Topic: The Bitcoin decimal issue - page 2. (Read 5567 times)
There is no issue, with a deflationary currency we will all enjoy working with billionths of a coin.
...
Epic bullshit. Instead of engaging in theology and semantics as would befit a zealot why don't you prove me wrong and answer the question I've asked about six times: "is Bitcoin scarce, and with regards to you answer what then would be the rational and likely response to that" You should investigate the meaning of defamation. It’s a matter of personal reputation and a tortious action. It’s my opinion and it’s also my opinion that if you don’t know to which of those two groups you’re in it’s the latter.
With your statement, you continue to show your dishonesty.
Instead of arguing, you place other people close to being zealots, believing in myths, creators of zero-sum scams, wasting economical resources.
Quote
I believe the words 'wasting', 'screwing' and 'zero-sum' are quite capable of being understood.
Exactly. That's why they work so well for slander.Quote
Quote
so again: what are the "myths of Bitcoin"?
The core myth is that it works for the purposes commonly outlined by its proponents – definable as a broadly adoptable currency of mutual benefit, able to replace or compete with state fiat.
Now please look at your statement with some critical distance.
It is very vague ("commonly outlined by its proponents") to start with, and then it lumps together a lot of different goals, in an unprecise fashion
- Bitcoin is usable as currency
- using Bitcoin currency creates mutual benefit
- Bitcoin as a currency is broadly adoptable
- Bitcoin has the ability to compete with state fiat
- Bitcoin has the ability to replace state fiat
These are 5 different things. Its far from being the obvious Bitcoin myth.
And besides, you omit several other themes present in the Bitcoin community in a similar way (as possible goals), which could be labelled as Bitcoin myths as well.
And now, what exactly is the "decimal issue"?
Is the issue that you can divide bitcoins arbitrarily, or is it that you can not divide them arbitrarily?
Is it that the real-world value of one Bitcoin unit doesn't stay constant?
Is it that the real-world value of one Bitcoin unit likely increases over time, instead of decreasing?
Is it that no-one manages the real-world value of one Bitcoin unit through monetary politics?
Do you really think a unfortunate statement becomes better by repeating it literally? ;-)
I have nothing constructive to say here, although it will be difficult to respond to your points without being as patronsing and diversionary as you are.Quote
OK, so lets start with the basics of human communication. If you foist "prayer", "evangelism", "nonsense" on your interlocutor this counts as insults and thus counts against the credibility of your argument. That means: you would not need to insult other people if you were able to win by plain flat argumentation. That being said...
No, prayer and evangelism can be the foundation of a religion. I think Bitcoin may have become similar or analogous to a religion. Some may argue that prayer, evangelism and religion are insulting and/or count against the credibility of an argument; I don't know but it's an interesting perspective.Quote
so again: what are the "myths of Bitcoin" dude??
Is it really so hard to "get" the fact that you to state what you mean in order to be understood by other people?
The core myth is that it works for the purposes commonly outlined by its proponents – definable as a broadly adoptable currency of mutual benefit, able to replace or compete with state fiat.Is it really so hard to "get" the fact that you to state what you mean in order to be understood by other people?
Quote
this again is not argumentation, but defaming of other people.
You might be right, but you would have to show this is actually the case. You should make clear what you mean with "wasting". You should make clear what you mean with "screwing". And then the difficult part is to show that the whole endeavour is indeed zero-sum. This is indeed such a difficult challenge that it is just plain unjustified to state such an accusation as being "obvious"
You should investigate the meaning of defamation. It’s a matter of personal reputation and a tortious action. It’s my opinion and it’s also my opinion that if you don’t know to which of those two groups you’re in it’s the latter. I believe the words 'wasting', 'screwing' and 'zero-sum' are quite capable of being understood. Anyhow, why would I have to show this is actually the case? Until it has achieved the purposes outlined above or similar the onus is on Bitcoin to prove its continued worth, not for me to prove otherwise.You might be right, but you would have to show this is actually the case. You should make clear what you mean with "wasting". You should make clear what you mean with "screwing". And then the difficult part is to show that the whole endeavour is indeed zero-sum. This is indeed such a difficult challenge that it is just plain unjustified to state such an accusation as being "obvious"
Look down - to my signature - you'll see a Bitcoin address. I have Bitcoins, I'm on Bitcointalk and I'm not a troll who fills the boards with relentless posts slating Bitcoin. I have no problem with Bitcoin per se, in the technology, perhaps as a stepping stone; my problem is in where it's going in terms of time, progress and progressive claims made. Assuming Bitcoin is more than a pyramid I don't recall claiming I had a solution to remedy all the flaws to every Bitcoin owner's preferences, and if I did or this was possible which I doubt I rationally wouldn't suggest them until I had optimised my own potential gain from what I perceive as possible misundersatndings or mispricings; that is if I was being economically rational which I concede perhaps I am not. That is certainly a matter of opinion subject to timescales.
Quote
oh my god.
Don't you notice how broken this argument is?
First of, what makes you think there are just the two alternative scenarios you point out? Have you considered the possibility of an equilibrium state in-between (hint: in most free market-like constellations, a more or less fluctuating equilibrium is even the most likely state, while the clear "black" or "white" situation never happens).
Besides of that, the two "exclusive" alternatives you point out are both distorted and misconstrued:
1) is in contradiction to the very notion of supply and demand. If something is scarce, this means the demand surpasses the supply. In a market-like constellation, this causes the price to go up, until there is an equilibrium. This mechanism limits the possible scarcity, but it does not automatically destroy the usefulness of the scarce good.
2) is a merely theoretical construction and misleading, since you can't simply introduce a payment system in the blink of an eye. Have you ever considered what "network effect" means? Thus again, this presumably exclusive alternative can't even exist, but rather we get again the push towards an equilibrium (after a certain number of distinct payment networks have been created, the market for payment networks is saturated)
And, after this rather brilliant piece of argumentation, you draw your conclusions:
Your breakdown of scenario 1 doesn’t make sense with regards to a broad fungible currency when alternatives are available. Your breakdown of scenario 2 is largely my point. Don't you notice how broken this argument is?
First of, what makes you think there are just the two alternative scenarios you point out? Have you considered the possibility of an equilibrium state in-between (hint: in most free market-like constellations, a more or less fluctuating equilibrium is even the most likely state, while the clear "black" or "white" situation never happens).
Besides of that, the two "exclusive" alternatives you point out are both distorted and misconstrued:
1) is in contradiction to the very notion of supply and demand. If something is scarce, this means the demand surpasses the supply. In a market-like constellation, this causes the price to go up, until there is an equilibrium. This mechanism limits the possible scarcity, but it does not automatically destroy the usefulness of the scarce good.
2) is a merely theoretical construction and misleading, since you can't simply introduce a payment system in the blink of an eye. Have you ever considered what "network effect" means? Thus again, this presumably exclusive alternative can't even exist, but rather we get again the push towards an equilibrium (after a certain number of distinct payment networks have been created, the market for payment networks is saturated)
And, after this rather brilliant piece of argumentation, you draw your conclusions:
But nevertheless it comes down to two questions: is Bitcoin scarce, and then what would be the rational and likely response to that?
Quote
And the last sentence is the annoying part and the reason which derailed this whole discussion right from start: you have nothing to offer, but you hide that behind the allusion of everything being "self-evident".
It is in no way clear what "needs" to be changed, since you weren't able to come up with a clear account of what presumably is "broken" with Bitcoin. Worse, you didn't even try to come up with such.
And last but not least, you should note that "economics" is not some kind of a fixed substance; rather there are several highly controversial schools of economics, especially when it comes to macro economics. If getting monetary systems "right" would be just a matter of common sense, then the global finance wouldn't be in such a desperate situation.
While all of this discussion is certainly funny and entertaining, actually we should indeed discuss and scrutinise the very things you're avoiding with all your statements: we should actually pose the question: what properties do we want to require from a payment system?
No I do not need to offer a solution to highlight a problem. I will transact in the way that I believe best suits my interests, like everybody else. Absent Bitcoin doing something to address common complaints or questions raised, the natural course of collective realisation over Bitcoin is and will continue to evidence itself in alternatives that will exercise the function of fixes. I’m not sure what’s so difficult to understand about that. Maybe there isn’t a ‘solution’ yet, maybe it’s trial and error, maybe the array of recent alts, ripple, fiat currency volatility etc are evidence that the market is searching for something better. Perhaps it's just a game, trading numbers on a screen and hoping to wallk away with more than you started. It is in no way clear what "needs" to be changed, since you weren't able to come up with a clear account of what presumably is "broken" with Bitcoin. Worse, you didn't even try to come up with such.
And last but not least, you should note that "economics" is not some kind of a fixed substance; rather there are several highly controversial schools of economics, especially when it comes to macro economics. If getting monetary systems "right" would be just a matter of common sense, then the global finance wouldn't be in such a desperate situation.
While all of this discussion is certainly funny and entertaining, actually we should indeed discuss and scrutinise the very things you're avoiding with all your statements: we should actually pose the question: what properties do we want to require from a payment system?
Can you please be more explicit?
What are those miraculous "realities" and "rules of economics" you are alluding all the time?
WHY ARE YOU ALLUDING TO THINGS instead of just stating what you think are the facts.
What are those miraculous "realities" and "rules of economics" you are alluding all the time?
WHY ARE YOU ALLUDING TO THINGS instead of just stating what you think are the facts.
I posted on that above, trying to engage in a substantive discussion, but I'll post it again if you'd like to explain where I'm wrong.
Do you really think a unfortunate statement becomes better by repeating it literally? ;-)
Otherwise do you have any actual opinion or basis for your faith beyond prayer and evangelism, or are you instead just going to keep repeating the same defensive nonsense such as the requirement to outine any view 'in a sentence'?
OK, so lets start with the basics of human communication.
If you foist "prayer", "evangelism", "nonsense" on your interlocutor this counts as insults and thus counts against the credibility of your argument. That means: you would not need to insult other people if you were able to win by plain flat argumentation.
That being said...
Quote
You have two choices.
The first choice is to maintain the myths of Bitcoin for as long as possible
The first choice is to maintain the myths of Bitcoin for as long as possible
so again: what are the "myths of Bitcoin" dude??
Is it really so hard to "get" the fact that you to state what you mean in order to be understood by other people?
Quote
continue wasting good intellectual and capital investment in zero-sum endeavours where one group of techies screws over another
this again is not argumentation, but defaming of other people.
You might be right, but you would have to show this is actually the case. You should make clear what you mean with "wasting". You should make clear what you mean with "screwing". And then the difficult part is to show that the whole endeavour is indeed zero-sum. This is indeed such a difficult challenge that it is just plain unjustified to state such an accusation as being "obvious"
Quote
The second choice is to recognise that something has to change with Bitcoin because either:
1) Bitcoins are scarce in which case at some point those who do not already have any will rationally find something else to use instead of Bitcoin
2) Bitcoins are not scarce because they may be replicated (for all intents and purposes with just a name change), in which case what is the value of a replicable and replicated digital asset offering no advantage over others?
1) Bitcoins are scarce in which case at some point those who do not already have any will rationally find something else to use instead of Bitcoin
2) Bitcoins are not scarce because they may be replicated (for all intents and purposes with just a name change), in which case what is the value of a replicable and replicated digital asset offering no advantage over others?
oh my god.
Don't you notice how broken this argument is?
First of, what makes you think there are just the two alternative scenarios you point out? Have you considered the possibility of an equilibrium state in-between (hint: in most free market-like constellations, a more or less fluctuating equilibrium is even the most likely state, while the clear "black" or "white" situation never happens).
Besides of that, the two "exclusive" alternatives you point out are both distorted and misconstrued:
1) is in contradiction to the very notion of supply and demand. If something is scarce, this means the demand surpasses the supply. In a market-like constellation, this causes the price to go up, until there is an equilibrium. This mechanism limits the possible scarcity, but it does not automatically destroy the usefulness of the scarce good.
2) is a merely theoretical construction and misleading, since you can't simply introduce a payment system in the blink of an eye. Have you ever considered what "network effect" means? Thus again, this presumably exclusive alternative can't even exist, but rather we get again the push towards an equilibrium (after a certain number of distinct payment networks have been created, the market for payment networks is saturated)
And, after this rather brilliant piece of argumentation, you draw your conclusions:
Quote
Falling on either side of 1 or 2 without the existence of advantages or damn good reasons to prefer Bitcoin over alternatives therefore necessitates changes or precludes its demise beyond a blinkered niche. As to what changes are required, I will leave that to application of rationality and economics.
And the last sentence is the annoying part and the reason which derailed this whole discussion right from start: you have nothing to offer, but you hide that behind the allusion of everything being "self-evident".
It is in no way clear what "needs" to be changed, since you weren't able to come up with a clear account of what presumably is "broken" with Bitcoin. Worse, you didn't even try to come up with such.
And last but not least, you should note that "economics" is not some kind of a fixed substance; rather there are several highly controversial schools of economics, especially when it comes to macro economics. If getting monetary systems "right" would be just a matter of common sense, then the global finance wouldn't be in such a desperate situation.
While all of this discussion is certainly funny and entertaining, actually we should indeed discuss and scrutinise the very things you're avoiding with all your statements: we should actually pose the question: what properties do we want to require from a payment system?
I strongly believe that somewhere in near future mBTC / XBT should go mainstream.
May be I am completely wrong, but I couldn't differentiate between Bitcoin starting to use subunits and a country printing more fiat money.
Let's say Bitcoin starts to use mBTC, now there are suddenly 1000x units. When a country prints more money then why not think it as a way of making units more fungible.
You bought a candy for a cent then you pay a dollar now. That means, your country has printed 100 times more money or something interesting happened to candy production or your country has gained much reputation or your country is manipulating global exchange rates, etc.
Everything somehow looks the same for me. I'm an average Bitcoin user, explain to me.
May be I am completely wrong, but I couldn't differentiate between Bitcoin starting to use subunits and a country printing more fiat money.
Let's say Bitcoin starts to use mBTC, now there are suddenly 1000x units. When a country prints more money then why not think it as a way of making units more fungible.
You bought a candy for a cent then you pay a dollar now. That means, your country has printed 100 times more money or something interesting happened to candy production or your country has gained much reputation or your country is manipulating global exchange rates, etc.
Everything somehow looks the same for me. I'm an average Bitcoin user, explain to me.
XBT is the ISO friendly version of BTC, thus 1 XBT = 1 BTC (not a millibitcoin, mB, or a microbitcoin or 0.0001 bitcion).
Switching from using BTC to mB is like a stock split as opposed to printing more currency which is like a stock sale. In a stock split, anybody who was holding 1 share of stock worth $100 now owns 10 shares of stock worth $10, so the total worth of their holdings is unchanged. So if I am holding 1.000 bitcoins which can buy me 100 loafs of bread, and I switch to using mB, now I have 1000 mB which can buy me 100 loafs of bread, the value I am holding remains constant.
Compare this to printing new currency, if my 1 GovCoin can buy me 100 loafs of bread, and then the government doubles the number of GovCoins overnight now I can only buy 50 loafs of bread.
Easy explanation but surprisingly there are alot of people stuck in the notion that a stock split is the answer to deflationary pressures lol then some argue that as there is a split the price will double, how would it double? thats up to the market to decide and does not discount the fact that there is still a hyper deflationary scenario at 21 million.
I strongly believe that somewhere in near future mBTC / XBT should go mainstream.
May be I am completely wrong, but I couldn't differentiate between Bitcoin starting to use subunits and a country printing more fiat money.
Let's say Bitcoin starts to use mBTC, now there are suddenly 1000x units. When a country prints more money then why not think it as a way of making units more fungible.
You bought a candy for a cent then you pay a dollar now. That means, your country has printed 100 times more money or something interesting happened to candy production or your country has gained much reputation or your country is manipulating global exchange rates, etc.
Everything somehow looks the same for me. I'm an average Bitcoin user, explain to me.
May be I am completely wrong, but I couldn't differentiate between Bitcoin starting to use subunits and a country printing more fiat money.
Let's say Bitcoin starts to use mBTC, now there are suddenly 1000x units. When a country prints more money then why not think it as a way of making units more fungible.
You bought a candy for a cent then you pay a dollar now. That means, your country has printed 100 times more money or something interesting happened to candy production or your country has gained much reputation or your country is manipulating global exchange rates, etc.
Everything somehow looks the same for me. I'm an average Bitcoin user, explain to me.
XBT is the ISO friendly version of BTC, thus 1 XBT = 1 BTC (not a millibitcoin, mB, or a microbitcoin or 0.0001 bitcion).
Switching from using BTC to mB is like a stock split as opposed to printing more currency which is like a stock sale. In a stock split, anybody who was holding 1 share of stock worth $100 now owns 10 shares of stock worth $10, so the total worth of their holdings is unchanged. So if I am holding 1.000 bitcoins which can buy me 100 loafs of bread, and I switch to using mB, now I have 1000 mB which can buy me 100 loafs of bread, the value I am holding remains constant.
Compare this to printing new currency, if my 1 GovCoin can buy me 100 loafs of bread, and then the government doubles the number of GovCoins overnight now I can only buy 50 loafs of bread.
I strongly believe that somewhere in near future mBTC / XBT should go mainstream.
May be I am completely wrong, but I couldn't differentiate between Bitcoin starting to use subunits and a country printing more fiat money.
Let's say Bitcoin starts to use mBTC, now there are suddenly 1000x units.
When a country prints more money then why not think it as a way of making units more fungible.
You bought a candy for a cent then you pay a dollar now. That means, your country has printed 100 times more money or something interesting happened to candy production or your country has gained much reputation or your country is manipulating global exchange rates, etc.
Everything somehow looks the same for me. I'm an average Bitcoin user, explain to me.
You couldn't differentiate? They're completely the opposite of eachother!May be I am completely wrong, but I couldn't differentiate between Bitcoin starting to use subunits and a country printing more fiat money.
Let's say Bitcoin starts to use mBTC, now there are suddenly 1000x units.
When a country prints more money then why not think it as a way of making units more fungible.
You bought a candy for a cent then you pay a dollar now. That means, your country has printed 100 times more money or something interesting happened to candy production or your country has gained much reputation or your country is manipulating global exchange rates, etc.
Everything somehow looks the same for me. I'm an average Bitcoin user, explain to me.
There are more sides to this, but I guess the key difference is this: by switching to mBTC thus effectively creating 1000x more units (which is not the case because these units were in fact already there to begin with, but for argument's sake) then who owns these new units? Now compare this to: when a country prints more fiat money, then who owns this new fiat?
Government or ECB or FED printing more fiat money = effectively stealing existing fiat money.
Thanks, that was so simple.
Who owns new currency really matters.
Now, I understand the difference.
I strongly believe that somewhere in near future mBTC / XBT should go mainstream.
May be I am completely wrong, but I couldn't differentiate between Bitcoin starting to use subunits and a country printing more fiat money.
Let's say Bitcoin starts to use mBTC, now there are suddenly 1000x units.
When a country prints more money then why not think it as a way of making units more fungible.
You bought a candy for a cent then you pay a dollar now. That means, your country has printed 100 times more money or something interesting happened to candy production or your country has gained much reputation or your country is manipulating global exchange rates, etc.
Everything somehow looks the same for me. I'm an average Bitcoin user, explain to me.
You couldn't differentiate? They're completely the opposite of eachother!May be I am completely wrong, but I couldn't differentiate between Bitcoin starting to use subunits and a country printing more fiat money.
Let's say Bitcoin starts to use mBTC, now there are suddenly 1000x units.
When a country prints more money then why not think it as a way of making units more fungible.
You bought a candy for a cent then you pay a dollar now. That means, your country has printed 100 times more money or something interesting happened to candy production or your country has gained much reputation or your country is manipulating global exchange rates, etc.
Everything somehow looks the same for me. I'm an average Bitcoin user, explain to me.
There are more sides to this, but I guess the key difference is this: by switching to mBTC thus effectively creating 1000x more units (which is not the case because these units were in fact already there to begin with, but for argument's sake) then who owns these new units? Now compare this to: when a country prints more fiat money, then who owns this new fiat?
Government or ECB or FED printing more fiat money = effectively stealing existing fiat money.
May be my point irrelevant to this thread. I'll start a new thread..
I strongly believe that somewhere in near future mBTC / XBT should go mainstream.
May be I am completely wrong, but I couldn't differentiate between Bitcoin starting to use subunits and a country printing more fiat money.
Let's say Bitcoin starts to use mBTC, now there are suddenly 1000x units. When a country prints more money then why not think it as a way of making units more fungible.
You bought a candy for a cent then you pay a dollar now. That means, your country has printed 100 times more money or something interesting happened to candy production or your country has gained much reputation or your country is manipulating global exchange rates, etc.
Everything somehow looks the same for me. I'm an average Bitcoin user, explain to me.
May be I am completely wrong, but I couldn't differentiate between Bitcoin starting to use subunits and a country printing more fiat money.
Let's say Bitcoin starts to use mBTC, now there are suddenly 1000x units. When a country prints more money then why not think it as a way of making units more fungible.
You bought a candy for a cent then you pay a dollar now. That means, your country has printed 100 times more money or something interesting happened to candy production or your country has gained much reputation or your country is manipulating global exchange rates, etc.
Everything somehow looks the same for me. I'm an average Bitcoin user, explain to me.
My client is already set to display mBTC and I expect that to be the norm if the cost of a full BTC stabalizes higher than it is right now.
I strongly believe that somewhere in near future mBTC / XBT should go mainstream.
May be I am completely wrong, but I couldn't differentiate between Bitcoin starting to use subunits and a country printing more fiat money.
Let's say Bitcoin starts to use mBTC, now there are suddenly 1000x units. When a country prints more money then why not think it as a way of making units more fungible.
You bought a candy for a cent then you pay a dollar now. That means, your country has printed 100 times more money or something interesting happened to candy production or your country has gained much reputation or your country is manipulating global exchange rates, etc.
Everything somehow looks the same for me. I'm an average Bitcoin user, explain to me.
May be I am completely wrong, but I couldn't differentiate between Bitcoin starting to use subunits and a country printing more fiat money.
Let's say Bitcoin starts to use mBTC, now there are suddenly 1000x units. When a country prints more money then why not think it as a way of making units more fungible.
You bought a candy for a cent then you pay a dollar now. That means, your country has printed 100 times more money or something interesting happened to candy production or your country has gained much reputation or your country is manipulating global exchange rates, etc.
Everything somehow looks the same for me. I'm an average Bitcoin user, explain to me.
the skew or ignorance or bullshit is self-evident, regardless of realities and economics. A shame for those interested in making more of cryptos and Bitcoin infrastructure and efforts, as that means it fails or was never intended to work
Can you please be more explicit?What are those miraculous "realities" and "rules of economics" you are alluding all the time?
WHY ARE YOU ALLUDING TO THINGS instead of just stating what you think are the facts.
Thus again: say in one sentence what are those "facts" everyone seems to be ignoring?
It might well be that you are incapable of stating your "facts" in a single, clear sentence, and thus need to resort to telling fairy tales and slander other people.
Thus: proof to the contrary that you are able to give a coherent reasoning about what is broken with Bitcoin.
Quote
You have two choices.
The first choice is to maintain the myths of Bitcoin for as long as possible, make what you will of good fortune to date, continue wasting good intellectual and capital investment in zero-sum endeavours where one group of techies screws over another, and therfore also waste an incredible opportunity for crytocurrencies to revolutionise finance and personal empowerment that would far surpass short-term personal gains (or at minimum waste a heck of a lot of time in getting to that point).
The second choice is to recognise that something has to change with Bitcoin because either:
1) Bitcoins are scarce in which case at some point those who do not already have any will rationally find something else to use instead of Bitcoin (see the rise of altcoins and alternatives as evidence of this). This phenomenon was predicted on these boards from at least 2010 when I started reading it, probably earlier, and will not end because it’s an inevitability, or
2) Bitcoins are not scarce because they may be replicated (for all intents and purposes with just a name change), in which case what is the value of a replicable and replicated digital asset offering no advantage over others?
Falling on either side of 1 or 2 without the existence of advantages or damn good reasons to prefer Bitcoin over alternatives (beyond marketing) therefore necessitates changes or precludes its demise beyond a blinkered niche. As to what changes are required, I will leave that to application of rationality and economics.
Quote
I never assume that anyone is an idiot until they've given me a reason. In fact, if you read my posting history, you can see for yourself that I have a tendency to chastise people for underestimating the public (this comes up often in the many many threads about naming the fractions).
P.S. Confusion does not imply idiocy. Money is hard to understand, very few people really "get" it, but I suspect that most people can if they put in the effort.
Quote
Everybody “gets” it. Whether they are able and willing to admit it is another matter. Perhaps unlike the bulk of people on this forum I’d actually like cryptos to (be able to) replace state fiat not remain a token playthings between small groups. That’s not possible with Bitcoin unless it is changed. Rather than the continual trumpeting of any innate libertarian, free-market ethos to Bitcoin why isn’t there more appreciation that the natural evolution of private free money and autonomy is that the next person or group will come along, compete with and improve it, likely resigning the previous form to the dustbin.
Either Bitcoin adherents accept there are flaws and moves with the times, or any objective observer has to conclude it’s just a pyramid because it doesn’t work economically for the majority of economic participants who will rationally not adopt it when they work it out. And to be clear my perspective there is as simple as not discerning any great difference between one group of powerful cronies controlling the fortunes of everybody else and another - be that a government, us Bitcoiners or whoever. There is no special ‘Bitcoin State’ that rewrites the rules of monetary theory or libertarian ideology and to think otherwise is naive or corrupt.
The first choice is to maintain the myths of Bitcoin for as long as possible, make what you will of good fortune to date, continue wasting good intellectual and capital investment in zero-sum endeavours where one group of techies screws over another, and therfore also waste an incredible opportunity for crytocurrencies to revolutionise finance and personal empowerment that would far surpass short-term personal gains (or at minimum waste a heck of a lot of time in getting to that point).
The second choice is to recognise that something has to change with Bitcoin because either:
1) Bitcoins are scarce in which case at some point those who do not already have any will rationally find something else to use instead of Bitcoin (see the rise of altcoins and alternatives as evidence of this). This phenomenon was predicted on these boards from at least 2010 when I started reading it, probably earlier, and will not end because it’s an inevitability, or
2) Bitcoins are not scarce because they may be replicated (for all intents and purposes with just a name change), in which case what is the value of a replicable and replicated digital asset offering no advantage over others?
Falling on either side of 1 or 2 without the existence of advantages or damn good reasons to prefer Bitcoin over alternatives (beyond marketing) therefore necessitates changes or precludes its demise beyond a blinkered niche. As to what changes are required, I will leave that to application of rationality and economics.
Quote
I never assume that anyone is an idiot until they've given me a reason. In fact, if you read my posting history, you can see for yourself that I have a tendency to chastise people for underestimating the public (this comes up often in the many many threads about naming the fractions).
P.S. Confusion does not imply idiocy. Money is hard to understand, very few people really "get" it, but I suspect that most people can if they put in the effort.
Quote
Everybody “gets” it. Whether they are able and willing to admit it is another matter. Perhaps unlike the bulk of people on this forum I’d actually like cryptos to (be able to) replace state fiat not remain a token playthings between small groups. That’s not possible with Bitcoin unless it is changed. Rather than the continual trumpeting of any innate libertarian, free-market ethos to Bitcoin why isn’t there more appreciation that the natural evolution of private free money and autonomy is that the next person or group will come along, compete with and improve it, likely resigning the previous form to the dustbin.
Either Bitcoin adherents accept there are flaws and moves with the times, or any objective observer has to conclude it’s just a pyramid because it doesn’t work economically for the majority of economic participants who will rationally not adopt it when they work it out. And to be clear my perspective there is as simple as not discerning any great difference between one group of powerful cronies controlling the fortunes of everybody else and another - be that a government, us Bitcoiners or whoever. There is no special ‘Bitcoin State’ that rewrites the rules of monetary theory or libertarian ideology and to think otherwise is naive or corrupt.
the skew or ignorance or bullshit is self-evident, regardless of realities and economics. A shame for those interested in making more of cryptos and Bitcoin infrastructure and efforts, as that means it fails or was never intended to work
Can you please be more explicit?
What are those miraculous "realities" and "rules of economics" you are alluding all the time?
WHY ARE YOU ALLUDING TO THINGS instead of just stating what you think are the facts.
Thus again: say in one sentence what are those "facts" everyone seems to be ignoring?
It might well be that you are incapable of stating your "facts" in a single, clear sentence, and thus need to resort to telling fairy tales and slander other people.
Thus: proof to the contrary that you are able to give a coherent reasoning about what is broken with Bitcoin.
This is what I've been saying all along and it would be good to have you over at my thread. The economy would be lopsidedly deflationary and alt's like devcoin already combat this issue by providing scarcity by controlling supply in a public manor. 200 billion coins in 100 years from now is not inflationary by any means judging by how many people there will be to use the coins, infact it is highly deflationary still, but the best crypto example we have. Proponents of btc will say you can just divide up the currency units once it gets more scarce, but to me there is no proof from a supply/demand perspective to justify that this will stop a fully deflationary event where banks will stop lending and ppl defaulting on their loans.
Cheers, but it's a complete waste of time. Opinion will tend to fall on the side of personal asset/liability profiles, and as this is bitcointalk the skew or ignorance or bullshit is self-evident, regardless of realities and economics. A shame for those interested in making more of cryptos and Bitcoin infrastructure and efforts, as that means it fails or was never intended to work, so it just comes down to timing in a game, but so be it.
he probably meant it to mean what i wrote about in my thread about capped vs uncapped coin. Plz advise on there its a more comprehensive summary of what this guy was too lazy to say.
Quote
Thus, if you want a honest discussion, then please come out of your cranny, and instead of talking in metaphors, put some clear arguments on the table!
what exactly are you criticising?
what are your presuppositions?
what are your conclusions?
what exactly are you criticising?
what are your presuppositions?
what are your conclusions?
Boy, this just get's more and more hilarious, I love this shit! There is just no way for this topic to be serious now.
Conclusions, presuppositions? The OT lacks basic comprehension of how reality works, economics, mathematics or even logic and here we are, trying to get some clear arguments.
- "Bitcoin sucks because bread can't be divided to molecules"
- "What are your conclusions? Presuppositions?"
Hey, can you please stop the gibberish and meta-discussion in this thread.
My claim still stands: give us a clear, crisp and unambiguous statement of your critique.
As long as you continue to tell stories ("once there was a man called...") in poetical language, littered with allusions and implied meaning, we must assume that you're hiding something. Whenever you've a clear grasp of a topic, you're able to put it in simple words
Please put your axioms and assumptions on the table, in clear daylight. Then there can be a fair discussion.
It is really an insult to expect from your readers to infer what you were intending, instead of just stating yourself what you want to say.
Thus, please write an answer in one sentence: what is The Bitcoin decimal issue?
My claim still stands: give us a clear, crisp and unambiguous statement of your critique.
As long as you continue to tell stories ("once there was a man called...") in poetical language, littered with allusions and implied meaning, we must assume that you're hiding something. Whenever you've a clear grasp of a topic, you're able to put it in simple words
Please put your axioms and assumptions on the table, in clear daylight. Then there can be a fair discussion.
It is really an insult to expect from your readers to infer what you were intending, instead of just stating yourself what you want to say.
Thus, please write an answer in one sentence: what is The Bitcoin decimal issue?
Jump to: