Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 955.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: nexern on September 15, 2014, 05:05:26 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on September 15, 2014, 05:00:52 PM

Quote from: valarmg on September 15, 2014, 04:48:50 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on September 15, 2014, 04:33:05 PM

ppl will always want to stay in the most liquid store of value which in this case is Bitcoin b/c of its fixed supply and market cap. only when they need to trade it for a token will they do so. and only for a specific purpose. the underlying platform's purpose can have value, it's just that its tokens will trend to 0 from lack of liquidity and limited demand.

In what market have this ever happened (one stock/currency has dominated all others due to liquidity/marketcap)? Just as long as the other token/coin has sufficient liquidity/marketcap, then why wouldn't people stay in the other one? In fact, if there were two cryptos of similar market size, the liquidity of both would be improved by the trade between them.

well, for 5000 yrs or so, gold dominated currencies. silver was a hack b/c there wasn't enough physical gold to serve the world's need for a widespread money that could be easily divided.

Bitcoin comes along and now we can disseminate a fixed supply currency easily worldwide. we don't need any other cryptocurrency hacks to serve a global monetary function.

wow, so you say btc is perfect and there is no need for improvements?
and i thought it is proved that standstill is a throwback.

Gavin and the core devs do make improvements when they and the community see a need to do so. fortunately, the network is performing quite well with increasing hashrate and more merchants.

what you call a standstill, i call stability. investors want a degree of certainty and predictability. Bitcoin provides that. NXT otoh, keeps changing.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: _mr_e on September 15, 2014, 04:56:17 PM

It's only unfair as long as you didn't make any money off of it. Given that forging gives extremely minimal returns compared to other options you could spend your nxt on, this argument has grown very tired. Then again, don't the rich always get richer, how does nxt do this any differently?

You should know that more then anyone given the trading capital you likely have at your fingertips. Pretty unfair if you ask me. You should just leave all your money in the bank. The interest would give you more then forging would!

that unfairness is perceived by the mkt and discourages any future investors from wanting to be bagholders.

Moneroman88

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 252

Quote from: cypherdoc on September 15, 2014, 05:00:52 PM

well, for 5000 yrs or so, gold dominated currencies. silver was a hack b/c there wasn't enough physical gold to serve the world's need for a widespread money that could be easily divided.

Bitcoin comes along and now we can disseminate a fixed supply currency easily worldwide. we don't need any other cryptocurrency hacks to serve a global monetary function.

I call BS BTC hype Wink

, there are far superior technologies than Bitcoin available right now at this very second and you're aware of that. Monero (XMR) uses advanced CN technology that actually introduces real privacy, a point that is absolutely crucial. Beyond that Monero is supported by the majority of the oldschool Bitcoiners, hence the status quo is that Bitcoin's survival depends on the good will of Monero supporters not to let it crash. Does't really look all that solid... but go ahead and keep hyping Bitcoin as the only thing that matters...

_mr_e

legendary

Activity: 817

Merit: 1000

Interesting timing: http://two-bit-idiot.tumblr.com/post/97258629244/adept-ibm-samsung-bitcoin

nexern

hero member

Activity: 597

Merit: 500

Quote from: cypherdoc on September 15, 2014, 05:00:52 PM

Quote from: valarmg on September 15, 2014, 04:48:50 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on September 15, 2014, 04:33:05 PM

ppl will always want to stay in the most liquid store of value which in this case is Bitcoin b/c of its fixed supply and market cap. only when they need to trade it for a token will they do so. and only for a specific purpose. the underlying platform's purpose can have value, it's just that its tokens will trend to 0 from lack of liquidity and limited demand.

In what market have this ever happened (one stock/currency has dominated all others due to liquidity/marketcap)? Just as long as the other token/coin has sufficient liquidity/marketcap, then why wouldn't people stay in the other one? In fact, if there were two cryptos of similar market size, the liquidity of both would be improved by the trade between them.

well, for 5000 yrs or so, gold dominated currencies. silver was a hack b/c there wasn't enough physical gold to serve the world's need for a widespread money that could be easily divided.

Bitcoin comes along and now we can disseminate a fixed supply currency easily worldwide. we don't need any other cryptocurrency hacks to serve a global monetary function.

wow, so you say btc is perfect and there is no need for improvements?
and i thought it is proved that standstill is a throwback.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: valarmg on September 15, 2014, 04:48:50 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on September 15, 2014, 04:33:05 PM

ppl will always want to stay in the most liquid store of value which in this case is Bitcoin b/c of its fixed supply and market cap. only when they need to trade it for a token will they do so. and only for a specific purpose. the underlying platform's purpose can have value, it's just that its tokens will trend to 0 from lack of liquidity and limited demand.

In what market have this ever happened (one stock/currency has dominated all others due to liquidity/marketcap)? Just as long as the other token/coin has sufficient liquidity/marketcap, then why wouldn't people stay in the other one? In fact, if there were two cryptos of similar market size, the liquidity of both would be improved by the trade between them.

well, for 5000 yrs or so, gold dominated currencies. silver was a hack b/c there wasn't enough physical gold to serve the world's need for a widespread money that could be easily divided.

Bitcoin comes along and now we can disseminate a fixed supply currency easily worldwide. we don't need any other cryptocurrency hacks to serve a global monetary function.

valarmg

full member

Activity: 237

Merit: 100

Quote from: Torque on September 15, 2014, 04:53:38 PM

Quote from: valarmg on September 15, 2014, 04:39:57 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: valarmg on September 15, 2014, 04:15:13 PM

Does silver as a store of wealth erode the value of gold being a store of wealth?

Of course.

Yet gold can still maintain 100trillion market cap or whatever it is. It doesn't cause the value of gold to collapse because 'why do we need gold, we can just store our value in silver or platinum or ...'

No, the gold market doesn't collapse because there are other PM's. But could you say the market cap of gold would be a lot bigger if silver and platinum PM's didn't exist? I think so.

Yes, probably.

Someone made a comment that if a second crypto had a value of the same order of magnitude as bitcoin, then all cryptos would lose their credibility because cryptos would no longer have scarcity anymore. My point was that it's possible to have a multitude of stores of value, and that a second one might take a chunk out of the first, but it wouldn't destroy the idea of cryptos as a store of value.

_mr_e

legendary

Activity: 817

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cypherdoc on September 15, 2014, 04:50:21 PM

Quote from: devphp on September 15, 2014, 04:38:44 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on September 15, 2014, 04:33:05 PM

ppl will always want to stay in the most liquid store of value which in this case is Bitcoin b/c of its fixed supply and market cap. only when they need to trade it for a token will they do so. and only for a specific purpose. the underlying platform's purpose can have value, it's just that its tokens will trend to 0 from lack of liquidity and limited demand.

For now Bitcoin is the most liquid store of value. But you said a few posts above that it's just the early days of Bitcoin. Well, if it's just the early days of Bitcoin, one can say other projects like NXT are still sucking breast milk Grin

i meant in relation to fiat. it's Big Daddy in relation to NXT and getting bigger. Cheesy

Quote

We don't know what the most liquid one will be in a few years and why people would need to stay in one and have to do exchange operations to use another, if they could just stay in that another one which is more useful and thus make it the most liquid by its utility value.

if i were to guess, i'd guess NXT may not even be around. and it has to do with the unfair initial distribution model and how pos encourages centralization to existing stakeholders.

It's only unfair as long as you didn't make any money off of it. Given that forging gives extremely minimal returns compared to other options you could spend your nxt on, this argument has grown very tired. Then again, don't the rich always get richer, how does nxt do this any differently?

You should know that more then anyone given the trading capital you likely have at your fingertips. Pretty unfair if you ask me. You should just leave all your money in the bank. The interest would give you more then forging would!

Torque

legendary

Activity: 3794

Merit: 5474

Quote from: valarmg on September 15, 2014, 04:39:57 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: valarmg on September 15, 2014, 04:15:13 PM

Does silver as a store of wealth erode the value of gold being a store of wealth?

Of course.

Yet gold can still maintain 100trillion market cap or whatever it is. It doesn't cause the value of gold to collapse because 'why do we need gold, we can just store our value in silver or platinum or ...'

No, the gold market doesn't collapse because there are other PM's. But could you say the market cap of gold would be a lot bigger if silver and platinum PM's didn't exist? I think so.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: devphp on September 15, 2014, 04:38:44 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on September 15, 2014, 04:33:05 PM

ppl will always want to stay in the most liquid store of value which in this case is Bitcoin b/c of its fixed supply and market cap. only when they need to trade it for a token will they do so. and only for a specific purpose. the underlying platform's purpose can have value, it's just that its tokens will trend to 0 from lack of liquidity and limited demand.

For now Bitcoin is the most liquid store of value. But you said a few posts above that it's just the early days of Bitcoin. Well, if it's just the early days of Bitcoin, one can say other projects like NXT are still sucking breast milk Grin

i meant in relation to fiat. it's Big Daddy in relation to NXT and getting bigger. Cheesy

Quote

We don't know what the most liquid one will be in a few years and why people would need to stay in one and have to do exchange operations to use another, if they could just stay in that another one which is more useful and thus make it the most liquid by its utility value.

if i were to guess, i'd guess NXT may not even be around. and it has to do with the unfair initial distribution model and how pos encourages centralization to existing stakeholders.

valarmg

full member

Activity: 237

Merit: 100

Quote from: cypherdoc on September 15, 2014, 04:33:05 PM

ppl will always want to stay in the most liquid store of value which in this case is Bitcoin b/c of its fixed supply and market cap. only when they need to trade it for a token will they do so. and only for a specific purpose. the underlying platform's purpose can have value, it's just that its tokens will trend to 0 from lack of liquidity and limited demand.

In what market have this ever happened (one stock/currency has dominated all others due to liquidity/marketcap)? Just as long as the other token/coin has sufficient liquidity/marketcap, then why wouldn't people stay in the other one? In fact, if there were two cryptos of similar market size, the liquidity of both would be improved by the trade between them.

devphp

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 260

Quote from: _mr_e on September 15, 2014, 04:43:53 PM

Go ahead, store your wealth in bitcoin and use these systems as you see fit. That was the whole point I have always been trying to get across.

This.

_mr_e

legendary

Activity: 817

Merit: 1000

Part of the reason these coins are needed are because bitcoin cannot be changed very easily. Therefore these additional features have sprung up and I simply look at them as extensions of bitcoin that don't require changes to the core. Counterparty's asset exchange is horrible compared to nxt due to limitations of bitcoin itself, limitations that will not be resolved any time soon. Bitcoins network does not want to be used in that way.

Go ahead, store your wealth in bitcoin and use these systems as you see fit. That was the whole point I have always been trying to get across.

valarmg

full member

Activity: 237

Merit: 100

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: valarmg on September 15, 2014, 04:15:13 PM

Does silver as a store of wealth erode the value of gold being a store of wealth?

Of course.

Yet gold can still maintain 100trillion market cap or whatever it is. It doesn't cause the value of gold to collapse because 'why do we need gold, we can just store our value in silver or platinum or ...'

Pruden

hero member

Activity: 496

Merit: 500

Spanish Bitcoin trader

Quote from: thezerg on September 15, 2014, 01:37:56 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on September 15, 2014, 12:56:31 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on September 15, 2014, 11:49:05 AM

from the Boston Fed:

Second, the resource cost of mining is becoming increasingly unaffordable, not to mention the inefficiency associated with this aspect of the system design. Again, it is possible that within a few years it will become infeasible to rely on this distributed model, however consolidated, to verify transactions.

if it's so unaffordable, then why does it keep doing this?:

Why can no one understand that we don't need this hashing power to secure this network? I doubt we need 1% of what we have today, given the impact destroying it would have. Obviously a major govt could (at great cost) 51% it. But most governments that have the means are ultimately responsible to the people and killing BTC by 51% attack is not the legal approach they would take (as opposed to a ban). Therefore hashing only needs to secure against a private enterprise. When you realize that 51%ing does not allow you to steal other people's coin -- it only can be used to stop them from spending, to reap all the mining rewards and to double spend, you quickly realize that economically this is a losing proposition.

Completely agree. As I stated before, the low fees paid are proof that users consider that the network has more than enough hashrate and there is no need to pay for more.

It also reminds me of bubble charts and makes me think if the capital allocated to Bitcoin is better placed than in many other assets in what the NYT called "The Bubble of Everything" the other day. Maybe Bitcoin, or a good part of it, is in the same side as housing, stocks, land, art, exclusive cars and antiques in these times of zero-risk money.

devphp

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 260

Quote from: cypherdoc on September 15, 2014, 04:33:05 PM

ppl will always want to stay in the most liquid store of value which in this case is Bitcoin b/c of its fixed supply and market cap. only when they need to trade it for a token will they do so. and only for a specific purpose. the underlying platform's purpose can have value, it's just that its tokens will trend to 0 from lack of liquidity and limited demand.

For now Bitcoin is the most liquid store of value. But you said a few posts above that it's just the early days of Bitcoin. Well, if it's just the early days of Bitcoin, one can say other projects like NXT are still sucking breast milk Grin

We don't know what the most liquid one will be in a few years and why people would need to stay in one and have to do exchange operations to use another, if they could just stay in that another one which is more useful and thus make it the most liquid by its utility value.

_mr_e

legendary

Activity: 817

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cypherdoc on September 15, 2014, 04:17:17 PM

Quote from: _mr_e on September 15, 2014, 04:03:53 PM

Quote from: Melbustus on September 15, 2014, 03:33:50 PM

Quote from: _mr_e on September 15, 2014, 03:16:59 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on September 15, 2014, 03:14:29 PM

I'm impressed with the number of pos guys following this thread. Wink

Why does it have to be us vs them? Why must the crypto space be so divided? I am not a "pos guy". I simply see some value and utility in a well designed system and want to share that with others, just as I do with bitcoin.

Fiat is the enemy here.

Because if another coin even gets close (same order of mag) to bitcoin in terms of market cap, it seriously erodes the "scarcity" feature/argument of bitcoin, which is one of the most critical arguments for putting any wealth/mindshare/time/effort into bitcoin (and by extension, any crypto). Guys like Schiff and Rickards would be proven right, and no one would be comfortable putting any wealth into any crypto for a long long time. Thus, everyone would lose. Humanity would not see the benefits that decentralized money can bring for many years/decades longer than if bitcoin simply becomes the obvious-to-everyone non-dethronable crypto store of value.

To be clear, I think there's niche value in some alts, and some of the experimentation is valuable. But you guys who think that many coins can live side by side with similar monetizations are missing the key point that if that happened, we'd all be sitting side-by-side at *trivial* market-caps, not big ones.

It appears that all of my posts stating the Nxt is not a "coin" have gone ignored. Not sure what is the point in refuting the same arguments over and over.

I have no interest in trying to dethrone Bitcoin. It's is crypto's store of value. That is it's job. It provides the backing everything else that comes after it. Bitcoin goes up, everything goes up. Bitcoin goes down, everything goes down - because they are directly tied to Bitcoin. Bitcoin is your entry into cryptoland. From there you are free to do as you wish with any system you wish, free of regulation and red tape and slow processes and filled with CHOICE! This is what crypto gives us: CHOICE and FREEDOM to do what we want with our money. Bitcoin is our direct gateway into that and does it exceptionally well.

Any coin that is a direct fork of bitcoin is not worth a second glance due to the reasons you mention above. However I believe that like Nxt, Maidsafe, Storj etc are NOT coins. They provide innovative value that is completely separate from it being a currency. They are token that exist on a system that provides other functions - and guess what, their value ARE MEASURED IN BITCOINS and is therefore in direct relation to the utility they provide crypto as a whole! The use of these systems should bring more value to crypto and therefore Bitcoin itself. Of course because they have value they can be traded LIKE a currency and will speculated on but that is not their primary goal. That is Bitcoin's job and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Bitcoin's value is not and should not be threatened by this and if it is, then it would be because it is not doing it's job very well.

well, i'll agree with you there. all these Bitcoin 2.0 projects involve "tokens", which unlike you say, are fundamental to the success of the underlying platforms. otherwise, how could you trade a token that is worthless for storage space? tokens have to have some value to do this.

the problem though is that those tokens will inevitably trend to 0 value. they are like United Flyer miles. i can't tell you how many times those miles have been devalued or outright cancelled due to non use. for the Bitcoin 2.0 projects, which have specific uses, it will behoove cryptocurrency users to hold their BTC over time until they have the need for these specific use cases. this is b/c of the fixed supply nature of Bitcoin and its real world relationship to ever increasing fiat currency. in other words, BTC should increase in value over time as one holds them instead of tokens. this encourages market participants to hold their BTC until such time as they "need" to use them. the converse is that the value of tokens on other platforms should trend to 0.

I've heard this debate before, but I don't think a winner was ever crowned: http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-139-the-validity-of-appcoins

What will really happen is yet to be seen.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: devphp on September 15, 2014, 04:28:14 PM

Quote from: Melbustus on September 15, 2014, 03:33:50 PM

Because if another coin even gets close (same order of mag) to bitcoin in terms of market cap, it seriously erodes the "scarcity" feature/argument of bitcoin, which is one of the most critical arguments for putting any wealth/mindshare/time/effort into bitcoin (and by extension, any crypto). Guys like Schiff and Rickards would be proven right, and no one would be comfortable putting any wealth into any crypto for a long long time. Thus, everyone would lose. Humanity would not see the benefits that decentralized money can bring for many years/decades longer than if bitcoin simply becomes the obvious-to-everyone non-dethronable crypto store of value.

To be clear, I think there's niche value in some alts, and some of the experimentation is valuable. But you guys who think that many coins can live side by side with similar monetizations are missing the key point that if that happened, we'd all be sitting side-by-side at *trivial* market-caps, not big ones.

If scarcity is the only argument you can present, well, that's a weak position. And why does anyone have to prove anything to Peter Schiff? He's in his zone of comfort, no reason to persuade him of anything.

Trivial market caps or big ones, as long as the total market cap of all cryptos grows, that means cryptos perform their function of giving shelter from the fiat system. If you thought you could comfortably stay in Bitcoin and other people would be happy to get a few crumbs from the early adopters' table, well, you thought wrong. Bitcoin is just software. In software world if you can develop better software there is a high chance you can beat the old one. People will always be trying to compete and be the first, that's human nature, and that's how all better things are born.

take a stab at my post 2 above yours.

ppl will always want to stay in the most liquid store of value which in this case is Bitcoin b/c of its fixed supply and market cap. only when they need to trade it for a token will they do so. and only for a specific purpose. the underlying platform's purpose can have value, it's just that its tokens will trend to 0 from lack of liquidity and limited demand.

devphp

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 260

Quote from: Melbustus on September 15, 2014, 03:33:50 PM

Because if another coin even gets close (same order of mag) to bitcoin in terms of market cap, it seriously erodes the "scarcity" feature/argument of bitcoin, which is one of the most critical arguments for putting any wealth/mindshare/time/effort into bitcoin (and by extension, any crypto). Guys like Schiff and Rickards would be proven right, and no one would be comfortable putting any wealth into any crypto for a long long time. Thus, everyone would lose. Humanity would not see the benefits that decentralized money can bring for many years/decades longer than if bitcoin simply becomes the obvious-to-everyone non-dethronable crypto store of value.

To be clear, I think there's niche value in some alts, and some of the experimentation is valuable. But you guys who think that many coins can live side by side with similar monetizations are missing the key point that if that happened, we'd all be sitting side-by-side at *trivial* market-caps, not big ones.

If scarcity is the only argument you can present, well, that's a weak position. And why does anyone have to prove anything to Peter Schiff? He's in his zone of comfort, no reason to persuade him of anything.

Trivial market caps or big ones, as long as the total market cap of all cryptos grows, that means cryptos perform their function of giving shelter from the fiat system. If you thought you could comfortably stay in Bitcoin and other people would be happy to get a few crumbs from the early adopters' table, well, you thought wrong. Bitcoin is just software. In software world if you can develop better software there is a high chance you can beat the old one. People will always be trying to compete and be the first, that's human nature, and that's how all better things are born.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: _mr_e on September 15, 2014, 04:03:53 PM

Quote from: Melbustus on September 15, 2014, 03:33:50 PM

Quote from: _mr_e on September 15, 2014, 03:16:59 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on September 15, 2014, 03:14:29 PM

I'm impressed with the number of pos guys following this thread. Wink

Why does it have to be us vs them? Why must the crypto space be so divided? I am not a "pos guy". I simply see some value and utility in a well designed system and want to share that with others, just as I do with bitcoin.

Fiat is the enemy here.

Because if another coin even gets close (same order of mag) to bitcoin in terms of market cap, it seriously erodes the "scarcity" feature/argument of bitcoin, which is one of the most critical arguments for putting any wealth/mindshare/time/effort into bitcoin (and by extension, any crypto). Guys like Schiff and Rickards would be proven right, and no one would be comfortable putting any wealth into any crypto for a long long time. Thus, everyone would lose. Humanity would not see the benefits that decentralized money can bring for many years/decades longer than if bitcoin simply becomes the obvious-to-everyone non-dethronable crypto store of value.

To be clear, I think there's niche value in some alts, and some of the experimentation is valuable. But you guys who think that many coins can live side by side with similar monetizations are missing the key point that if that happened, we'd all be sitting side-by-side at *trivial* market-caps, not big ones.

It appears that all of my posts stating the Nxt is not a "coin" have gone ignored. Not sure what is the point in refuting the same arguments over and over.

I have no interest in trying to dethrone Bitcoin. It's is crypto's store of value. That is it's job. It provides the backing everything else that comes after it. Bitcoin goes up, everything goes up. Bitcoin goes down, everything goes down - because they are directly tied to Bitcoin. Bitcoin is your entry into cryptoland. From there you are free to do as you wish with any system you wish, free of regulation and red tape and slow processes and filled with CHOICE! This is what crypto gives us: CHOICE and FREEDOM to do what we want with our money. Bitcoin is our direct gateway into that and does it exceptionally well.

Any coin that is a direct fork of bitcoin is not worth a second glance due to the reasons you mention above. However I believe that like Nxt, Maidsafe, Storj etc are NOT coins. They provide innovative value that is completely separate from it being a currency. They are token that exist on a system that provides other functions - and guess what, their value ARE MEASURED IN BITCOINS and is therefore in direct relation to the utility they provide crypto as a whole! The use of these systems should bring more value to crypto and therefore Bitcoin itself. Of course because they have value they can be traded LIKE a currency and will speculated on but that is not their primary goal. That is Bitcoin's job and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Bitcoin's value is not and should not be threatened by this and if it is, then it would be because it is not doing it's job very well.

well, i'll agree with you there. all these Bitcoin 2.0 projects involve "tokens", which unlike you say, are fundamental to the success of the underlying platforms. otherwise, how could you trade a token that is worthless for storage space? tokens have to have some value to do this.

the problem though is that those tokens will inevitably trend to 0 value. they are like United Flyer miles. i can't tell you how many times those miles have been devalued or outright cancelled due to non use. for the Bitcoin 2.0 projects, which have specific uses, it will behoove cryptocurrency users to hold their BTC over time until they have the need for these specific use cases. this is b/c of the fixed supply nature of Bitcoin and its real world relationship to ever increasing fiat currency. in other words, BTC should increase in value over time as one holds them instead of tokens. this encourages market participants to hold their BTC until such time as they "need" to use them. the converse is that the value of tokens on other platforms should trend to 0.

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 955. (Read 2032274 times)