"It is absolutely out of the question that these banks will transfer money over the actual bitcoin blockchain out of reach from the Dutch central bank.”
http://www.coindesk.com/top-dutch-banks-confirm-blockchain-experiments/
if they won't transfer money over the blockchain, you can only imagine their resistance to transferring speculative assets.
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 641. (Read 2032266 times)
The first wave of alts were simple clones, it was almost a given that network effects would hold them back here. However the next wave of alts are going to
a) come with real innovations and then
b) come with government sanctioned force
a) come with real innovations and then
b) come with government sanctioned force
i think a) and b) are oxymorons. force precludes the need to innovate. thus Bitcoin will always have that advantage. we've already seen the failure of MintChip due to just this dynamic.
the creation of USDCoin would be a tacit admission by the govt that Bitcoin has merit and, paradoxically to their wishes, money will always flow to that platform which treats it best. that can't happen with an inflationary, violent coin.
hold on. this should mean that fiat will be diverted to the price:
I don't understand the fear of alts. I'm into Bitcoin because it's better money, in our history it's the best yet.
Competition is what will make it better. Alts can out innovate Bitcoin on every metric except one, the Network Effect, and this is what makes it useful as a SoV.
Competition is what will make it better. Alts can out innovate Bitcoin on every metric except one, the Network Effect, and this is what makes it useful as a SoV.
I think this significantly underestimates the threat of alt coins and why Bitcoin is not a given (I'm saying this as someone who believes/hopes in the project)
For example what if the US government created a USDollarCoin that:
1) has all of the benefits of programmable money, you can have your own wallet and spend it through computing devices
2) has the _perceived_ benefits of centralized control including the ability to "recover" lost coins and "reverse fraudulent" transactions (possibility a majority of people prefer this based on Bitcoin's detractors' views). This could be accomplished with forced use of multisig where the FED has co-control.
3) has significantly easier tax implications to deal with (meaning no tax implications) compared to bitcoin where EVERY transaction is a taxable event
4) launches with mass adoption through automatic bank account conversion
5) was legislated as the only legal currency
Maybe that doesn't scare you, but it scares me.
The first wave of alts were simple clones, it was almost a given that network effects would hold them back here. However the next wave of alts are going to
a) come with real innovations and then
b) come with government sanctioned force
Network effects & Bitcoin's programmable nature will probably keep a) at bay, however network effect might actually work against Bitcoin if b) ever came to pass.
I'm not saying this will happend, and it may seem far fetched today, but it is in the realm of possibilities. The US government lives off of the inflation tax and if Bitcoin ever becomes a real threat, the state will definitely try more and more attempts to maintain control of the money supply. It's possible the proposal above would be a last ditch attempt to save itself.
As I have said previously, the beauty of cryptocurrency is that it democratizes the creation of money. Competition is now possible and Bitcoin has obvious competitive advantages solely because of its monetary policy.
The USDcoin might have the benefits of digital money but carries with it the devaluation problems and the reliance on a failed, soon to be bankrupt state.
Of course we both know that to the general population this is not a real concern as they do not realize that money is stolen from their pocket through inflation but now that a deflationary alternative is available it won't take long until they realize they're on the wrong side of the fence.
On monoculture and diversity...
TL;DR: Monoculture in protocols may introduce weaknesses; monoculture in a having a single ledger doesn't, and is pretty much the point of having money at all.
TL;DR: Monoculture in protocols may introduce weaknesses; monoculture in a having a single ledger doesn't, and is pretty much the point of having money at all.
on bitcoin monoculture, an external to bitcoin point of view:
http://cointelegraph.com/news/113036/vitalik-buterin-challenges-the-idea-of-bitcoin-dominance-maximalism-op-ed
Vitalik is brilliant and understands code. Unfortunately, he doesn't fully understand money or human nature. I think that comes more with age/experience.
I don't understand the fear of alts. I'm into Bitcoin because it's better money, in our history it's the best yet.
Competition is what will make it better. Alts can out innovate Bitcoin on every metric except one, the Network Effect, and this is what makes it useful as a SoV.
Competition is what will make it better. Alts can out innovate Bitcoin on every metric except one, the Network Effect, and this is what makes it useful as a SoV.
I think this significantly underestimates the threat of alt coins and why Bitcoin is not a given (I'm saying this as someone who believes/hopes in the project)
For example what if the US government created a USDollarCoin that:
1) has all of the benefits of programmable money, you can have your own wallet and spend it through computing devices
2) has the _perceived_ benefits of centralized control including the ability to "recover" lost coins and "reverse fraudulent" transactions (possibility a majority of people prefer this based on Bitcoin's detractors' views). This could be accomplished with forced use of multisig where the FED has co-control.
3) has significantly easier tax implications to deal with (meaning no tax implications) compared to bitcoin where EVERY transaction is a taxable event
4) launches with mass adoption through automatic bank account conversion
5) was legislated as the only legal currency
Maybe that doesn't scare you, but it scares me.
The first wave of alts were simple clones, it was almost a given that network effects would hold them back here. However the next wave of alts are going to
a) come with real innovations and then
b) come with government sanctioned force
Network effects & Bitcoin's programmable nature will probably keep a) at bay, however network effect might actually work against Bitcoin if b) ever came to pass.
I'm not saying this will happend, and it may seem far fetched today, but it is in the realm of possibilities. The US government lives off of the inflation tax and if Bitcoin ever becomes a real threat, the state will definitely try more and more attempts to maintain control of the money supply. It's possible the proposal above would be a last ditch attempt to save itself.
With that possibility out of the way, you are still quite correct that Bitcoin the protocol could fail for technical reasons, so arguably a monoculture in protocols is bad. However, monoculture in the sense of everyone using the same ledger is not a bad thing at all, and it's kind of the point of money in the first place; the only way it could be bad is if the system for updating that ledger were faulty, which again points to the protocol as a possible weak point, not the ledger itself.
TL;DR: Monoculture in protocols may introduce weaknesses; monoculture in a having a single ledger doesn't, and is pretty much the point of having money at all.
TL;DR: Monoculture in protocols may introduce weaknesses; monoculture in a having a single ledger doesn't, and is pretty much the point of having money at all.
This is a great way to look at it. Thank you.
On monoculture and diversity...
And what if the coin itself fails, perhaps for economic rather than technical reasons?
The term "coin" is introducing confusion. The question is, what if the ledger fails?
This makes it clear that we must be careful to distinguish between the ledger (a conceptual spreadsheet keeping track of who owns what percentage of the economic community known as "the Bitcoin ecosystem" and later perhaps just "the global economy") and the protocol for updating that ledger.
Now here I wondered how you could possibly mean that a ledger - a mere spreadsheet - could "fail" for economic reasons. Then I noticed later you posted this, which is a common economic misconception that I recommend rooting out of your thinking completely:
The problem is in imagining that the money supply needs to expand to accommodate an expanding economy (or contract in an contracting economy). As a ledger, all that matters is what percentage of total supply you own. Disregarding the physical difficulty of working with very tiny pieces of gold, even a single ounce of gold would be enough to power the world economy, no matter how it may grow or shrink. Any amount of money works the same, because again it just comes down to what percentage of the total supply you hold. The term "1 BTC" just means 1/21M of the total ledger (or 1/13M of the current ledger). 130,000 BTC is just another way of saying "1% of the current ledger." An ounce of gold is just another way of saying X% of the total gold supply.
Laboring under that misconception, and thinking in terms of "coins" instead of a ledger (and these two confusions go hand in hand), I can see how you might think the Bitcoin ledger could fail due to there "not being enough money."
With that possibility out of the way, you are still quite correct that Bitcoin the protocol could fail for technical reasons, so arguably a monoculture in protocols is bad. However, monoculture in the sense of everyone using the same ledger is not a bad thing at all, and it's kind of the point of money in the first place; the only way it could be bad is if the system for updating that ledger were faulty, which again points to the protocol as a possible weak point, not the ledger itself.
TL;DR: Monoculture in protocols may introduce weaknesses; monoculture in a having a single ledger doesn't, and is pretty much the point of having money at all.
There absolutely should be one coin/ledger but is it imperative that there be one protocol/chain to update it?
Maybe multiple chains could allow us to manage the risk of one failed blockchain bringing its coin down with it?
Maybe multiple chains could allow us to manage the risk of one failed blockchain bringing its coin down with it?
And what if the coin itself fails, perhaps for economic rather than technical reasons?
The term "coin" is introducing confusion. The question is, what if the ledger fails?
This makes it clear that we must be careful to distinguish between the ledger (a conceptual spreadsheet keeping track of who owns what percentage of the economic community known as "the Bitcoin ecosystem" and later perhaps just "the global economy") and the protocol for updating that ledger.
Now here I wondered how you could possibly mean that a ledger - a mere spreadsheet - could "fail" for economic reasons. Then I noticed later you posted this, which is a common economic misconception that I recommend rooting out of your thinking completely:
Quote
Also your example of physical gold is not really an argument in favor of bitcoin because gold does not have a fixed supply and also has a supply that is responsive to technological advancement (correlated with economic growth).
The problem is in imagining that the money supply needs to expand to accommodate an expanding economy (or contract in an contracting economy). As a ledger, all that matters is what percentage of total supply you own. Disregarding the physical difficulty of working with very tiny pieces of gold, even a single ounce of gold would be enough to power the world economy, no matter how it may grow or shrink. Any amount of money works the same, because again it just comes down to what percentage of the total supply you hold. The term "1 BTC" just means 1/21M of the total ledger (or 1/13M of the current ledger). 130,000 BTC is just another way of saying "1% of the current ledger." An ounce of gold is just another way of saying X% of the total gold supply.
Laboring under that misconception, and thinking in terms of "coins" instead of a ledger (and these two confusions go hand in hand), I can see how you might think the Bitcoin ledger could fail due to there "not being enough money."
With that possibility out of the way, you are still quite correct that Bitcoin the protocol could fail for technical reasons, so arguably a monoculture in protocols is bad. However, monoculture in the sense of everyone using the same ledger is not a bad thing at all, and it's kind of the point of money in the first place; the only way it could be bad is if the system for updating that ledger were faulty, which again points to the protocol as a possible weak point, not the ledger itself.
TL;DR: Monoculture in protocols may introduce weaknesses; monoculture in a having a single ledger doesn't, and is pretty much the point of having money at all.
+1
If you're still having trouble focusing on the problem that Bitcoin was invented to solve and after everything I've said, watch Chris Whalen (one of the smartest guys on Wall Street) here disassemble the Fed. Please keep your eyes on the ball :
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/video/is-the-fed-in-need-of-a-fix-Zh1ER_XYQBmT8bMzNn_9mQ.html
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/video/is-the-fed-in-need-of-a-fix-Zh1ER_XYQBmT8bMzNn_9mQ.html
FTFY, doesn't load on desktop
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/is-the-fed-in-need-of-a-fix-Zh1ER_XYQBmT8bMzNn_9mQ.html
On monoculture and diversity...
TL;DR: Monoculture in protocols may introduce weaknesses; monoculture in a having a single ledger doesn't, and is pretty much the point of having money at all.
TL;DR: Monoculture in protocols may introduce weaknesses; monoculture in a having a single ledger doesn't, and is pretty much the point of having money at all.
on bitcoin monoculture, an external to bitcoin point of view:
http://cointelegraph.com/news/113036/vitalik-buterin-challenges-the-idea-of-bitcoin-dominance-maximalism-op-ed
If you're still having trouble focusing on the problem that Bitcoin was invented to solve and after everything I've said, watch Chris Whalen (one of the smartest guys on Wall Street) here disassemble the Fed. Please keep your eyes on the ball :
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/video/is-the-fed-in-need-of-a-fix-Zh1ER_XYQBmT8bMzNn_9mQ.html
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/video/is-the-fed-in-need-of-a-fix-Zh1ER_XYQBmT8bMzNn_9mQ.html
I used bitcoind and json simply for reasons of consistency. Why use sx or pybtctools? Easier, no need for blockchain, diversity, curiosity?
I do not define myself as a smart person, but I dare say that diversity is fundamental. As smooth already said a few posts ago diversity brings you anti-fragility.
(if you didn't read Nassim N. Taleb's work yet, look at: http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com. it's worthy imo.)
On monoculture and diversity...
And what if the coin itself fails, perhaps for economic rather than technical reasons?
The term "coin" is introducing confusion. The question is, what if the ledger fails?
This makes it clear that we must be careful to distinguish between the ledger (a conceptual spreadsheet keeping track of who owns what percentage of the economic community known as "the Bitcoin ecosystem" and later perhaps just "the global economy") and the protocol for updating that ledger.
Now here I wondered how you could possibly mean that a ledger - a mere spreadsheet - could "fail" for economic reasons. Then I noticed later you posted this, which is a common economic misconception that I recommend rooting out of your thinking completely:
The problem is in imagining that the money supply needs to expand to accommodate an expanding economy (or contract in an contracting economy). As a ledger, all that matters is what percentage of total supply you own. Disregarding the physical difficulty of working with very tiny pieces of gold, even a single ounce of gold would be enough to power the world economy, no matter how it may grow or shrink. Any amount of money works the same, because again it just comes down to what percentage of the total supply you hold. The term "1 BTC" just means 1/21M of the total ledger (or 1/13M of the current ledger). 130,000 BTC is just another way of saying "1% of the current ledger." An ounce of gold is just another way of saying X% of the total gold supply.
Laboring under that misconception, and thinking in terms of "coins" instead of a ledger (and these two confusions go hand in hand), I can see how you might think the Bitcoin ledger could fail due to there "not being enough money."
With that possibility out of the way, you are still quite correct that Bitcoin the protocol could fail for technical reasons, so arguably a monoculture in protocols is bad. However, monoculture in the sense of everyone using the same ledger is not a bad thing at all, and it's kind of the point of money in the first place; the only way it could be bad is if the system for updating that ledger were faulty, which again points to the protocol as a possible weak point, not the ledger itself.
TL;DR: Monoculture in protocols may introduce weaknesses; monoculture in a having a single ledger doesn't, and is pretty much the point of having money at all.
There absolutely should be one coin/ledger but is it imperative that there be one protocol/chain to update it?
Maybe multiple chains could allow us to manage the risk of one failed blockchain bringing its coin down with it?
Maybe multiple chains could allow us to manage the risk of one failed blockchain bringing its coin down with it?
And what if the coin itself fails, perhaps for economic rather than technical reasons?
The term "coin" is introducing confusion. The question is, what if the ledger fails?
This makes it clear that we must be careful to distinguish between the ledger (a conceptual spreadsheet keeping track of who owns what percentage of the economic community known as "the Bitcoin ecosystem" and later perhaps just "the global economy") and the protocol for updating that ledger.
Now here I wondered how you could possibly mean that a ledger - a mere spreadsheet - could "fail" for economic reasons. Then I noticed later you posted this, which is a common economic misconception that I recommend rooting out of your thinking completely:
Quote
Also your example of physical gold is not really an argument in favor of bitcoin because gold does not have a fixed supply and also has a supply that is responsive to technological advancement (correlated with economic growth).
The problem is in imagining that the money supply needs to expand to accommodate an expanding economy (or contract in an contracting economy). As a ledger, all that matters is what percentage of total supply you own. Disregarding the physical difficulty of working with very tiny pieces of gold, even a single ounce of gold would be enough to power the world economy, no matter how it may grow or shrink. Any amount of money works the same, because again it just comes down to what percentage of the total supply you hold. The term "1 BTC" just means 1/21M of the total ledger (or 1/13M of the current ledger). 130,000 BTC is just another way of saying "1% of the current ledger." An ounce of gold is just another way of saying X% of the total gold supply.
Laboring under that misconception, and thinking in terms of "coins" instead of a ledger (and these two confusions go hand in hand), I can see how you might think the Bitcoin ledger could fail due to there "not being enough money."
With that possibility out of the way, you are still quite correct that Bitcoin the protocol could fail for technical reasons, so arguably a monoculture in protocols is bad. However, monoculture in the sense of everyone using the same ledger is not a bad thing at all, and it's kind of the point of money in the first place; the only way it could be bad is if the system for updating that ledger were faulty, which again points to the protocol as a possible weak point, not the ledger itself.
TL;DR: Monoculture in protocols may introduce weaknesses; monoculture in a having a single ledger doesn't, and is pretty much the point of having money at all.
Why use sx or pybtctools? Easier, no need for blockchain, diversity, curiosity?
Why do we have Firefox, IE, Chrome, and Opera? can someone direct me to a source where i can practice constructing a multi-sig tx with the equivalent of a "createrawtransaction" using bitcoind and JSON-RPC?
you could try sx: https://sx.dyne.org/
I used bitcoind and json simply for reasons of consistency. Why use sx or pybtctools? Easier, no need for blockchain, diversity, curiosity?
I guess it's like learning another language. Literally, I suppose.
Its always insightful and fascinating for me to find out what drives all you smart people.
can someone direct me to a source where i can practice constructing a multi-sig tx with the equivalent of a "createrawtransaction" using bitcoind and JSON-RPC?
you could try sx: https://sx.dyne.org/
that was a pain in the ass. but well worth the time:
Yep. You'll always remember the first time you did raw multisig.
that was a pain in the ass. but well worth the time:
Jump to: