Pages:
Author

Topic: Is Buffet right or wrong? - page 6. (Read 10986 times)

hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
March 17, 2014, 09:29:14 PM
#83
pontiacg5, you've displayed your youthful ignorant idealism. All the governments of the world are into regulation. Doing a few high profile prosecutions on pools will be enough to scare the rest of them to enforce the regulations on you. Once there are 51% of the pools who are refusing blocks from pools which don't attach their signed regulated control number, then your movement to a unregulated pool means you earn precisely zero and your ASIC is a brick.

You don't seem to understand that the bankrupt masses are against you. They will support their governments' attempts to stop tax evasion and get control over the movement of money, because for one reason the government pays them.

More hogwash, CC transaction times are in the order of days, you just never see that.

What are you smoking?

I had a merchant account. Verification is a few seconds.

If you are referring to when the cash is transferred to the merchant account, that is irrelevant because from the customer's perspective it is instant because the merchant trusts the credit card company to fulfill the payment 95+% of the time.

Online transactions, that don't much care about a ten minute delay, are still worth a decent chunk of change.

Hell no. I hate that 10 minute delay. It slows me down a lot. I don't have 10 minutes to wait when I have several transactions to do, in fact where they were sequentially ordered and I couldn't do them in parallel.

And often it is more like 20 - 30 minutes.

They also benefit from other features of bitcoin.

What benefits for your average consumer? I see only disadvantages and no benefits.

A coin with no generation is worth nothing, surly you've heard of "pre-mine?" Quark tried quick generation, faster transactions (both pretty bad for a technical reason) and it sure seems to be floundering. Two step for transactions? Man, cmon...
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3718/what-are-multi-signature-transactions

Faster block periods doesn't require no generation of new coins.

Btw, Bitcoin's generation of new coins declines eventually to virtually 0.

All this time the other currencies are taking, you admit "quite a while" are loosing ground every day. If it takes too long, people are not going to want to change. To do so would undermine the entire trust in the whole thing, someone is holding the bag, either customers, merchants, or the most likely - everyone. Why would they want to do the whole shebang all over again?

You don't want your ASIC becoming a useless brick. I understand now the motivation for your myopia.

Not to say they can't co-exist together, which just adds a whole 'nother layer of complexity to the "feds is gonna get you!" theory.

Indeed altcoins offer more opportunities to experiment with what might be more stable against threats. Most will not succeed, but some or one might.
newbie
Activity: 37
Merit: 0
March 17, 2014, 08:56:44 PM
#82
RE: Is Buffet right or wrong?


 Buffett is a joke.


Caveat emptor

pretty much a joke. things are getting even funnier with buffett
legendary
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1001
This is the land of wolves now & you're not a wolf
March 17, 2014, 08:50:49 PM
#81
RE: Is Buffet right or wrong?


 Buffett is a joke.


Caveat emptor

Buffet is far from a joke...have you seen the levels he has brought his Berkshire Hathaway Class A stocks to?   Pretty much unprecedented in the stock market...
full member
Activity: 126
Merit: 100
March 17, 2014, 08:12:49 PM
#80
Far from a joke by most people's definition of the term
sr. member
Activity: 616
Merit: 250
March 17, 2014, 08:11:54 PM
#79
RE: Is Buffet right or wrong?


 Buffett is a joke.


Caveat emptor
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
March 17, 2014, 07:41:07 PM
#78
Bitcoin is flavor of the month.

It's possible to conceive of a better cryptographic store of value (imagine a more deflationary version of bitcoin with close to zero coins generated on the network that requires 2-step verification in order for transactions to occur).

Conversely, it's possible to conceive of a better medium by which value can be transferred (imagine bitcoin with blocks generated every few seconds - fast enough to generate confirms that compete with credit card authorizations).

Other cryptocurrencies will gain popularity that offer superior options to bitcoin eventually, although this might take a while.  Buffett's dead on about bitcoin, but I definitely see other cryptocurrencies existing in the future and being quite popular.  Bitcoin's inability to compete with the instantaneous confirmation speed of cash, or the 5 second confirmation speed of credit cards, will render it obsolete eventually, fiat or not, it's just a terrible general currency platform.

More hogwash, CC transaction times are in the order of days, you just never see that. Online transactions, that don't much care about a ten minute delay, are still worth a decent chunk of change. They also benefit from other features of bitcoin.

A coin with no generation is worth nothing, surly you've heard of "pre-mine?" Quark tried quick generation, faster transactions (both pretty bad for a technical reason) and it sure seems to be floundering. Two step for transactions? Man, cmon...
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3718/what-are-multi-signature-transactions

All this time the other currencies are taking, you admit "quite a while" are loosing ground every day. If it takes too long, people are not going to want to change. To do so would undermine the entire trust in the whole thing, someone is holding the bag, either customers, merchants, or the most likely - everyone. Why would they want to do the whole shebang all over again?

Not to say they can't co-exist together, which just adds a whole 'nother layer of complexity to the "feds is gonna get you!" theory.
full member
Activity: 125
Merit: 100
March 17, 2014, 07:03:08 PM
#77
Bitcoin is flavor of the month.

It's possible to conceive of a better cryptographic store of value (imagine a more deflationary version of bitcoin with close to zero coins generated on the network that requires 2-step verification in order for transactions to occur).

Conversely, it's possible to conceive of a better medium by which value can be transferred (imagine bitcoin with blocks generated every few seconds - fast enough to generate confirms that compete with credit card authorizations).

Other cryptocurrencies will gain popularity that offer superior options to bitcoin eventually, although this might take a while.  Buffett's dead on about bitcoin, but I definitely see other cryptocurrencies existing in the future and being quite popular.  Bitcoin's inability to compete with the instantaneous confirmation speed of cash, or the 5 second confirmation speed of credit cards, will render it obsolete eventually, fiat or not, it's just a terrible general currency platform.
full member
Activity: 126
Merit: 100
March 17, 2014, 06:57:45 PM
#76
While Buffet is one of the greatest investors to have lived, he has gone out of his way to avoid anything and everything tech for a long time now.  He is right about many things but Bitcoin probably is not one of them.
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
March 17, 2014, 06:21:05 PM
#75
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
March 17, 2014, 05:48:51 PM
#74
Anonymint, I get your points about anonymity (I've read a lot of your posts re: tainted coins/regulation/anonymity etc.)

Can you just explain one thing - the logistics of actually tracking down EVERY bitcoin owner/exchange customer IRL. I understand that with regulated exchanges there will be MORE chance of being tracked down, but I still think you're looking too much into the technicalities. For a start, there are anonymous exchanges like localbitcoins.

localbitcoins is not decentralized. You can't do anything without passing through a central server. Everything is logged there. Additionally most users are trading via traceable bank accounts, paypal, western union (with id), etc..

But even if peoples IP addresses/identities/RL addresses are logged, are LE going to go round everyone's house, arrest them and throw them in jail? It seems unlikely to me, I mean we're talking about millions of people, worldwide.

IRS (or equivalent in your country) sends you a summons for an audit. If necessary it is elevated to court and even criminal charges.

Enough of these examples will scare everyone else into complying.

To comply you need to demand identification from everyone you transact with and e-file a 1099 (or what ever form the IRS decides is required).

End of story. The users will regulate it for the IRS.
legendary
Activity: 1188
Merit: 1016
March 17, 2014, 05:41:18 PM
#73
Anonymint, I get your points about anonymity (I've read a lot of your posts re: tainted coins/regulation/anonymity etc.)

Can you just explain one thing - the logistics of actually tracking down EVERY bitcoin owner/exchange customer IRL. I understand that with regulated exchanges there will be MORE chance of being tracked down, but I still think you're looking too much into the technicalities. For a start, there are anonymous exchanges like localbitcoins.

But even if peoples IP addresses/identities/RL addresses are logged, are LE going to go round everyone's house, arrest them and throw them in jail? It seems unlikely to me, I mean we're talking about millions of people, worldwide.
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
March 17, 2014, 04:49:57 PM
#72
He is wrong. Just like he was wrong about Microsoft and Facebook.

Can you please explain why he is wrong

There is an owner of moneygram..  THIS is a massive difference.

You guys keep making this same mistaken analysis even I've already explained upthread why this is incorrect.

Bitcoin is already owned by the few pools, the few big exchanges, Bitpay, and other offchain businesses that will all be de facto "owned" by the government via regulation.

You either go 100% decentralized and do everything on the block chain, or you go back to ownership by the elite again.

There is no such thing as a little bit pregnant. Decide what you want.

Edit: I would relish the day that no one needed a bank, insurance company, or any other leeches who serve no necessary function.

What is it you are rattling on about, again?

Bitcoin isn't owned by any pools, if the shit were to hit the fan you can expect a mass exodus in no time at all, except for the dumbasses renting hardware for cex. Or do you think these miners are going to devalue their hardware and profits by continuing to stick with a fucked up pool? Did we forget the mass FUD last time CEX got so close to 50%? That sure was a big problem  Roll Eyes

I have NEVER sold a single bitcoin on a exchange, nor have I bought one through them. Please, tell me more about how I am "owned" by the government. Or, tell the steady supply of people who I sell coins to on a regular basis how they are owned by regulation.

Everything is in the blockchain, unless you choose to trust your coins to a third party. Nobody is forcing you to do that. Are you really this fucking stupid? If its not on the chain, you haven't got anything. Ask the goxxed....

So, again, tell me more about how things are done, how fucked I am, and other amusing bullshit that won't be relevant in 6 months, let alone a few years, so I can laugh some more. In the meantime, I sure wish you'd hold up your promise to go away.

hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
March 17, 2014, 04:23:08 PM
#71
He is wrong. Just like he was wrong about Microsoft and Facebook.

Can you please explain why he is wrong

There is an owner of moneygram..  THIS is a massive difference.

You guys keep making this same mistaken analysis even I've already explained upthread why this is incorrect.

Bitcoin is already owned by the few pools, the few big exchanges, Bitpay, and other offchain businesses that will all be de facto "owned" by the government via regulation.

You either go 100% decentralized and do everything on the block chain, or you go back to ownership by the elite again.

There is no such thing as a little bit pregnant. Decide what you want.

Edit: I would relish the day that no one needed a bank, insurance company, or any other leeches who serve no necessary function.
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 257
March 17, 2014, 04:15:10 PM
#70

IMO, Again, this old man don't see the potential of the new technology !

He probably does see the potencial, in the TECHNOLOGY. But not in one particular brand using that technology.
legendary
Activity: 1002
Merit: 1000
Bitcoin
March 17, 2014, 04:11:18 PM
#69
In early 1990's, Buffet said "Internet have no future, it's only for porn and gambling".

IMO, Again, this old man don't see the potential of the new technology !
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
March 17, 2014, 02:08:12 PM
#68
If the transactions will not be on the block chain, then you have unregulated fractional reserves

Did you say something about a "brain stem" ?

Yes I did.

"Unregulated fractional reserves" will happen with any money system, any culture, any technology, any market.

The distinction is that when I choose to only transact on the block chain, I am assured that I am not receiving someone's else liability.

If someone else wants to go trade counter-party risk funny money offchain, that is their prerogative but it has no relevance to my point upthread.

There's nothing to stop me advertising my car and sending 5 people a "promise" to deliver it in exchange for something of value to me. Thats an "unregulated fractional reserve".

Yep. And those offers or transactions aren't on the block chain. That is why I don't trust any "statement of value" that is not on the block chain. (don't conflate "statement" with real assets offchain, which are fine ... I will accept gold for example)

The criticisms you cite are straw men. They are not the real problems with the blockchain. In fact, blockchain transactions are about 300 times faster than present day bank transfers. 10 minutes vs 1-3 days. Furthermore, bank transfers are no more reversible than blockchain transfers and you DO NOT want reversibility in the blockchain.

The point of sale issues (speed, refunds, discounts, store cards, insurance, payment protection, monetary media) are not the domain of a money system. They are the domain of particular payment processors. (If they want to operate a fractional reserve system like MT Gox, so be it - that's one of the hazards of payment processors but again - it has nothing to do with Bitcoin the same way as Gox didn't have anything to do with Bitcoin).

Bitcoin is not a fractional reserve money system - it is a full reserve, unlevered form of base money. It's exactly the opposite of what all the anti-NWO'rs (of which I suppose I am one) are paranoid about when they talk about "electronic money". It's just that most of them are clueless about the mechanics of money anyway and so just stick with "anything electronic" as their definition.

You go with your fractional reserve money system.

We smart folks will go build a decentralized block chain money system without counter-party risk.

And let's compare who ends up where.  I already told you that yours will end up owned by the government, i.e. back to fiat. Because counter-party risk is failure (and especially for the next 10 - 20 years given the $223 trillion debt bomb) Wink

If the users are not using the base money, then the base money system will be controlled by those using it (and their government regulators!) which will be all your printed-from-thin-air money institutions you want offchain.

You didn't learn from the horrific failure of our current fractional reserve system nor even Mt.Gox, so you want to go back for sloppy seconds, thirds, fourths.

You really can't see that for example New York is preparing to regulate these offchain institutions so they have to have certain capital ratios, etc.. The government will take over and your 21 million coins base money will become irrelevant, because everyone will need to use the offchain money to do anything.

We can indeed put all those functions on the block chain, decentralized, and no cheating.

Edit: cripes the entire point of Satoshi's invention to solve the Byzantine General's problem was to eliminate the requirement to trust anyone. The breakthrough was eliminating the need to trust what can't be proven to be trustable.
legendary
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1188
March 17, 2014, 01:22:57 PM
#67
If the transactions will not be on the block chain, then you have unregulated fractional reserves

Did you say something about a "brain stem" ?

"Unregulated fractional reserves" will happen with any money system, any culture, any technology, any market.

There's nothing to stop me advertising my car and sending 5 people a "promise" to deliver it in exchange for something of value to me. Thats an "unregulated fractional reserve".

The criticisms you cite are straw men. They are not the real problems with the blockchain. In fact, blockchain transactions are about 300 times faster than present day bank transfers. 10 minutes vs 1-3 days. Furthermore, bank transfers are no more reversible than blockchain transfers and you DO NOT want reversibility in the blockchain.

The point of sale issues (speed, refunds, discounts, store cards, insurance, payment protection, monetary media) are not the domain of a money system. They are the domain of particular payment processors. (If they want to operate a fractional reserve system like MT Gox, so be it - that's one of the hazards of payment processors but again - it has nothing to do with Bitcoin the same way as Gox didn't have anything to do with Bitcoin).

Bitcoin is not a fractional reserve money system - it is a full reserve, unlevered form of base money. It's exactly the opposite of what all the anti-NWO'rs (of which I suppose I am one) are paranoid about when they talk about "electronic money". It's just that most of them are clueless about the mechanics of money anyway and so just stick with "anything electronic" as their definition.

sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
March 17, 2014, 01:18:33 PM
#66
Don't leave Kansas much do we.

Relevance?

I'm not getting into a pissing match with you, have a nice day!

sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
March 17, 2014, 01:04:18 PM
#65
I had seen that link before but I can't keep all the 100s (perhaps 1000s) of pertinent links in my head. That is an especially effective link.

Action will speak much louder than any words I can utter. And many disjointed comments spread out over a forum is I think much less effective than a well-organized whitepaper which shares all the technical knowledge I have. Which would also annoy the forum less.

Best regards.

I thought you were leaving?

 Roll Eyes

I see we have here a 24 year old little snot who built some GPU miners. Disrespecting a 48 year old man who has written several million users commercial programs.

This is what our western society has devolved to. Complete disrespect for accomplishments and elders.

Don't worry little boy, I am leaving your sandbox. No need to throw sand.

When the elders are complete and total jackasses, you bet. What our western society has developed into? I'm quite sure you old geniuses had a lot more to do with that than I. Maybe if you hadn't fucked shit up so bad, eh? Meanwhile, I managed to take that small little GPU miner investment, and turn it into over 30 grand in GPU hardware today. What did you do the last few years, bud? Bitch about bitcoin mining?

Please make this the last time you threaten to leave.
newbie
Activity: 34
Merit: 0
March 17, 2014, 12:54:59 PM
#64
He is wrong. Just like he was wrong about Microsoft and Facebook.

hahahahha, nothing more to add  Grin Grin Grin
Pages:
Jump to: