Topic: I am pretty confident we are the new wealthy elite, gentlemen. - page 110. (Read 631982 times)
January 09, 2015, 09:28:16 AM
That's what I tell homeless that try to bum from me in San Francisco (there's a lot of them), sorry I don't carry cash - only bitcoins.
January 09, 2015, 09:00:59 AM
Resurrection of the elite thread is normally bullish, but this time it is stuffed with trolls, so, bearish.
What's the opposite of wealthy elite?
Destitute commoners maybe? Someone should start that thread for us...
January 09, 2015, 08:52:02 AM
Resurrection of the elite thread is normally bullish, but this time it is stuffed with trolls, so, bearish.
January 09, 2015, 05:58:58 AM
Quote
Gold's chemical, electrical, and even some of its physical properties make it such that its rarity is the only thing keeping humans from using it in a variety of ways on a daily basis.
Blockchains are everywhere now. Useful, but not rare
Blockchains are everywhere now. Useful, but not rare
... this is a typically naive objection. Rarity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for money to have value and only one of many monetary properties that a free market evaluates when arriving at valuations.
You have much reading to do, google "subjective theory of value". Ever tried poking 100 ounces of gold through your internet jack to get it to instantly pop out on the other side of the world in your trading partner's hands?
You missed my point maybe. If rarity is a necessary condition, and blockchains aren't rare...
Because logic.
I wish people would stop saying what it's like saying and concentrate on what was actually said. The false analogy just muddies the water even more.
My point was not overly controversial I think.
If a clone of Bitcoin somehow took all the hash, it would then just become Bitcoin again. But gold is uniquely useful in a number of ways that can't easily be replicated. The fact that gold is rare is the reason we don't use it more
Sorry, but your statements are just perfect for "false analogies" since they don't make much sense.
I don't know, what is so hard to understand about: There will just be 21 million bitcoin ever and a dogecoin is not a bitcoin. So, Bitcoin are rare.
What if a decade from now a sidechain of Bitcoin is forked and takes all the hash? scBTC and BTC would not be that different. But Gold and Coal are..quite different
If coal in a decade would develop the same attributes as gold, it would overtake gold.
January 09, 2015, 05:44:38 AM
Quote
Gold's chemical, electrical, and even some of its physical properties make it such that its rarity is the only thing keeping humans from using it in a variety of ways on a daily basis.
Blockchains are everywhere now. Useful, but not rare
Blockchains are everywhere now. Useful, but not rare
... this is a typically naive objection. Rarity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for money to have value and only one of many monetary properties that a free market evaluates when arriving at valuations.
You have much reading to do, google "subjective theory of value". Ever tried poking 100 ounces of gold through your internet jack to get it to instantly pop out on the other side of the world in your trading partner's hands?
You missed my point maybe. If rarity is a necessary condition, and blockchains aren't rare...
Because logic.
I wish people would stop saying what it's like saying and concentrate on what was actually said. The false analogy just muddies the water even more.
My point was not overly controversial I think.
If a clone of Bitcoin somehow took all the hash, it would then just become Bitcoin again. But gold is uniquely useful in a number of ways that can't easily be replicated. The fact that gold is rare is the reason we don't use it more
Sorry, but your statements are just perfect for "false analogies" since they don't make much sense.
I don't know, what is so hard to understand about: There will just be 21 million bitcoin ever and a dogecoin is not a bitcoin. So, Bitcoin are rare.
What if a decade from now a sidechain of Bitcoin is forked and takes all the hash? scBTC and BTC would not be that different. But Gold and Coal are..quite different
January 09, 2015, 05:40:16 AM
Quote
Gold's chemical, electrical, and even some of its physical properties make it such that its rarity is the only thing keeping humans from using it in a variety of ways on a daily basis.
Blockchains are everywhere now. Useful, but not rare
Blockchains are everywhere now. Useful, but not rare
... this is a typically naive objection. Rarity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for money to have value and only one of many monetary properties that a free market evaluates when arriving at valuations.
You have much reading to do, google "subjective theory of value". Ever tried poking 100 ounces of gold through your internet jack to get it to instantly pop out on the other side of the world in your trading partner's hands?
You missed my point maybe. If rarity is a necessary condition, and blockchains aren't rare...
Because logic.
I wish people would stop saying what it's like saying and concentrate on what was actually said. The false analogy just muddies the water even more.
My point was not overly controversial I think.
If a clone of Bitcoin somehow took all the hash, it would then just become Bitcoin again. But gold is uniquely useful in a number of ways that can't easily be replicated. The fact that gold is rare is the reason we don't use it more
Sorry, but your statements are just perfect for "false analogies" since they don't make much sense.
I don't know, what is so hard to understand about: There will just be 21 million bitcoin ever and a dogecoin is not a bitcoin. So, Bitcoin are rare.
January 09, 2015, 05:19:20 AM
Quote
Gold's chemical, electrical, and even some of its physical properties make it such that its rarity is the only thing keeping humans from using it in a variety of ways on a daily basis.
Blockchains are everywhere now. Useful, but not rare
Blockchains are everywhere now. Useful, but not rare
... this is a typically naive objection. Rarity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for money to have value and only one of many monetary properties that a free market evaluates when arriving at valuations.
You have much reading to do, google "subjective theory of value". Ever tried poking 100 ounces of gold through your internet jack to get it to instantly pop out on the other side of the world in your trading partner's hands?
You missed my point maybe. If rarity is a necessary condition, and blockchains aren't rare...
Because logic.
I wish people would stop saying what it's like saying and concentrate on what was actually said. The false analogy just muddies the water even more.
My point was not overly controversial I think.
If a clone of Bitcoin somehow took all the hash, it would then just become Bitcoin again. But gold is uniquely useful in a number of ways that can't easily be replicated. The fact that gold is rare is the reason we don't use it more
January 09, 2015, 05:11:23 AM
Quote
Gold's chemical, electrical, and even some of its physical properties make it such that its rarity is the only thing keeping humans from using it in a variety of ways on a daily basis.
Blockchains are everywhere now. Useful, but not rare
Blockchains are everywhere now. Useful, but not rare
... this is a typically naive objection. Rarity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for money to have value and only one of many monetary properties that a free market evaluates when arriving at valuations.
You have much reading to do, google "subjective theory of value". Ever tried poking 100 ounces of gold through your internet jack to get it to instantly pop out on the other side of the world in your trading partner's hands?
You missed my point maybe. If rarity is a necessary condition, and blockchains aren't rare...
Because logic.
January 08, 2015, 07:36:37 PM
You missed my point maybe. If rarity is a necessary condition, and blockchains aren't rare...
Because logic.
.. quite sure that you've missed mine.
There is only ONE bitcoin blockchain that will never have more than 21 million tradeable units. The bootstrap phase is already over, bitcoin is money, end of story. If you think you can bootstrap similar network effect value into a competing decentralised blockchain and computing hash-backed secure transaction network, good luck to you. Altcoins
If Bitcoin dumps any lower we will have to bootstrap it again
January 08, 2015, 07:34:06 PM
You missed my point maybe. If rarity is a necessary condition, and blockchains aren't rare...
Because logic.
.. quite sure that you've missed mine.
There is only ONE bitcoin blockchain that will never have more than 21 million tradeable units. The bootstrap phase is already over, bitcoin is money, end of story. If you think you can bootstrap similar network effect value into a competing decentralised blockchain and computing hash-backed secure transaction network, good luck to you. Altcoins
January 08, 2015, 07:17:57 PM
Quote
Gold's chemical, electrical, and even some of its physical properties make it such that its rarity is the only thing keeping humans from using it in a variety of ways on a daily basis.
Blockchains are everywhere now. Useful, but not rare
Blockchains are everywhere now. Useful, but not rare
... this is a typically naive objection. Rarity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for money to have value and only one of many monetary properties that a free market evaluates when arriving at valuations.
You have much reading to do, google "subjective theory of value". Ever tried poking 100 ounces of gold through your internet jack to get it to instantly pop out on the other side of the world in your trading partner's hands?
You missed my point maybe. If rarity is a necessary condition, and blockchains aren't rare...
Because logic.
January 08, 2015, 07:14:45 PM
Quote
Gold's chemical, electrical, and even some of its physical properties make it such that its rarity is the only thing keeping humans from using it in a variety of ways on a daily basis.
Blockchains are everywhere now. Useful, but not rare
Blockchains are everywhere now. Useful, but not rare
... this is a typically naive objection. Rarity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for money to have value and only one of many monetary properties that a free market evaluates when arriving at valuations.
You have much reading to do, google "subjective theory of value". Ever tried poking 100 ounces of gold through your internet jack to get it to instantly pop out on the other side of the world in your trading partner's hands?
January 08, 2015, 07:01:49 PM
mining is what gives bitcoin it's worth
People are what give Bitcoins its worth. The blockchain is totally fucking worthless without humans (duh...)
gold, silver, diamonds, aluminium, steel, etc, etc are also effing worthless without humans ... however, if humans value something the expense/cost to dig it up, melt it down, calculate, compute, etc is what gives it worth ... think about it.
http://szabo.best.vwh.net/shell.html
Quote
... At first, the production of a commodity simply because it is costly seems quite wasteful. However, the unforgeably costly commodity repeatedly adds value by enabling beneficial wealth transfers. More of the cost is recouped every time a transaction is made possible or made less expensive. The cost, initially a complete waste, is amortized over many transactions. The monetary value of precious metals is based on this principle. It also applies to collectibles, which are more prized the rarer they are and the less forgeable this rarity is. It also applies where provably skilled or unique human labor is added to the product, as with art. ...
Gold's chemical, electrical, and even some of its physical properties make it such that its rarity is the only thing keeping humans from using it in a variety of ways on a daily basis.
Blockchains are everywhere now. Useful, but not rare
January 08, 2015, 06:36:12 PM
mining is what gives bitcoin it's worth
People are what give Bitcoins its worth. The blockchain is totally fucking worthless without humans (duh...)
gold, silver, diamonds, aluminium, steel, etc, etc are also effing worthless without humans ... however, if humans value something the expense/cost to dig it up, melt it down, calculate, compute, etc is what gives it worth ... think about it.
http://szabo.best.vwh.net/shell.html
Quote
... At first, the production of a commodity simply because it is costly seems quite wasteful. However, the unforgeably costly commodity repeatedly adds value by enabling beneficial wealth transfers. More of the cost is recouped every time a transaction is made possible or made less expensive. The cost, initially a complete waste, is amortized over many transactions. The monetary value of precious metals is based on this principle. It also applies to collectibles, which are more prized the rarer they are and the less forgeable this rarity is. It also applies where provably skilled or unique human labor is added to the product, as with art. ...
January 08, 2015, 06:28:16 PM
mining is what gives bitcoin it's worth
People are what give Bitcoins its worth. The blockchain is totally fucking worthless without humans (duh...)
Mining is a good way of fucking a lot of people who don't understand 6 ways from Sunday. It also maybe the thing that saves Bitcoin.
Time will tell far better than I could speculate, but like I said I think BTC should remain the same and law makers should just fuck off for 5 years to let all this shit get sorted out by the community and user base.
January 08, 2015, 04:09:39 PM
If BTC had a market cap of $8 Billion I think it would be more secure to require the attacker to purchase the 51% rather than use a bunch of zombie computers + special made chips.
This should be self evident but most Bitcoiners seem to miss this important point.
Even if PoS systems thus far haven't given us our Bitcoin-ready fully robust system sufficiently tested yet, everyone should be supporting research towards that goal. Anyone who doesn't see the obvious benefits of cutting out the mining waste, both financial and environmental, probably just invested all their money in ASICs or something. That or they're crazy.
Mining sucks.
mining is what gives bitcoin it's worth
January 08, 2015, 03:08:42 PM
If BTC had a market cap of $8 Billion I think it would be more secure to require the attacker to purchase the 51% rather than use a bunch of zombie computers + special made chips.
This should be self evident but most Bitcoiners seem to miss this important point.
Even if PoS systems thus far haven't given us our Bitcoin-ready fully robust system sufficiently tested yet, everyone should be supporting research towards that goal. Anyone who doesn't see the obvious benefits of cutting out the mining waste, both financial and environmental, probably just invested all their money in ASICs or something. That or they're crazy.
Mining sucks.
January 05, 2015, 02:44:23 PM
and I'm saying there is a cost to do a decent attempt at fucking up a PoS coin, a threshold value, that does not scale a lot, when market cap of a PoS coin gets big enough, it will be worth fucking up, until then, it's a $5 in a brick vault that remains "impregnable" only because it's not worth $5 to mess with.
Ya the costs would be large due to having to buy out 51% of the coin or launching a site like Just-dice.
I wonder if BTC was PoS if Coinbase or someone else would have great than 51% of the coins staking against the network.
The Silk Road obviously would have and there aren't just too many kick ass trustable Bitcoin services to pool coins for staking. Just-dice is currently WAY over 51% of the staked coins in this lil BS I'm watching and learning from.
I expect PoS would make Bitcoin centralized very fast after watching the "$5 brick" for a month, but that could change as that "$5 bricks" market cap grows + adds services.
If BTC had a market cap of $8 Billion I think it would be more secure to require the attacker to purchase the 51% rather than use a bunch of zombie computers + special made chips.
January 05, 2015, 02:41:24 PM
and I'm saying there is a cost to do a decent attempt at fucking up a PoS coin, a threshold value, that does not scale a lot, when market cap of a PoS coin gets big enough, it will be worth fucking up, until then, it's a $5 in a brick vault that remains "impregnable" only because it's not worth $5 to mess with.
For a strange reason you divided the number by 10000...
January 05, 2015, 02:33:35 PM
and I'm saying there is a cost to do a decent attempt at fucking up a PoS coin, a threshold value, that does not scale a lot, when market cap of a PoS coin gets big enough, it will be worth fucking up, until then, it's a $5 in a brick vault that remains "impregnable" only because it's not worth $5 to mess with.
Jump to: