Topic: rpietila public diary -- Episode II - page 7. (Read 40823 times)

I have adjusted my assessment of the exchange rate and its near-term development as follows (originally posted in Wall Observer):

I am obviously a troll who doesn't want you to understand my ideas.

That is why I deleted most of my posts from this thread.

And when you all go to jail, do not PM or contact me and say I was correct. I won't care. Because you didn't either.

What I did notice is not a single person could refute anything I wrote. The best I read was "we trust the situation will change, but we have no clue how it might specifically, just decentralization and innovation will save us". But then you don't even know what IP address has to do with anonymity and you think you are qualified to make that judgement?

Besides I will reveal a new vulnerability I found in Bitcoin just an hour ago. I will make a new thread on this. Bitcoin is indeed doomed. This is much more imminent than the Transactions Withholding Attack. It has to do with the fact that transaction fees % can not stop increasing.

If you think that is anonymity, then you are not qualified to speak on the matter. Yeah you don't know about the IP stuff. You are a technical neophyte. So your opinion on the matters I write about is not worthy, because you can't see the big picture.

Besides I am much deeper studied on what has been going on with the various nations, while you've been busy building silverbank and doing deals. I've been researching these past years on true state-of-affairs.

Merkel lied. As soon as she was re-elected, she signed over sovereignty of Germany to the EU. The push to federalize is being accelerated under your nose while you are not looking.

I am not going to try to teach you any more. I've deleted most of my posts from your thread (I still have copy for my private records). Enjoy the bliss. My day to sigh will come...

As for other tax jurisdictions, you will be taxed based on your country of birth. Even if you buy a new citizenship, this will likely be revoked because the developing nation governments will be under immense financial pressure from the USA and the EU as the global economy implodes and they need dollars. There are a few tricks that can be used to gain a citizenship in a developing country that can't likely be revoked no matter what. Marriage is one but only in some countries, and most developing Asian countries not possible. And there is another option that doesn't require marriage, but it is my secret and I am only telling those who I are very close to me and I feel deserve it.

OK guys, now for something completely different:

Bitcoin Dealer Network.

During last summer, I had time to develop this matter, but now I have not had the energy to push it. The failure of all the exchanges to cope with demand again, proves that it is of systemic nature. The new demand is coming in waves, and it is not economical for the exchanges to invest in advance. Systemic nature means, the problem will not go away, ever, as long as the exchanges are a dominant way of trading bitcoins.

The dealer network would relieve a great burden from the exchanges, enable large new holders to buy and existing holders to exit effortlessly, and would reduce the volatility to a fraction of what it is in the current system. It would also scale faster and better to the growing size of Bitcoin economy and remove the central-point-of-failure problem that is still plaguing us despite that there are now more exchanges than just one.

The text is quite technical, I hardly understand it myself after a few months Please bear with that and comment on the subject matter instead. Have a nice read!

You didn't refute. Re-read the rest of the original post from that quote down. And don't fail to refute any point. You can't.

An alternative link where I summarized why bitcoin is a ponzi scheme and the reason the 21 million coin limit makes it unarguably so:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3649398

Is Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme?
In a Ponzi Scheme, the founders persuade investors that they’ll profit. Bitcoin does not make such a guarantee. There is no central entity, just individuals building an economy.
A ponzi scheme is a zero sum game. Early adopters can only profit at the expense of late adopters. Bitcoin has possible win-win outcomes. Early adopters profit from the rise in value. Late adopters, and indeed, society as a whole, benefit from the usefulness of a stable, fast, inexpensive, and widely accepted p2p currency.
The fact that early adopters benefit more doesn't alone make anything a Ponzi scheme. All good investments in successful companies have this quality.


And I only see one point and it is this give them out in point form or something

And quotes on the math, noting that there is no ongoing income to support a P/E ratio that would keep dividend investors invested (thus mathematically it is a ponzi scheme and this is unarguable unless it is currency distributed to the masses):

Rebuttal:

Bitcoins have value because they are useful and because they are scarce. As they are accepted by more merchants, their value will stabilize.

When we say that a currency is backed up by gold, we mean that there's a promise in place that you can exchange the currency for gold. Bitcoins, like dollars and euros, are not backed up by anything except the variety of merchants that accept them.

It's a common misconception that Bitcoins gain their value from the cost of electricity required to generate them. Cost doesn't equal value – hiring 1,000 men to shovel a big hole in the ground may be costly, but not valuable. Also, even though scarcity is a critical requirement for a useful currency, it alone doesn't make anything valuable. For example, your fingerprints are scarce, but that doesn't mean they have any exchange value.
Alternatively it needs to be added that while the law of supply and demand applies it does not guarantee value of Bitcoins in the future. If confidence in Bitcoins is lost then it will not matter that the supply can no longer be increased, the demand will fall off with all holders trying to get rid of their coins.

An example of this can be seen in cases of state currencies, in cases when the state in question dissolves and so no new supply of the currency is available (the central authority managing the supply is gone), however the demand for the currency falls sharply because confidence in its purchasing power disappears. Of-course Bitcoins do not have such central authority managing the supply of the coins, but it does not prevent confidence from eroding due to other situations that are not necessarily predictable.

I see, excuse my assumption then.  Best of luck.

I do think you mean well, I think...you know your life would be a lot easier and less stressful if you just bought a few bitcoins and got over the anxiety of not getting in on the ground floor right?

Amazing, Larry Summers has basically endorsed the principle behind Freicoin.  Though they don't use the terminology it's basically demurrage that's being discussed.  Naturally from a centralized point as with current FED which is different from FRC, but the basic idea that Interest rates SHOULD be negative is a huge statement and a HUGE break with orthodoxy.

Why couldn't (or wouldn't) the emerging markets just default? 
If so, then there goes that demand for the dollars to pay back the debt, correct?

Anonymint, you are clearly very intelligent and your theories are certainly plausible, but I find the absolute certainty of your claims to be disconcerting. Could you at least acknowledge the possibility that you are wrong. Also, I am not aware of any other geniuses who constantly proclaim that they are geniuses as you do. Anyway, I appreciate your vigilance in defense of freedom, and if your bitcoin conspiracy theory is correct, I wish your altcoin success.  

Thank you. I am sure that no one can rationally argue with you, so please make the altcoin before we are all doomed.

Sorry but I find it difficult to take your points seriously when you start by criticising another on facts then making spurious claims.

You keep referring to Bitcoin as a ponzi scheme.  I understand why people may say tulip bulbs but a ponzi scheme is something else.  This is simply incorrect.

What is your evidence that people's primary incentive for holding bitcoin is exponential growth?  I would like to see your sources.  We can to a large extent determine people's behaviour with bitcoin because the evidence is in the block chain.  But the 'why' is not written in the block chain.  Your deductions from people's behaviour as to their motives may well be 100% correct but you're doing yourself no favours by claiming your deductions as fact.

When I first bought bitcoins I was enthused by its potential.  The decentralised potential to by-pass the banking system for remittences and, as was discussed in the hearing last night, the potential for the world's unbanked (I have to admit I had not even considered you have a considerable number of US unbanked too).  I said to myself I don't care if the value of what I hold goes to a fraction of what I paid for it if it serves this purpose.  I just want to be involved.  As it happens, people 'getting involved' means the price goes in my favour but to me it is secondary.  Tell me, how, looking at my transactions on the block chain would you tell that I am not holding coins primarily to sell them to someone else for more?  And if you can't tell mine, how can you be sure you know others' motives?

Just a question

Again. I see your point.  But governments cannot control bit coin.  At least not yet.  They would have to own most of it which will likely never happen.

State backed digital money might be something to be frightened of. But bitcoin's design will frighten states.  It could be bad for the usd, but bitcoin isn't to blame for our demise there.

As to china... Ignore the hysterical headline and 51% stuff, but this article will show how bit coin is growing up into something bigger than a 'ponzi bubble'.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/18/investing/bitcoin-china/

Your line of reasoning is only really compelling when you ignore what is happening in china.

Let me assume the Bitcoin singularity is some concept that assumes some critical mass will be reached where the remaining portion of the population must rush to obtain Bitcoin.

This can't happen because Bitcoin is not a widespread currency, thus the only significant utility of Bitcoin is a ponzi bubble.

Rather what will happen is that Bitcoin will reach market saturation and the exponential growth will be lost. Then it will collapse to near 0 in an accelerating stampede exodus. I don't think this can happen for a year or more yet. We could see another significant correction and then another runup before seeing the final end. Bitcoin is probably far from market saturation, and it also depends on competition if any because mass-mania psychology (driving the tiny float) is the main factor of Bitcoin's valuation.

Bitcoin is the typical greed emotion overtaking logic phenomenon. If you fall too deep into this Risto, you will end up similar to what happend to Jason Hommel and his fall from $15 million valuation in speculative bubble stocks with tiny floats. I will send you a PM on this. You SHOULD read it.

Great post overall. An excellent, concise and flamboyant summary.

I fully support the idea of AnonyMint having threads of his own, but it seems to suit him better to dwell in frameworks created by others. I would never have bought Jason's monthly report if there was no forum, and the forum was not dominated by Jason but by AnonyMint. His way of writing is very provocative and would probably not attract enough target audience without this hijacking trait. I can and will make new threads when the old ones get too infested with extreme personalities

EDIT: Personal attacks should be kept at the minimum necessary, OK?

Follow this logic a ways: The intrinsic* value is based - at the very bottom - on the nascent present uses as a currency and remittance system, and more so on its future uses in such capacities. That value, largely based on future promise though it may be, provided the initial bedrock for the store-of-value functionality. And since Bitcoin has absolutely revolutionary features when used as a store of value, even a little adoption of Bitcoin as a store of value is a virtuous cycle. People believe in its future for various uses, including store of value but a whole lot more, and so they don't sell much. It becomes more and more an excellent store of value, now outlandishly excellent, preposterously amazing, utterly world-beating in this regard going up 10 million percent in four years. Teleportable, deniable, non-confiscatable if done right, and 10M% gain in four years. It's impossible not to call this the greatest intergalactic homerun of all time in the store-of-value department, so far at least.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1mb27q/bitcoins_vast_overvaluation_appears_caused_by/cc7i6y8

Bitcoin is simply a universal ledger. You want to secure your place on that universal ledger, because the planet is moving toward adopting this universal ledger idea, as it is vastly superior to any alternative. The only thing that was needed was the initial motivation to use this ledger. Once some people use it, they create the incentive for more to want to use it, and so on. There's no limit until it takes over the earth or gets replaced by something else.

People will back at how we used to trade industrial and decorative metals around to communicate value and laugh at how primitive it was.

"How would you get those metals to your friend on the other side of the world?"

"Well you could fly them there, but that was really hard, or you could trust a chain of companies in different jurisdictions to take your metals and make sure someone over there gave the same amount to your friend, all the intermediaries taking a cut of course. Alternatively, you could use paper certificates printed by governments that promised they wouldn't print too many, but always broke those promises eventually."

"What the heck?! You had the Internet. Why didn't you just have a universal ledger?"

*improper term: use "non-monetary value" or "non-exchange value," because nothing has intrinsic value, technically (valuation is always a subjective judgment)