Topic: One opportunity no one in Bitcoin universe talks about - page 4. (Read 6151 times)

The point of derivatives was not to keep the price of Bitcoin at par to the dollar, but it can provide a hedge for those who want to use Bitcoin when their unit-of-account must be the dollar due to realities of their business.

But you missed the main point which has nothing to do with your assumption above.



Amazes me how people can't reason things out. I can't imagine what it feels like to be average. Must be ignorant bliss.


I had presciently answered you:

Why on God's green earth wouldn't we want the price to increase as the market cap grows?

edit:
i was going to show the OP a few home truths, but ill wait till he waffles on for 9 pages before bringing him into reality

The bubbles are created due to the link to a fiat currency that is chaotic in nature and unstable. Get bitcoin out of the dollar and the dollar out of bitcoin and we shall see what truly happens.

Saying we need derivatives are needed based on the conversion of bitcoins back into an unstable currency is a fallacy.

The currency is already liquid. Look at all the stuff you can buy. The large price swings are caused by the Payee's fear of bitcoin not the coin itself. It's their immediate conversion into an unstable currency that is creating the problems. Find for ways for people to want to hold bitcoins. This isn't it. You are creating something uncessary. It won't increase liquidity. The coin is already liquid. It's Payee's demand for dollars that create the price swings on the downside and speculation and easy credit on the upside.

I think you are saying let's keep the price stable and people will want to hold them? Is this correct? This is a fallacy. You assume too much. Why would a place like overstock want to hold bitcoins. Explain that to me. Do their suppliers deal in bitcoin. Are there contracts available to the supplier that overstock could offer their suppliers. The answer again is a resounding no. If you want Overstock to hold more bitcoins. Make it possible for them to conduct business in bitcoin. What smart business would want to deal in a system with no possibility of any legal repercussions. It has to do with adoption, lack of legal framework, and development infancy as to why people are directly converting bitcoin back into dollars. That IS the problem.

I'm listening, but you can't just poorly explain your point and then call anyone who misses it a noob. If your suggestion doesn't have to do with the money supply, please explain what you mean.

Are you referring to the network scaling? As in, if the whole world was using the currency, the network couldn't handle the necessary transaction volume?

I am imparting knowledge that most of you do not possess.


Wait I appreciate the on topic post, but if both parties to a futures-bet pay margin to the script which decides the outcome, then the contract can't default.

Let them complain to the government until they are blue in the face. With decentralization and anonymity, there is nothing the government can do to help them.

The point is derivatives increase liquidity. Most goldbugs are ignorant of this fact.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/11/18/gold-future-looking-brighter/

its even worse: there are less than 21 mio 

You did not read the linked post from Armstrong. That is the opportunity that no one in the Bitcoin universe talks about. It is the very first line of the OP. How can you miss it?

Btw, I knew you would not read the linked article and that you would make these asinine statements because of your laziness. You are so predictable.

Flashman ignored the context of the OP and you two also have ignored the context. How can you people be taken seriously when your reading comprehension (or attention span, but that is the same thing) is so low?


See the word decentralized in underlined in the OP for a reason. Decentralized scales must faster than centralized.

Again I know the people don't read carefully, even when I underline for emphasis to help them.

I commend you for at least trying to address the actual context of the OP.


Non-sequitur to argue that something scales because it scales.

Flashman, I must do a mea culpa and apologize to you.

Sufficient range of precision is one of many requirements for scaling, because otherwise the smallest tradable denomination could become too large.

I knew that but your point though is so far out-of-context from the OP. I am clearly writing about how to move more capital into the coin without necessarily increasing the price. For example, with bets long and short, they cancel each other out and allow people to hedge.

Again apologies for not making this acknowledgement sooner, as I had driven to dinner and realized on the drive out that I should acknowledge that precision does interact with scaling. Just arrived home.

Also bear in mind the many requirements for scaling, e.g. block size, ECDSA verification overhead, bandwidth overhead, propagation delay and impacts on orphan rate, etc..

Note your flippant statement of "False" deserves the ridicule I made, because even IF we ignored the context of the OP, precision alone is not sufficient for scaling.

There are some derivative products being offered
by a few firms, I believe.  I remember reading
about some.

Also as the market cap grows,
there will naturally be more and more liquidity.

There is no such thing as decentralized financial derivatives.  It's just a bunch of idiots gambling on things they can't possibly understand, and when one of them inevitably loses their ass they go crying to the nearest government.  I'm not endorsing Ethereum, but it's almost better that this kind of crap stays completely out of Bitcoin altogether.  Almost.

Talking down to "noobs" as if you actually understand said topic.  Shit like this is brought up very often by smart asses like yourself.  If you'd actually read the forum, you'd see that the last time something like this was posted was a few days ago.

You should change the title of the thread from "no one in Bitcoin universe talks about" to "is brought up almost weekly by some n00b.

Actually you are the second person this week. At least your title was not all caps "BITCOIN IS FLAWWED!". But still about just as bad.

Only scales not being understood round here are the scales on your eyes stopping you from reading some shit before posting ridiculous threads.

As I said, n00bs will spew nonsense because they don't understand the technical term "scale".

Conflating precision with scaling is hilarious.

False.

It's infinitely divisible.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/12/04/why-central-banks-buy-equities/

There isn't enough liquidity in the Bitcoin asset to accomodate the $200 trillion net worth. Just $10 billion (actually much less because a market cap is greater than the actual cash invested in the asset during an all time high price, since not everyone paid the highest price) caused Bitcoin to have a severe bubble and crash in 2013.

The only way the liquidity can scale orders-of-magnitude faster is decentralized financial derivatives:

https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/White-Paper#financial-derivatives-and-stable-value-currencies

Non-technical n00bs don't understand the technical meaning of "scale", so n00bs please don't waste my time with your nonsense.