Topic: Stop your BTC cheerleading and mass delusion and face the reality - page 5. (Read 10181 times)

I think there is some misunderstanding between OP and his opponents.

If my understanding is correct (OP correct me if I got it wrong) OP doesn't claim that blockchain technology is a fad and I see no statement in his stance that suggests that the future global financial infrastructure isn't going to be underpinned by cryptography and peer-to-peer technology. On the other hand, many people who react to OP's stance seem to be doing an amalgamation of the concept of crypto-currency and the specific instance of this concept that is Bitcoin and generalize any argument made against Bitcoin as if they were made against the technical breakthrough of blockchain technology at large and its relevance to the future of global financial infrastructure. Granted, the fact that Satoshi didn't dissociate the name of the concept he invented from the name of its first implementation participates to the confusion.

But let's step back and look at things objectively: Satoshi's major contribution isn't Bitcoin but blockchain technology in the same way as James Watt's contribution to technology is the steam engine with rotary motion as a general concept and not that specific 10-horsepower model that he initially patented and that back then was perceived to be his invention and was expected to take over locomotion globally. A few hundred years later nobody remembers that specific engine model he submitted and we are not even using steam powered vehicules anymore but everyone remembers James Watt as the guy who figured how to convert steam power into rotary motion and enabled a new era of mass transportation. So these people who feel outraged at the idea that Satoshi's invention is being riped off by copycats and Satoshi's credit and legacy diluted, don't worry: although it may seem from our current perspective that so called alternate currencies are parasites and that Satoshi's original invention is being abused and wronged somehow, it will appear in hindsight that this frustrating invasion of alternate currencies was indeed the path chosen by technological evolution that made it possible for blockchain technology to prevail eventually.

Technology as the extension of evolution in human realm will seek to fill any gap that would allow for improvement. We know that a faster transaction network is possible. We know that a transaction network with more bandwidth is possible. We know that a transaction network consuming less resources is possible. We know that a transaction network with more features is possible. We know that a transaction network more fit to existing global financial ecosystem is possible. And we know that technological evolution / progress will ensure that what is possible actually occurs. We therefore all know that a transaction network with faster transaction time, larger bandwidth, lower resources consumption, larger features set and more fitness to current ecosystem is bound to emerge and replace Bitcoin. Although this is a difficult truth to look at, convinced as we are that this would somehow be some betrayal to Satoshi's legacy, this is nonetheless the truth and history will show that no matter how many iterations and what the final form blockchain technology will take, Satoshi will forever be celebrated as the man behind this revolution.

The bottom line as far as this thread is concerned is that although blockchain technology has entered our technological genome for good, Bitcoin as its first instance is not here to stay and will necessarily be replaced by more advanced designs. I will not venture to speculate on timelines or the identity of possible contenders and it is very possible that the currency that will overtake Bitcoin hasn't been incepted yet but a quick look at market capitalizations will nonetheless confirm beyond doubt that the relative market share of Bitcoin is shrinking and prompt objective observers to realize that Bitcoin is losing ground.

Upon this realization, investors would be wise to start analyzing the market and consider hedging when they perceive that a viable contender has entered the market and appears to be gaining ground.

Can you please provide a link to the Satoshi statement in context? Was it on this forum?

I believe I know which theory Satoshi was ascribing too. It is called the Moldbug Monetary Theory. Moldbug is a central figure in the Dark Enlightenment.

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2011/04/on-monetary-restandardization.html


Moldbug is correct that the reason national currencies exist is because national governments exist. We don't individually trade internationally, thus most of us don't need a global unit-of-account, but the world is shrinking now and that is why now there is a push underway towards a global currency (or at least region currencies which regional free trade blocs, e.g. the Asian Union coming 2015 where there will be free movement of workers to any country in ASEAN).

What Moldbug is saying is that no matter what vehicles you might use to transact in, you will always be converting value back to the one monetary standard (one for your country or in the near future region or global monetary standard).

I believe Satoshi's point is that Bitcoin's value as an economic unit can not survive without taking over the world and becoming the monetary standard. And yes this is 100% correct. Even though Moldbug's timing was off, he correctly predicted How Bitcoin Will Die.

This doesn't mean Bitcoin won't live on as a bastardized payment mechanism folded into Paypal, Coinbase, etc.. But it does mean the economic unit of Bitcoin will not be what is traded long-term. Because the world population will standardize on a monetary unit and prefer to hold their balances in their unit-of-account.

Realize what unit-of-account means. It means you have no exchange volatility in your life. You can budget and plan.

So yes Bitcoin is mostly a speculation. It doesn't have the features to do a "coup" as Moldbug says.

And the blackswan is could anyone create an altcoin that could do that "coup"?

Well I have had an alternative theory based on Moldbug's theory. I figured out that the global economy could bifurcate. Meaning we might end up with one monetary standard for the Knowledge Age and another one for the dying Industrial Age.

Why? Because there is a Coasian barrier between the two, akin the logic above about barriers to direct trade across national boundaries.

I've detailed those arguments in my and AnonyMint's archives.

I know what I am doing. And I am so far out in the economics stratosphere compared to you neophyte wannebees, it is no wonder you don't understand me.

I lead quite a satisfying life with plenty of family and friend contact without a Facebook account.  It can be done.

tl,dr

this thread nails it with the OP

crypto will not fail but bitcoin could become insignificant faster than you would like it to happen. Inflation was never a good thing.

I'll dump my coins in the alts that provide a better model of emission of coins.

In case of bitcoins fail prepare for a serious boom in altcoins.

Here's something to wrap your head around: people are fallible.  So what if S. Nakamoto made that statement, it doesn't make it a foregone conclusion.

Reading comprehension is very low in this forum. I was an early investor or user in some projects too. That doesn't change the fact that Facebook was not open to the general public until Sept 2006.


Forcing everyone to read about who is on your personal ignore list is pathetic posturing. Nobody cares. Stay on constructive discussion if you want to be relevant.

Just added a couple users to the ignore list, including the OP

I use these trolling threads as opportunities to identify the really desperate shills
And I get them on the ignore list immediaty

Ummm I've been using facebook since 2004.

Never huh?

Like all those who said silver would never fall again below $17. Like all those who said Bitcoin wouldn't fall from $1000 to $350. Yeah I was predicting all those in public, I even publicly predicted the $48 top for silver 1 year before it occurred.

Sorry you are just hot air. I have an analysis record which speaks loud and clear.

He may have created it, but he also may have slept through ECON 101. The ALL OR NOTHING demise works on very few things. No currency is used COMPLETELY worldwide. Gold isn't used worldwide. That doesn't mean they store no value. Your thread probably got moved to Speculation since you hint at the future of Bitcoin with what "Satoshi's All or Nothing Law". I'm sure what Satoshi was meaning was that Bitcoin must have a large market cap to have faith in its value to succeed, not replace every single dollar. Stop being such a bear. 

To whom it may concern:

This thread was moved from Bitcoin Discussion to Speculation after cca. 1 hour

Incidentally the thread titled "What will you do if bitcoin price fall down to $100 ?" has been in the Bitcoin Discussion section for almost 4 days.

What are you afraid of mods? Free speech ?

you sir may be a brilliant developer but horrible at economics - told you this at least four times this year . point 2-5 are very valid use cases for bitcoin. your arguments are may be reasonable for certain countries - but never on global scale.

Just because Satoshi said it, doesn't make it true, it was just his personal opinion.

You gotta be kidding me. This is the written statement by a man who created bitcoin. You need a head check buddy.

It doesn't have to absorb it all or be nothing. There are people who only use cash, won't use the internet, telephones, don't have a facebook, etc..It doesn't have to be a part of a lot of countries to succeed, just be used by a percentage of the population as a choice of payment. Just because Satoshi said it, doesn't make it true, it was just his personal opinion. Stop saying it like it's a scientific law.  This is just the start of Bitcoin. It will take years to develop and make more mainstream so the less techinically inclined people can use it and understand it. The sentiment of the forum right now is horrible. Yes, bears have been right this year, but they cannot predict the long term future of Bitcoin. Everyone needs to stop sh1tting on Bitcoin so people who google it don't come across so much negativity from people who are only trying to drive the price down and collect more coins for themselves. It scares people away and gives Bitcoin a bad name.

Price has been going down for the past 12 months, if you haven't noticed by now. BTC is cca. 70% down from the high at the end of the 2013.

My post doesn't have anything to do with the price going down from 375 to 350 USD. If you think I am that someone could be that shallow well, there's nothing more I can say.

That is the black swan. We don't know if it will happen nor whether Bitcoin will adopt new features. I tend to agree with you that an altcoin could rise, except I can tell you that I have tried to develop an altcoin from scratch (totally new code base) and the amount of work seems to be beyond what I can accomplish as one developer (although a younger guy with better health or sufficiently focused group might be able to).

I don't agree with the declining utility, because Bitcoin can remain the reserve currency of the altcoins, so as altcoins grow Bitcoin gains utility. And other utility Bitcoin can gain, per plans of Paypal, etc.. I just think the other utility won't scale as fast as the utility as a speculation delusion.

Conceptually Bitcoin shows the way to the utility of decentralized autonomy. However the protocol as it stands now lacks the feature set to make that a reality. For me to go into the details of why I think this would require several pages of text. Sorry I been there, done that. I am tired.

Edit: the altcoin hope is mostly a delusion too, is what I am trying to say in that first paragraph above. Because there is far more to it than just being technically superior. There also has to be a compelling reason to switch. No altcoin is even close to achieving that. That is why I started to take caution about wasting my valuable man-hours trying to code something far beyond my production rate and for which the outcome is very dubious at best. However I continue to search for that idea that is a "no brainer". Btw, most of the dark coins are just nonsense technology, for example Darkcoin can be Sybil attacked on master nodes and Bitcoindark can be jammed. Cryptonote ring signatures do conceptually provide end-to-end principle of the internet but they as currently implemented are very inefficient and subject to Sybil attack driving the transaction fees very high. Etc, etc, etc. The technical details are far beyond what I can write here...

BTC could go to $50 (for example) and it is still doing really well compared to a few years ago.
~5 or 6 years is still new, so to say otherwise is simply not correct.

Nope. I'm seeing utility, but declining utility. Technically superior cryptocurrencies will beat Bitcoin as payment methods on the deep web eventually. Bitcoin will continue losing value, but it won't be totally worthless anytime soon. Even ten years from now, it might still be valued at more than a dollar a piece, although I doubt it.

Check your logic. You are mixing your emotional feeling about a declining price with the reality that you see utility in the concept of a Bitcoin. Something doesn't line up in your brain.

On the next bubble, your emotions will shift in the other direction.

The OP's alleged quote of Satoshi is wrong about Bitcoin declining to 1 cent. Very wrong, regardless if Satoshi wrote that or not.