Topic: The Royal Canadian Mint just announced a new alternative to BitCoin - page 4. (Read 19978 times)

I see you've left out a particular large, successful economic powerhouse from your false assertion...

If you wrote down an economic model of this system, then one possible outcome of "hobby business" development would be permanent stagnation at the current level. Another possible outcome would be worldwide adoption. The bridge between stagnation and worldwide adoption would be a 'big push investment' carried out by a centralized owner. If you don't have a centralized owner, then 'big push investment' will never happen and the currency will stagnate forever. This is the main basis for economic theories of why most countries in the world remain trapped in poverty, while others such as China, South Korea, Japan, etc. have grown rich under an authoritarian central state. You want bitcoin to look like Africa, then just let it continue to remain fragmented. If you want it to grow, then you will need a strong central authority to own and develop it.

I lost money on such a race. Damn Achilles for giving the tortoise a head start.

This. Remember the tortoise wins the race

If $10M is the case, then I believe the same could be accomplished with about 1/10th that amount. Offer Oprah a $1M USD donation to her charity of choice if she'll air an hour long show consisting of interviewing 2-3 Bitcoin notables. With Oprah knowing that her endorsement carries weight, she can hedge her portfolio by investing in Bitcoin herself. She'll then put a nice positive spin on Bitcoin, and toward the end of the show, Gavin (example guess), informs the audience to reach under their seats, whereupon they'll find USB sticks pre-loaded with 100 BTC.

The goal now is for the reader to try to accomplish a similar feat--Bitcoin awareness--at an even lower expenditure outlay.

The other option is that us so called hobbyist keep chugging along with hopes of one brainfart going viral.

~Bruno~

If we get enough/all the "hobby businesses" to accept Bitcoin, even if it takes a while of slow persuasion, it becomes a part of the vernacular. That is much more powerful than a large entity promoting it. There isn't any reason to rush into this headlong; slowly but surely is the way to do it.

This post by cunicula is so on point.

Definitely saving this for later usage.

Damn, and I was so hoping for two albino hairdressers with a trained slug who holidayed at the Hotel Great Northern 

Oh well, back to living in disappointment...

Neither of us has any idea what 'big money' plans to do. It is idle to speculate. Of course, I'm very skeptical of that large corporations have any plans involving bitcoin at all. If you have some specific information to divulge, then don't let me stop you.

That's because nobody is sure of the legal ramifications. There is big money watching Bitcoin, but it's waiting on the sidelines until legal precedents are set. In the meantime, a significant infrastructure is being assembled by a small number of ideologically motivated hobbyists - and ironically this infrastructure will subsidize the larger players when they're ready to enter.

But the law needs to figure out in which ways it shall or shall not tyrannize Bitcoin before serious money is thrown at the experiment.

It is unusual for people to be able to screw on another head and use it to think for a moment. I appreciate that.

Check the link? https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/unregulated-corporation-cryptocurrency-75029 It suggests using a P2P system in order to run a corporate-like entity. Is that against P2P principles? Is it bad for the p2p network to elect a leader to represent its interests? Is it bad for the p2p network to vote to tax itself in order to raise revenue to fund projects?

Coming from an idealist P2P perspective it takes a moment to readjust focus to the points you make.  What I was saying was describing the same problem, but from a different perspective and without attempting to describe a solution.  I said in a purist P2P sense, one without any central ownership, there really isn't enough profit to support single entities in big pushes to develop the Bitcoin market.

I agree with the points you make and that is why I worry about Bitcoin even though I find the idealist points of P2P currency attractive and worthy of survival.

If profit is the biggest motivator maybe the solution you describe is desirable.  Ideally, and accepting the faults of idealism, I'd like to see a coalition or some association that could work to accomplish the big pushes Bitcoin needs that would be funded collectively in a P2P fashion.

It's true what they say that money and leadership is needed to focus progress.

You are still missing much of the point. 'big money' interest comes from concentrated ownership of the currency. Gains come from currency appreciation not direct business profits. The business activities are likely loss-making, but still in the interest of the concentrated owner to pursue. The problem is that without any concentrated ownership there is no incentive for anyone to undertake anything. This is one reason why I was hoping that Vlad performed the 51% attack. He might become the central owner. I propose a solution that doesn't require a central owner here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/unregulated-corporation-cryptocurrency-75029 Essentially, the solution is to create something like a cryptocorporation to run the cryptocurrency.

I tend to agree with that assessment.  Bitcoin needs strong leadership backed by some cash on both the development and business fronts.

While success or failure might not be foregone conclusions it's easy to see how easily Bitcoin could wither away.

But let me ask this.  Is P2P digital currency a cash cow in any sense?  Where is the money to be had for big players to come in and push Bitcoin?  I don't see it.

Somehow I only see it surviving in grass roots mode and, of course, that's super questionable.

Smart trolls inspire useful change in society. Cheerleading idiots, not so much.

The fact that the core software development follows the open source model is not the big problem.

The problem is that bitcoin-related commercial ventures are left up to small-scale entrepreneurs. Any small-scale entrepreneur thinking about a commercial venture can see that a) the current market is miniscule. No profit worth speaking about is available. b) the future market may be big and profitable. However, there is no reason to expect that getting involved now will be that helpful in accessing this potential future market (which probably won't exist in any case).

The logical response to this is to buy some bitcoin and wait for someone else to make bitcoin succeed. If everyone waits simultaneously, then bitcoin fails. That is what is happening.

To get the ball rolling, you need to have an agency which is heavily invested in bitcoin (say to the tune of ten million USD) to spearhead and fund projects. They would have an incentive to do something professional because they could gain from currency appreciation. This needs to happen in order to get to the future where bitcoin can be big and profitable.

If an agency like this isn't created, bitcoin will continue to consist of hobby businesses. The profits from these businesses are so slim that even when they attract a reasonable amount of interest, the business owners often fail to maintain them. You certainly don't see them upgrading and becoming professional. That makes sense. There is no reason to invest money right now when there is no money to be made right now.

I want you on my team, Dutch, and it would be my pleasure if you were ever to kick me off yours. BTW, I knew Satoshi was a couple Irish guys that holidayed in Japan.

~Bruno~

ROTFLMFAO! THAT'S some feeble shit indeed. You are clearly confused as your limited knowledge and circular mental processes are not my shortcomings.

As regards Satoshi, the abandonment of public ownership for this 1.0 effort by a couple of Irish guys who worked in Japan or whoever they are does suggest that they do in fact know more than you or I about what bitcoin is and isn't. Good of you to bring this up.

Oh, and BTW, you can blow me any time, little girl, taking shit from inferior assholes like you just cracks me up, I can do it all day long. It's rather like the neighbor's chihuahua growling through the fence, all the time never knowing what a fine football he would make.

You may go back to being a loser now, you have plenty of company on this board.

Square is a company with a professional development team...

Why can't we have something as cool as Square's new payment by phone.  No swiping cards and not scanning QR codes.

https://squareup.com/pay-with-square