://twitter.com/JamesGRickards/status/533057485264134144
^ He's overly negative and seems to be deliberately on the attack.
In fact, I wouldn't be all that surprised if his acceptance of bitcoin in his store was in the hopes that he would NOT see very many bitcoin sales just so that he could rant about measly volume after the holidays.
I'd maintain that this is a fairly rational position.
His criticisms in this piece are essentially:
1) We haven't seen it during an economic downturn.
2) Government's are causing problems for it.
Both are irrefutably true.
We don't see these as insurmountable barriers, however most people do.
The market has bitcoin currently priced at about a 1% chance of success or less at its current valuations.
We are betting on the long-shot to win, and while I think we are in the right, it is rational to bet against us.
More importantly, if we do not recognize the valid criticisms against our position, we are both (a) insane and (b) unable to adequately overcome them.
As for Rickards, if we make it through the coming down cycles and can navigate the government's attacks, he will have no criticisms remaining and we should expect he would adopt. Of course that could put him well outside the "early adopter" realm. Anyone who owns bitcoin now (or within the next year) would be an early adopter.
In common technology parlance, the early adopters are the first 2.5% of the users. We are at less than 1% of potential users today, there is a long way to go.
Check out this:
https://coinreport.net/james-rickards-takes-bitcoin/
His position is highly nuanced.
The Internet is on Fire | Mikko Hypponen | TEDxBrussels
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKe-aO44R7k&app=desktop
This is gonna be fun... When you buy one of his books on his site, you can get a "custom inscription" which it sounds like Jim personally hand-writes on the book. So I'll be buying one with a personal inscription regarding bitcoin that'll be utterly painful for Jim to write.
I'm taking suggestions. It can be up to 150 words.
Rickards has a fairly rational position on Bitcoin.
...
I disagree:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpYlc5oftM0
https://twitter.com/JamesGRickards/status/533057485264134144
^ He's overly negative and seems to be deliberately on the attack.
In fact, I wouldn't be all that surprised if his acceptance of bitcoin in his store was in the hopes that he would NOT see very many bitcoin sales just so that he could rant about measly volume after the holidays.
I know buterin and larimer met up in vegas this yr and larimer convinced buterik about dpos maybe now is when they switch.. another notch under the belt for
bitshares
bitshares
I see that as a negative.
Bitshares had had to change itself several times for flawed assumptions. DPOS probably won't be any better than POS. And the fact that Vitalik was meeting with and changing its own model just this summer goes to show just how incoherent their whole concept is a well.
I know buterin and larimer met up in vegas this yr and larimer convinced buterik about dpos maybe now is when they switch.. another notch under the belt for
bitshares
bitshares
I see that as a negative.
Bitshares had had to change itself several times for flawed assumptions. DPOS probably won't be any better than POS. And the fact that Vitalik was meeting with and changing its own model just this summer goes to show just how incoherent their whole concept is a well.
Or it just never works at all.
i've said before that it's possible that the blockchain may only be applicable to Bitcoin as money. perhaps if the Bitcoin price gets so high that it becomes impractical or expensive to embed Bitshare stock certificates into an OP_RETURN. or simply that the core devs continue to restrict competition from Bitcoin 2.0 platforms like they did to Satoshi Dice and CP. i'm not saying this is necessarily how it will play out but simply a scenario that needs to be considered.
The value of the currency of bitcoin causes no impracticallity for this particular technology which simply use bitcoin as an on or off ramp to its ecosystem
Maybe this has implications for counterparty?
maybe.
i guess my major concern is with Larimer himself. you said "evolution" in an earlier post. when i think of evolution, i at least think of a "working" product that gets improved upon or "evolved". first it was what? Protoshares or something? then Bitshares? and now Bitshares +/- Ethereum? nothing substantive or workable has been released, afaik. when does one quit? when he runs out of investor funding?
It evolved to get merged into bitsharesx and now its called bitshares as there were problems with protoshares since its consensus algo was pow based and it was better to use dpos thus just merged into bitshares.
Ethereum is am independent project and these guys were just passing ideas off of each other.. And i guess he convinced buterik the merits of dpos..
Larimer claims the consensus it uses is orders of magnitude more secure than bitcoins.. Without wack incentives of mining.
I was a skeptic before too but for a developer I would argue it is the most unique setup of all coins. You have to understand what my philosophy is for "the coin" to get why I say that... But along the same lines I decided to use The system and become a delegate to sign blocks.. Developing whatever apps they need making me about $3k usd a month in todays prices. Yes usd i can hold in bitusd which is pegged to usd.
Anyone can becomd a delegate aslong as they provide benefit.. Bumping top 101 people doimg the best job based on whats needed
what a great story. Vavilov devved the BitFury in his garage in the Ukraine. i remember reading the evolution of this chip from its beginning: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitfury-design-licensing-mass-production-83332
i guess i should feel lucky having mined with his first generation chips which are now obsolete.
you can see that Bitfury has become a behemoth in the mining industry alongside companies out of China. this is good for the decentralization of mining and fits well within the game theory of Nash. he says in this article that he has no clue what's going on with these foreign companies so you can see there is very little chance that they'd collude for a 51% attack. this is what happens when you have a form of money that is non-corruptible, sound and apolitical. the incentive structure becomes that of pure competition with an understanding that performing honestly within the proper and immutable ruleset will get one further along than cheating.
http://www.coindesk.com/bitfury-ceo-bitcoin-mining-company/
i guess i should feel lucky having mined with his first generation chips which are now obsolete.
you can see that Bitfury has become a behemoth in the mining industry alongside companies out of China. this is good for the decentralization of mining and fits well within the game theory of Nash. he says in this article that he has no clue what's going on with these foreign companies so you can see there is very little chance that they'd collude for a 51% attack. this is what happens when you have a form of money that is non-corruptible, sound and apolitical. the incentive structure becomes that of pure competition with an understanding that performing honestly within the proper and immutable ruleset will get one further along than cheating.
http://www.coindesk.com/bitfury-ceo-bitcoin-mining-company/
I know buterin and larimer met up in vegas this yr and larimer convinced buterik about dpos maybe now is when they switch.. another notch under the belt for
bitshares
bitshares
I see that as a negative.
Bitshares had had to change itself several times for flawed assumptions. DPOS probably won't be any better than POS. And the fact that Vitalik was meeting with and changing its own model just this summer goes to show just how incoherent their whole concept is a well.
Or it just never works at all.
i've said before that it's possible that the blockchain may only be applicable to Bitcoin as money. perhaps if the Bitcoin price gets so high that it becomes impractical or expensive to embed Bitshare stock certificates into an OP_RETURN. or simply that the core devs continue to restrict competition from Bitcoin 2.0 platforms like they did to Satoshi Dice and CP. i'm not saying this is necessarily how it will play out but simply a scenario that needs to be considered.
The value of the currency of bitcoin causes no impracticallity for this particular technology which simply use bitcoin as an on or off ramp to its ecosystem
Maybe this has implications for counterparty?
maybe.
i guess my major concern is with Larimer himself. you said "evolution" in an earlier post. when i think of evolution, i at least think of a "working" product that gets improved upon or "evolved". first it was what? Protoshares or something? then Bitshares? and now Bitshares +/- Ethereum? nothing substantive or workable has been released, afaik. when does one quit? when he runs out of investor funding?
Jump to: