Topic: The Despondancy Stage (Read 5339 times)
The exchange rate is still reflective of tiny speculative trade volume and only a blip of use. It could move up or down 10x from here in short order and would still not be indicative of long-term adoption or "failure".
I am not feeling "The Despondency Stage", since the future is still very bright for Bitcoin.
We have to go past the 'Despondency Stage' before a real break out occurs.
^ Hopeless.
Reminds me of the Ideological Turing Test. In general, it's a lot more instructive to listen to the viewpoints of someone who can (correctly) summarize his opponents' viewpoints than to someone who can't.
I know there's a number of "conditional bulls" in here that can see some good chance for a long-term prospect of Bitcoin being useful, and the asymmetry of the market bet on that event being strongly in their favor right now, but they're not blind to the possibility of it being a failure mostly, one way or the other.
Same for "conditional bears", by the way, who can see a chance for Bitcoin to succeed, but consider it rather unlikely, and the bet at current market price not to be in their favor. Fair enough, I can follow that line of thinking.
What I really don't care about are viewpoints that can be summarized as "It can't possibly fail." or "It can't possibly succeed." Failure to even answer OP's simple question about a significant adoption scenario means you pretty clearly fall into that category.
Reminds me of the Ideological Turing Test. In general, it's a lot more instructive to listen to the viewpoints of someone who can (correctly) summarize his opponents' viewpoints than to someone who can't.
I know there's a number of "conditional bulls" in here that can see some good chance for a long-term prospect of Bitcoin being useful, and the asymmetry of the market bet on that event being strongly in their favor right now, but they're not blind to the possibility of it being a failure mostly, one way or the other.
Same for "conditional bears", by the way, who can see a chance for Bitcoin to succeed, but consider it rather unlikely, and the bet at current market price not to be in their favor. Fair enough, I can follow that line of thinking.
What I really don't care about are viewpoints that can be summarized as "It can't possibly fail." or "It can't possibly succeed." Failure to even answer OP's simple question about a significant adoption scenario means you pretty clearly fall into that category.
Can any of you permabears actually imagine a 'worldwide adoption' scenario and how that might unfold?
No. The blockchain can handle 2.7 transactions per second. Meanwhile, Visa and Mastercard are handling millions of transactions per second. Bitcoin offers no security and no benefit for the average consumer. It's extremely slow, expensive, unstable, unreliable, cumbersome, easy to steal, and user-unfriendly. Were it to be adopted on a really large scale, hypothetically speaking, the blockchain would reach a size of 100TB and beyond within days, making storage impossible. It's simply not scaled to handle actual real world use. It's scaled to be a small experiment among a couple hundred crypto geeks.
Speculative value can still increase, of course, even if the blockchain tech has no potential for real world use. But the only real value of Bitcoin lies in its use as a small scale currency among a marginal group of drug addicts and child pornographers on the deep web. The price will eventually go to the single digit range to reflect that fact, even if a new Willybot or Markus might pump the price briefly up to $300 before that happens.
Bitcoin had its fifteen minutes of fame. It's not something the average Joe needs or wants, and the price development is simply a reflection of that fact.
Well done McFly, you illustrate my point exactly by stating you can't imagine it. Then go an and rehash the same arguments as to why it won't happen.
It might not happen, sure. The implication being, that it might. I know you think it won't, you've made that clear. I'll give you another crack at it though - What if it does?
I am not feeling "The Despondency Stage", since the future is still very bright for Bitcoin.
Can any of you permabears actually imagine a 'worldwide adoption' scenario and how that might unfold?
No. The blockchain can handle 2.7 transactions per second. Meanwhile, Visa and Mastercard are handling millions of transactions per second. Bitcoin offers no security and no benefit for the average consumer. It's extremely slow, expensive, unstable, unreliable, cumbersome, easy to steal, and user-unfriendly. Were it to be adopted on a really large scale, hypothetically speaking, the blockchain would reach a size of 100TB and beyond within days, making storage impossible. It's simply not scaled to handle actual real world use. It's scaled to be a small experiment among a couple hundred crypto geeks.
Speculative value can still increase, of course, even if the blockchain tech has no potential for real world use. But the only real value of Bitcoin lies in its use as a small scale currency among a marginal group of drug addicts and child pornographers on the deep web. The price will eventually go to the single digit range to reflect that fact, even if a new Willybot or Markus might pump the price briefly up to $300 before that happens.
Bitcoin had its fifteen minutes of fame. It's not something the average Joe needs or wants, and the price development is simply a reflection of that fact.
1. Bitcoin is a store of value that can not be manipulated. Visa is a company that sells plastic cards and a runs a transaction mechanism to exchange fiat.
It's Apple Computers vs an apple farm thing.
2. Please study Moore's law, 100TB is around the corner. My first hard drive was 20MB.
3. Fuck average Joe.
Exocytosis really is _the_ butthurt bull from the last bull run.
Posting about 100k coins in January 2014, being goxed, and then posting the same bitter doomer spam on price weakness. He is too chicken to actually short the market himself. Instead he degrades himself by bashing bitcoin here during price weakness with the hope of buying in at a lower price, when, magically the price will inexplicably take off into the stratosphere enriching him in the process of course.
If the price reaches even double digits (which is highly doubtful) then he will be too much of a chicken shit to buy in. Just as he failed to buy in at 160.
Can any of you permabears actually imagine a 'worldwide adoption' scenario and how that might unfold?
No. The blockchain can handle 2.7 transactions per second. Meanwhile, Visa and Mastercard are handling millions of transactions per second. Bitcoin offers no security and no benefit for the average consumer. It's extremely slow, expensive, unstable, unreliable, cumbersome, easy to steal, and user-unfriendly. Were it to be adopted on a really large scale, hypothetically speaking, the blockchain would reach a size of 100TB and beyond within days, making storage impossible. It's simply not scaled to handle actual real world use. It's scaled to be a small experiment among a couple hundred crypto geeks.
Speculative value can still increase, of course, even if the blockchain tech has no potential for real world use. But the only real value of Bitcoin lies in its use as a small scale currency among a marginal group of drug addicts and child pornographers on the deep web. The price will eventually go to the single digit range to reflect that fact, even if a new Willybot or Markus might pump the price briefly up to $300 before that happens.
Bitcoin had its fifteen minutes of fame. It's not something the average Joe needs or wants, and the price development is simply a reflection of that fact.
1. Bitcoin is a store of value that can not be manipulated. Visa is a company that sells plastic cards and a runs a transaction mechanism to exchange fiat.
It's Apple Computers vs an apple farm thing.
2. Please study Moore's law, 100TB is around the corner. My first hard drive was 20MB.
3. Fuck average Joe.
Can any of you permabears actually imagine a 'worldwide adoption' scenario and how that might unfold?
No. The blockchain can handle 2.7 transactions per second. Meanwhile, Visa and Mastercard are handling millions of transactions per second. Bitcoin offers no security and no benefit for the average consumer. It's extremely slow, expensive, unstable, unreliable, cumbersome, easy to steal, and user-unfriendly. Were it to be adopted on a really large scale, hypothetically speaking, the blockchain would reach a size of 100TB and beyond within days, making storage impossible. It's simply not scaled to handle actual real world use. It's scaled to be a small experiment among a couple hundred crypto geeks.
Speculative value can still increase, of course, even if the blockchain tech has no potential for real world use. But the only real value of Bitcoin lies in its use as a small scale currency among a marginal group of drug addicts and child pornographers on the deep web. The price will eventually go to the single digit range to reflect that fact, even if a new Willybot or Markus might pump the price briefly up to $300 before that happens.
Bitcoin had its fifteen minutes of fame. It's not something the average Joe needs or wants, and the price development is simply a reflection of that fact.
This is reality. Now, that's not to say that things can't be streamlined in the future, but that would require consensus among many parties and a total overhaul of the infrastructure. I think that is unrealistic. My hunch is many of the Bitcoin venture capitalists were unaware of these limitations. They're wising up. A bit too much of the bandwagonism and too little quantitative analysis. How they manage to unwind their investments will be interesting.
Also, this doesn't even address the serious tax implications which come from using Bitcoins, since the IRS views them as capital, not currency. Now that is one huge cluterfuck of a problem.
gavin gave a proposal to solve that issue this month didn't he?
a somewhat exponential increase of the blocksize assuming the tech does catch up
Can any of you permabears actually imagine a 'worldwide adoption' scenario and how that might unfold?
No. The blockchain can handle 2.7 transactions per second. Meanwhile, Visa and Mastercard are handling millions of transactions per second. Bitcoin offers no security and no benefit for the average consumer. It's extremely slow, expensive, unstable, unreliable, cumbersome, easy to steal, and user-unfriendly. Were it to be adopted on a really large scale, hypothetically speaking, the blockchain would reach a size of 100TB and beyond within days, making storage impossible. It's simply not scaled to handle actual real world use. It's scaled to be a small experiment among a couple hundred crypto geeks.
That's why we'll have to use more than one chain. The problem lies with the retarded notion of bitcoin for worlddomination and the idea of being the only coin. It can't be. We have to use more than one blockchain. That's why it is overvalued and alts are undervalued. This is going to be corrected this year. We come out with 10$ to 50$ bitcoin and some hefty gains in alts. It has already begun.
Rather the opposite. They can handle all the small transactions if they can do it better, in the market, then they can clear out in bitcoins. Off chain transactions.
Anyway, the intrinsic payment system in bitcoin is not that bad, if you discount the future changes. Remember, an international credit card transaction might include ten institutions, each having their own system, backup systems, backup storage with tens of copies. The latency is 6 months, armies of people are necessary to run it.
You can run a full node on a home computer. No backup is necessary or wanted, the node is the base system and the backup at the same time. Any fool can do it, there is no need for a job contract, all transactions are completely cleared after an hour.
The developers and others have analyzed it. Storage and network is not a problem. There will always be a limit, that is why transactions will cost something for the users.
Anyway, the intrinsic payment system in bitcoin is not that bad, if you discount the future changes. Remember, an international credit card transaction might include ten institutions, each having their own system, backup systems, backup storage with tens of copies. The latency is 6 months, armies of people are necessary to run it.
You can run a full node on a home computer. No backup is necessary or wanted, the node is the base system and the backup at the same time. Any fool can do it, there is no need for a job contract, all transactions are completely cleared after an hour.
The developers and others have analyzed it. Storage and network is not a problem. There will always be a limit, that is why transactions will cost something for the users.
Why would a CC company convert USD debt into Bitcoins?
It sounds like you're suggesting that the credit card companies would use Bitcoin as a money transfer backbone. Why bother? They might as well manage their own internal ledger and not deal with a public blockchain. Same goes for banks (and of course, this is exactly what they do). Honestly, the only area where I see you having a point is in the insane amount of overhead involved in banking. Competition would improve that, in theory, but there isn't much competition at that echelon of power. One positive side-effect of involving people in the process is the reversibility of transactions. That is a huge feature in banking. One bank burns another and there will be hell to pay. It opens the door to negotiations when people make mistakes. About the only parties who don't like chargebacks are merchants (understandably).
They want to do it, when the merchants only want bitcoins, no USD debt money, not before. Probably, the function will be taken over by new companies, not the old. If bitcoin succeeds.
That would mean essentially that the dollar (and necessarily, pretty much all other national currencies) would be completely usurped by Bitcoin. I wouldn't hold my breath.
Not stopping breathing, but with a proper bitcoin stash you could breathe slower...
Rather the opposite. They can handle all the small transactions if they can do it better, in the market, then they can clear out in bitcoins. Off chain transactions.
Anyway, the intrinsic payment system in bitcoin is not that bad, if you discount the future changes. Remember, an international credit card transaction might include ten institutions, each having their own system, backup systems, backup storage with tens of copies. The latency is 6 months, armies of people are necessary to run it.
You can run a full node on a home computer. No backup is necessary or wanted, the node is the base system and the backup at the same time. Any fool can do it, there is no need for a job contract, all transactions are completely cleared after an hour.
The developers and others have analyzed it. Storage and network is not a problem. There will always be a limit, that is why transactions will cost something for the users.
Anyway, the intrinsic payment system in bitcoin is not that bad, if you discount the future changes. Remember, an international credit card transaction might include ten institutions, each having their own system, backup systems, backup storage with tens of copies. The latency is 6 months, armies of people are necessary to run it.
You can run a full node on a home computer. No backup is necessary or wanted, the node is the base system and the backup at the same time. Any fool can do it, there is no need for a job contract, all transactions are completely cleared after an hour.
The developers and others have analyzed it. Storage and network is not a problem. There will always be a limit, that is why transactions will cost something for the users.
Why would a CC company convert USD debt into Bitcoins?
It sounds like you're suggesting that the credit card companies would use Bitcoin as a money transfer backbone. Why bother? They might as well manage their own internal ledger and not deal with a public blockchain. Same goes for banks (and of course, this is exactly what they do). Honestly, the only area where I see you having a point is in the insane amount of overhead involved in banking. Competition would improve that, in theory, but there isn't much competition at that echelon of power. One positive side-effect of involving people in the process is the reversibility of transactions. That is a huge feature in banking. One bank burns another and there will be hell to pay. It opens the door to negotiations when people make mistakes. About the only parties who don't like chargebacks are merchants (understandably).
They want to do it, when the merchants only want bitcoins, no USD debt money, not before. Probably, the function will be taken over by new companies, not the old. If bitcoin succeeds.
That would mean essentially that the dollar (and necessarily, pretty much all other national currencies) would be completely usurped by Bitcoin. I wouldn't hold my breath.
Rather the opposite. They can handle all the small transactions if they can do it better, in the market, then they can clear out in bitcoins. Off chain transactions.
Anyway, the intrinsic payment system in bitcoin is not that bad, if you discount the future changes. Remember, an international credit card transaction might include ten institutions, each having their own system, backup systems, backup storage with tens of copies. The latency is 6 months, armies of people are necessary to run it.
You can run a full node on a home computer. No backup is necessary or wanted, the node is the base system and the backup at the same time. Any fool can do it, there is no need for a job contract, all transactions are completely cleared after an hour.
The developers and others have analyzed it. Storage and network is not a problem. There will always be a limit, that is why transactions will cost something for the users.
Anyway, the intrinsic payment system in bitcoin is not that bad, if you discount the future changes. Remember, an international credit card transaction might include ten institutions, each having their own system, backup systems, backup storage with tens of copies. The latency is 6 months, armies of people are necessary to run it.
You can run a full node on a home computer. No backup is necessary or wanted, the node is the base system and the backup at the same time. Any fool can do it, there is no need for a job contract, all transactions are completely cleared after an hour.
The developers and others have analyzed it. Storage and network is not a problem. There will always be a limit, that is why transactions will cost something for the users.
Why would a CC company convert USD debt into Bitcoins?
It sounds like you're suggesting that the credit card companies would use Bitcoin as a money transfer backbone. Why bother? They might as well manage their own internal ledger and not deal with a public blockchain. Same goes for banks (and of course, this is exactly what they do). Honestly, the only area where I see you having a point is in the insane amount of overhead involved in banking. Competition would improve that, in theory, but there isn't much competition at that echelon of power. One positive side-effect of involving people in the process is the reversibility of transactions. That is a huge feature in banking. One bank burns another and there will be hell to pay. It opens the door to negotiations when people make mistakes. About the only parties who don't like chargebacks are merchants (understandably).
They want to do it, when the merchants only want bitcoins, no USD debt money, not before. Probably, the function will be taken over by new companies, not the old. If bitcoin succeeds.
Rather the opposite. They can handle all the small transactions if they can do it better, in the market, then they can clear out in bitcoins. Off chain transactions.
Anyway, the intrinsic payment system in bitcoin is not that bad, if you discount the future changes. Remember, an international credit card transaction might include ten institutions, each having their own system, backup systems, backup storage with tens of copies. The latency is 6 months, armies of people are necessary to run it.
You can run a full node on a home computer. No backup is necessary or wanted, the node is the base system and the backup at the same time. Any fool can do it, there is no need for a job contract, all transactions are completely cleared after an hour.
The developers and others have analyzed it. Storage and network is not a problem. There will always be a limit, that is why transactions will cost something for the users.
Anyway, the intrinsic payment system in bitcoin is not that bad, if you discount the future changes. Remember, an international credit card transaction might include ten institutions, each having their own system, backup systems, backup storage with tens of copies. The latency is 6 months, armies of people are necessary to run it.
You can run a full node on a home computer. No backup is necessary or wanted, the node is the base system and the backup at the same time. Any fool can do it, there is no need for a job contract, all transactions are completely cleared after an hour.
The developers and others have analyzed it. Storage and network is not a problem. There will always be a limit, that is why transactions will cost something for the users.
Why would a CC company convert USD debt into Bitcoins?
It sounds like you're suggesting that the credit card companies would use Bitcoin as a money transfer backbone. Why bother? They might as well manage their own internal ledger and not deal with a public blockchain. Same goes for banks (and of course, this is exactly what they do). Honestly, the only area where I see you having a point is in the insane amount of overhead involved in banking. Competition would improve that, in theory, but there isn't much competition at that echelon of power. One positive side-effect of involving people in the process is the reversibility of transactions. That is a huge feature in banking. One bank burns another and there will be hell to pay. It opens the door to negotiations when people make mistakes. About the only parties who don't like chargebacks are merchants (understandably).
Visa or mastercard can still handle the transactions for us. Bitcoin is about the money, it is comparable to USD for example. Not the payment system.
If you're suggesting that it replace Western Union, I totally agree. Good riddance to that shit.
Rather the opposite. They can handle all the small transactions if they can do it better, in the market, then they can clear out in bitcoins. Off chain transactions.
Anyway, the intrinsic payment system in bitcoin is not that bad, if you discount the future changes. Remember, an international credit card transaction might include ten institutions, each having their own system, backup systems, backup storage with tens of copies. The latency is 6 months, armies of people are necessary to run it.
You can run a full node on a home computer. No backup is necessary or wanted, the node is the base system and the backup at the same time. Any fool can do it, there is no need for a job contract, all transactions are completely cleared after an hour.
The developers and others have analyzed it. Storage and network is not a problem. There will always be a limit, that is why transactions will cost something for the users.
Bitcoin is an emerging technology. That being said, most of the people invested and developing bitcoin refuse to acknowledge the issues with the protocol and currency as it is currently being used. Several Altcoins have addresses these issues. Anonymous transactions, Darkcoin. Deflation/Inflation feedback, Peercoin, Transaction times and blockchain trust issues, pretty much any altcoin. There is more adoption of bitcoin, but not much development. Sidechains, where are we with that? Peercoin has more progress with sidechains or some form of that than bitcoin or any other altcoin.
I am not trying to be a troll, but this should disturb investors in my opinion. It probably will not because they do not understand the technology, so expect another good bubble in the next couple of years.
I am not trying to be a troll, but this should disturb investors in my opinion. It probably will not because they do not understand the technology, so expect another good bubble in the next couple of years.
Visa or mastercard can still handle the transactions for us. Bitcoin is about the money, it is comparable to USD for example. Not the payment system.
If you're suggesting that it replace Western Union, I totally agree. Good riddance to that shit.
Can any of you permabears actually imagine a 'worldwide adoption' scenario and how that might unfold?
No. The blockchain can handle 2.7 transactions per second. Meanwhile, Visa and Mastercard are handling millions of transactions per second. Bitcoin offers no security and no benefit for the average consumer. It's extremely slow, expensive, unstable, unreliable, cumbersome, easy to steal, and user-unfriendly. Were it to be adopted on a really large scale, hypothetically speaking, the blockchain would reach a size of 100TB and beyond within days, making storage impossible. It's simply not scaled to handle actual real world use. It's scaled to be a small experiment among a couple hundred crypto geeks.
Speculative value can still increase, of course, even if the blockchain tech has no potential for real world use. But the only real value of Bitcoin lies in its use as a small scale currency among a marginal group of drug addicts and child pornographers on the deep web. The price will eventually go to the single digit range to reflect that fact, even if a new Willybot or Markus might pump the price briefly up to $300 before that happens.
Bitcoin had its fifteen minutes of fame. It's not something the average Joe needs or wants, and the price development is simply a reflection of that fact.
This is reality. Now, that's not to say that things can't be streamlined in the future, but that would require consensus among many parties and a total overhaul of the infrastructure. I think that is unrealistic. My hunch is many of the Bitcoin venture capitalists were unaware of these limitations. They're wising up. A bit too much of the bandwagonism and too little quantitative analysis. How they manage to unwind their investments will be interesting.
Also, this doesn't even address the serious tax implications which come from using Bitcoins, since the IRS views them as capital, not currency. Now that is one huge cluterfuck of a problem.
Visa or mastercard can still handle the transactions for us. Bitcoin is about the money, it is comparable to USD for example. Not the payment system.
Can any of you permabears actually imagine a 'worldwide adoption' scenario and how that might unfold?
No. The blockchain can handle 2.7 transactions per second. Meanwhile, Visa and Mastercard are handling millions of transactions per second. Bitcoin offers no security and no benefit for the average consumer. It's extremely slow, expensive, unstable, unreliable, cumbersome, easy to steal, and user-unfriendly. Were it to be adopted on a really large scale, hypothetically speaking, the blockchain would reach a size of 100TB and beyond within days, making storage impossible. It's simply not scaled to handle actual real world use. It's scaled to be a small experiment among a couple hundred crypto geeks.
Speculative value can still increase, of course, even if the blockchain tech has no potential for real world use. But the only real value of Bitcoin lies in its use as a small scale currency among a marginal group of drug addicts and child pornographers on the deep web. The price will eventually go to the single digit range to reflect that fact, even if a new Willybot or Markus might pump the price briefly up to $300 before that happens.
Bitcoin had its fifteen minutes of fame. It's not something the average Joe needs or wants, and the price development is simply a reflection of that fact.
This is reality. Now, that's not to say that things can't be streamlined in the future, but that would require consensus among many parties and a total overhaul of the infrastructure. I think that is unrealistic. My hunch is many of the Bitcoin venture capitalists were unaware of these limitations. They're wising up. A bit too much of the bandwagonism and too little quantitative analysis. How they manage to unwind their investments will be interesting.
Also, this doesn't even address the serious tax implications which come from using Bitcoins, since the IRS views them as capital, not currency. Now that is one huge cluterfuck of a problem.
Can any of you permabears actually imagine a 'worldwide adoption' scenario and how that might unfold?
No. The blockchain can handle 2.7 transactions per second. Meanwhile, Visa and Mastercard are handling millions of transactions per second. Bitcoin offers no security and no benefit for the average consumer. It's extremely slow, expensive, unstable, unreliable, cumbersome, easy to steal, and user-unfriendly. Were it to be adopted on a really large scale, hypothetically speaking, the blockchain would reach a size of 100TB and beyond within days, making storage impossible. It's simply not scaled to handle actual real world use. It's scaled to be a small experiment among a couple hundred crypto geeks.
Speculative value can still increase, of course, even if the blockchain tech has no potential for real world use. But the only real value of Bitcoin lies in its use as a small scale currency among a marginal group of drug addicts and child pornographers on the deep web. The price will eventually go to the single digit range to reflect that fact, even if a new Willybot or Markus might pump the price briefly up to $300 before that happens.
Bitcoin had its fifteen minutes of fame. It's not something the average Joe needs or wants, and the price development is simply a reflection of that fact.
Such unselfish acts of kindness these trolls aspire to 
Some of the people you call selfish might have honestly lost a lot of money in this and might actually be trying to prevent outsiders from getting in. Outsiders that have no clue of course.
Jump to: