Topic: The Bitcoin decimal issue (Read 5567 times)

yeah boy this is how it goes gown in the real world i say pull certs and flush out the bad actors give bitcoin back to the user base, what i find amazing is for bitcoin being an open sourced project that censorship is over the top in this neck of the woods NYC;)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tlhvFusnPI

so the conclusion is:

There is no "Bitcoin decimal issue", since the storytellers weren't willing (or able) to point out any issue in a coherent fashion

There is no point in guessing about his motives, until OP actually presents something tangible.

And just for the record: the storrytellers and FUD spreaders where first in this funny thread.

You should take a hint, he doesn't want to be specific probably because of the way you attack others trying to show yourself as better than others. You're just like everyone else here and always will be, we won't know the truth until it is applied and we learn the outcome. The market is too complicated even for the smartest person to wrap every variable around in their head. Give it up kid, move on.

everyone please note: dont't fall for that bait.

This piece of text looks as if it implies a meaning.
When you have a more closer look, any tangible statement has been carefully omitted.
It's an invitation to the reader to interpolate a tendency, and as such it is insideous

Hi wingdong, can you please say explicitly what you mean, instead of sending codes and allusions around?

Your op doesn't contain much substance, but shows a lot of misconceptions.
We have discussed this in breadth, and you received a full K.O and weren't able to answer anymore.
So we're done with your OP.


Up to now you haven't provided any meaningful statements, only confused and contradictory stuff.

But now you get your second chance:


you state, "it is fundamental"

OK now say why...

you state "there is an issue"

OK now describe it...

Even if satoshi and co. had millions of coins in the beginning it is worthless.

Then it was like, 1 million BTC = 100 - 200 pizzas.

Its not worth complaining. You'll learn to accept the fact, or you don't.

It is fundamental -not technicalities. Read my op. And try to get it this time.


So "you" (Bitcoin user's community) don't have a solution? Really? What if "we" have? - but don't want to deploy it, because that would turn bitcoin into a currency instead of a commodity, and vaporize our get-rich-scheeme.

Thats true.
A new payment system needs to create an incentive for using it, because the network-effect of the existing payment systems works against adapting a new one. In this sense, the act of hoarding bitcoins to profit from the rate gains helps to bridge the time until there is more utility for bitcoins as a payment medium.

But it might be a problem that the bitcoin rates may continue to rise even at a point, where Bitcoin doesn't need such a supporting mechanism anymore, since it has already wider adoption. Now you might argue that such continuously rising rates simply reduce the usability of Bitcoin, and thus help to limit the demand and moderate the price rise. This is certainly true, but in practice, this process can be expected to be rough, not smooth, and will create a lot of adaptation issues, for which we (Bitcoin users community) don't have a working solution to deploy.

But I think, these are technicalities, not a fundamental issue.

For those who think Bitcoin benefits early adapters unfairly, it is not. I had a difficult time to convince myself. Sooner or later, you are going to accept that point; if you don't then you can also choose to stay away from the system. Even if you don't accept, still you can buy / mine bitcoins..

As usual with any other technologies, early adopters take risk, and they will be rewarded accordingly.

Bitcoin distribution is competitive process, and we don't have a company behind Bitcoin to do this distribution, like Ripple.

If you think ASIC hardware companies like BFL, mine with their units then you can choose not to buy miners from them, but complaining is not going to help.

If you think you missed $0.01 - $100 exchange rates you can blame early adapters, but if you watch prices go up to $200 from here then who you will blame?

How about simply saying what you want to say?
Instead of just sending some "codes" or spreading a smell?


After considering this thread, this seems to be incredibly difficult



And yes, there can be issues with scaling the decimals of an currency unit.

Posting memes and telling fairy tales won't help with such.

I didnt expect u to understand. Sorry we are not on the same wavelength. Good day

Sounds like a childish babble. What is your point, sir?



Are you mentably capable to grasp this?
Very much on topic.

Lol the formalized manor like jpm in comex? How about tarp for equities? Ooooh ooh what about snb? Boj? Almost forgot about that didnt ya? Very well conditioned we were to see that!

How about stick to the point of topic. The thread is dead op doesnt know wht he was saying.

in the western, European/american political culture framework, a democratic state is considered to have such a mandate for intervention into monetary and market aspects. But this is bound to the condition, that this intervention happens in a formalised manner and sticks to some pre determined rules.

But a vague association of people using some currency throughout the globe is in no way such an democratic state, and doesn't have a mandate for market regulation. Same is true for any business entity, company or the like.

This means, Bitcoin can not just be swapped in as a replacement for any existing legal tender (in our existing system, legal tender is backed by a relative constant value through decree).

But as far as I can see, there is no fundamental obstacle to build something on top of Bitcion, a value measurement unit, which can be used as legal tender. This is not to say this would be a trivial undertaking.

So to conclude.

User Weisoq comes to this thread.
He behaves in a partonising manner, implying that his interlocutors are zealots, proponents of a belief structure, adhering to some obvious bitcoin myths.

When prompted to make his critique explicit, he starts spreading insults and asks suggestive "teacher questions", but plain flat refuses to make a clear point.



you should not "believe", assume, and imply what other people might intend.
Rather you should make your presuppositions clear and make your conclusions explicit. Then there is room for discussion.


The question "is Bitcoin scarce?" is rogue, since it treats scarcity as a substantial property of Bitcoin. Which it isn't. Scarcity is a result of demand and supply. Likewise value, which is in addition subject to a lot of subjective factors of judgement. Everyone participating in an unregulated market should be aware of that.


This question is akin to asking "is uncle Bob's sleeping room on the left side of the house? because then this means..." -- a classic suggestive trap-door question. Is east left, or is west left? Neither, since it depends on the coordinate system.


Thus my insistence on explicit presuppositions and clear structured thinking, when we intend to treat a subject like the effects of scaling and dividing of a currency unit. Doing so creates a lot of effects, both subtle and blatant ones.

But judging which of these currency-scaling effects must be considered as "an issue" requires to make your moral coordinate system explicit. What kinds of behaviours do we consider to be harmful? AND are we in a position to intervene and defeat those harmful aspects? Do we have a mandate for intervention, and on which foundation?

No I didn’t think so. Pathetic.

In propagation of a belief structure or infrastructure it is for the believer to justify such belief to the sceptic, not the other way around. Whether my views on Bitcoin are that of atheism or agnosticism or adherence, such a sceptical starting point is that shared by those yet to take up the concept and therefore questions needs addressing (questions and views that friends and colleagues enquiring of Bitcoin and cryptos in general have, which is what makes this discussion particularly interesting).

I have to assume that your reference to an initial simple and fundamental question as insidious (rather than just answering it; and there’s nothing confused about it whatsoever, scarcity is a prime factor in assessing the value of any asset) implies that you think the answer to that question will provide a means for you to begin outlining my critique for me. Which means we’re going nowhere, and so I’m done with wasting my time on this discussion. Good luck.

You guys should be arguing over twitter..

Long arguments, and difficult to get the point

using small fractions of a coin does not pose any problems for payments.
But, just to pick one issue, making Bitcoin legal tender would require to denote the tax dept and salary and prices in other units of measurement. Thus it can't be a drop-in replacement for the kind of legal tender we're using today. Is there a fundamental problem with that, or is this just something which requires additional technicalities?

Weisoq, can you please stop spreading insults and stay on topic and clarify your critique?

It is not up to me to answer to hinsideous and confused questions ("is Bitcoin scarce?")

Rather it is up to you to point out what your critique is.


Please start with clarifying the topics I've pointed out. Where exactly do you see "the Bitcoin decimal issue"?
Is your concern that you can divide bitcoins arbitrarily, or is it that you can not divide them arbitrarily because of limitations in the network?
Is your concern that the real world buying power is volatile, or is the issue the the real world value is likely increasing?