Topic: The state of crypto - The only serious thread on the subforum - page 14. (Read 19463 times)

NXT is for kids while xmr bts and emunie are for grown ups...

It was actually referring to vanilla proof of stake, as in standard, and not Vanillacoin.  For all intents and purposes, both coins use this mechanism, just with NXT attempting some proprietary bandaids on top of it.

Question for the OP? It's interesting that you haven't mentioned NXT at all. I mean, you did write about POS, but you mentioned Vanilla coin and nothing about the most developed platform and coin with the most features.

Did you do this on purpose since you believe that NXT has no future at all or did you just put all POS coins in the same basket, Vanilla, NXT, etc..

Thanks!

I saw a guy in the exchange trollbox yesterday that said he left money in BitUSD (the Bitshares dollar peg) for something like 6 months, came back and it was still there, same dollar value as before.  The market pegs for a stable currency seem to already work.  I believe Nubits also has a dollar peg, but I don't think it's as good a mechanism.  There are many ways to do it from price feeds, to market maker, etc.


I don't think this statement is correct.  If systems such as Bitshares DPoS and Emunie (like I said, if Emunie actually works), gain the same widespread adoption as Bitcoin, Bitcoin will be dead pretty fast since it handles 0.00007% the transaction volume and 0.00167% the speed with probably more expensive transactions on top of that after the miner subsidy lowers.

This is probably why if you go in Poloniex trollbox right now and see six lines of text in a row, five of them say they're long Bitshares, and the sixth will be something like "Where did the Ethereum volume go???"

Volume on BTS just went to the moon equaling Ethereum, but it's still trading in a small range, meaning someone is accumulating and not trying to maniacally push it up.  Seems like Ethereum people are diversifying.



A quote from a different thread:


He must not read Zerohedge.  CNYK, the company with 1 employee, 0 revenue, 0 assets, and no product made it to a five billion dollar market cap.  We probably haven't even seen a real crypto bubble yet.  The thing about the so called 2.0 platforms is, they have the advantage of being more than currency, being able to run decentralized exchanges, derivative products, USD pegs, store integration and payment processing, etc, so they can kind of blend in with normal items traded on Wall Street.  Meaning even if Bitcoin died for some reason, and people suddenly don't trust cryptocurrency, some platforms like Ethereum and Bitshares would still exist.  With the asterisk *if Ethereum develops into a platform with a valid consensus mechanism to support it and economic activity since I don't know what it's supposed to be now.

Is that possible?  The existing infrastructure is owned by governments and banks and corporations.  Even if we could copy the infrastructure and use it for a new currency, it would have to be centralized because that's how it's designed.

Or if we wanted to make a new currency and plug it in to the existing system, it would have to use the existing units.  To send money using a checking account number or credit card number would require converting into the local fiat currency. 

Before Bitcoin existed, I was invited to a small conference for a currency called "Trade Dollars" (also known as "barter bucks") from a company called TradeBank.  In essence, it worked the same as regular debit card money, except it was only accepted at a few places and there was a 10% fee.  Because they copied the existing model of infrastructure, but on a much smaller scale, they got all the drawbacks of our financial system with none of the benefits. 

The only advantage was that other local users would be forced to buy from you, since they had nowhere else to spend Trade Dollars;  that advantage was cancelled out by the fact that you yourself had nowhere to spend the Trade Dollars you accepted.  I went to the conference because one of my customers wanted to sign me up, and I indulged him to keep a good relationship with his account.  But I didn't go so far as to join, since it was such a stupid idea that it was almost a scam. 

Their entire appeal was based on the idea that "when you barter, you're getting everything for half price".  It was aimed at small businesses, and the angle was "you only pay wholesale prices for your inventory, but you're trading it for full retail price".  You see, if you sell a $100 item at your store, but you only pay $50 for it wholesale, you can barter it for a $100 item from someone else's store.  That's what they call 50% off.  I explained to my customer that U.S. dollars work the exact same way, without the 10% fee.  He said, "But with Trade Dollars I'm getting 50% off." 

I actually drew him a chart: 
You pay $50-->trade it for 100 Trade Dollars-->spend 90 Trade Dollars.
Next column:
You pay $50-->sell it for $100-->spend $100. 

He still wasn't convinced, because they had sold him the idea that he was getting everything half price with "the barter system". 

So it was a fiat altcoin - just like fiat, with a few arbitrary adjustments, and without the advantage of widespread acceptance.  There is no reason to use Trade Dollars when you could use Dollars instead.  Bagholders tried to hype it and get new users, but they had no selling points to offer. 

But Bitcoin uses a different system.  It does not bring with it all the drawbacks of our financial system.  So there are reasons to use Bitcoin instead of Dollars.

And that is why crypto altcoins are different from fiat altcoins like Trade Dollars.  If an altcoin is based on Bitcoin, it has all the features of Bitcoin plus or minus the arbitrary adjustments unique to the altcoin.  It's just like Bitcoin, but without the advantage of widespread acceptance.  If you add widespread acceptance, then it might be just as good as Bitcoin, and better than fiat for some purposes.  In London, you can pay your rent with RE/MAX realtors using Litecoin or Dogecoin.  For that purpose, Litecoin and Dogecoin work just as well as Bitcoin.

Paid is paid, whether you use Visa, Mastercard, American Express, Discover, Paypal, wire transfer, money order, or traveler's cheque.  People choose to use different methods even though they all do the same thing.  If a retailer has the ability to accept one type of credit card, it's a small matter to accept another new card which uses the same system.  If a retailer accepts personal checks, the check can come from any bank out of thousands of banks. 

And now we have Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dogecoin, NXT, and any other altcoin you want to use.  I'm personally involved with Fractalcoin, Keycoin, Lyrabar, and Unitus, and people have asked me why I care about "shitcoins".  What's good about them, they ask.  The easy answer is "everything that's good about Bitcoin".  They all do the same thing, and there's plenty of room for all of them just like Visa, Mastercard, and American Express.  Once a retailer adds the ability to accept Bitcoin, it's a small matter to accept any other cryptocoin. 

Now, if you think DPoS is the future, then there's plenty of room for that too.  You'll probably be able to spend it the same places you can spend Bitcoin.  A debit card and a credit card do diffferent things - one uses money you have, the other puts you into debt.  But they function exactly the same for the purpose of buying something.  The cashier doesn't care if you have the money or if you're going into debt, as long as the receipt is paid.  It will be the same with Bitcoin-type transactions.  When you buy groceries, it won't matter that Bitcoin "doesn't do anything" or "wastes electricity", while your other payment method can be used for smart contracts or uses DPoS.  They're all cryptocurrencies, and they're all together within a new category of money. 

But if you have a new currency that is based on the old fiat infrastructure, then why would you use it instead of fiat?   

runpaint, i appreciate such a comprehensive reply, i actually do 

but we are on completely different pages and i could spend months explaining it to you.

do i think bitcoin is the best option for now, that could evolve into what i need?

i wish it was true but no. i've not been happy with bitcoin from day one, and to misuse someone elses words, i think bitcoins been a distraction.

i think there was more potential before bitcoin and bitcoins been a huge step backwards.

i've been around alt to fiat long before bitcoin existed.

everything i've said todate isn't that hard to solve, you just have to get away from the bitcoin thinking you know.

just one example.

yes i agree to send currency costs, infrastructure needs to be built, bitcoin's solution was the blockchain and mining, and this has a cost to it, and if its ever to become mainstream these cost will increase.

but why not just piggy back on infrastructure that already exists?

Well that seems easy, then.  Is that what you want from a currency?  Just whatever you say, with no explanation required?

You say you want "a usable, simple, widely accepted p2p currency, involving no money changes (ie fee free), with no centralised control, that retains a stable price".

As you know, it doesn't exist.  As most people know, it's impossible for that to exist immediately.  It takes time, and Bitcoin is headed there.  

But you can't expect everything overnight.  Even American Express doesn't fit your requirements as a payment processor.  No fiat money is decentralized, and each fiat currency is mainly accepted in only one region.  So even when governments force people to use a currency, it still doesn't "meet your needs".

Maybe, like a woman making excuses for sleeping with other men besides her husband, saying "my needs aren't being met" is just an excuse that doesn't mean anything.  It's just some vague way of rejecting any responsibility for your own life by implying that it's someone else's responsibility to meet your needs.  

The things you say you want in a currency:
 - usable
 - simple
 - widely accepted
 - p2p
 - no money changes/fee free
 - no centralized control
 - stable price  

So before Bitcoin, how many of those needs were met with any currency?
And how many of those things does Bitcoin already do?

 - Bitcoin is usable.  

 - Bitcoin is relatively simple, especially compared to "go create your own new decentralized p2p currency, something which has never existed before".  Bitcoin solved that problem.

 - Bitcoin is widely accepted in global terms, moreso than any currency other than maybe the U.S. Dollar.  But even U.S. Dollars don't work in vending machines in most countries.  I can't use dollars, or my credit or debit cards, to buy anything from England online.  My banks don't allow it.  But I can use Bitcoin, so Bitcoin is more widely accepted in that case. 

 - p2p...yes, crypto is really neglecting your personal needs.  When will anyone in crypto develop a p2p currency?  This guy has NEEDS!  

 - No money changes - again, you're asking for one worldwide currency.  All other currencies would have to be outlawed in order to get rid of "money changes".  That requires centralized control.  A lot of closet authoritarians whine about the rules, but they only whine to get the rules changed by the existing authorities.  In other words, they love authority and depend upon it.  They might have a little riot sometimes, but the only thing that really appeases them is for Big Daddy Government to pay them some attention.

 - Fee Free - Can you give us an example of such a currency?  Of course you can't.  Today marks the 20th birthday of eBay;  compare those fees to Bitcoin.  For 20 years, millions of people have been buying online.  Their best option has been 3% fees and waiting 3 days to get their money.  Until Bitcoin.

 - Stable Price - the British Pound is the world's oldest currency, and it's not stable.  But then, Bitcoin is the world's newest currency and is already worth 150 times more than the British Pound.  But Bitcoin has already been out for like 6 years, isn't that enough time already?  We should probably give up, it's a lost cause if it can only be worth 150 times more in 6 years.  30 years ago the Pound was worth $2.40, and now it's worth $1.50.  

 - No centralized control...So you want a new currency that no one has ever used before, that isn't controlled or maintained by anyone, and you want EVERYONE to accept it, FOR FREE, and give up all their life's savings in exchange for this new money, AND you want it to be totally simple and easy to use, like no big deal right?  You just put an app on your phone, click it, and all your life's savings is gone and now you have phone money!  Simple!  But you want all of that to happen without anyone being in charge of it, and you want it NOW.

Seriously, isn't Bitcoin already more than you could ever expect to happen?  Even if you say it doesn't fit your requirements, it fits them better than anything else does.  So you have to choose which items on your list are more important;  a newer crypto might have some features you like, but it won't be more widely accepted or more stable than Bitcoin.    

The point is that you already have currency that meets your needs, or you wouldn't be able to buy anything and you would starve to death.  The real question is whether Bitcoin is an improvement over the currency you were previously using.  It's one thing to say "This is the best option in the world, and eventually it can be made even better".  But what you're saying is more like "The best thing in the world isn't good enough for me, I wish someone would make it perfect."

disagree completely. very simplistic way of looking at things that there are already existing solutions too.

What you're asking requires the involvement of millions of people.  That can't be designed into a currency.

Only governments can force millions of people to use a certain currency, so it makes no sense for you to expect it to happen without centralized control. 

Moving money takes work, so fees will always exist.  As long as there is more than one currency in the world, there will always be "money changes".

lol where to begin.

a usable, simple, widely accepted p2p currency, involving no money changes (ie fee free), with no centralised control, that retains a stable price.

Out of curiosity. What needs are not being met?

anyway to get back on topic.

i say my needs are not being meet in crypto. other more traditional means serve me better then anything thats come out of this community (and i'm definitely not alone, as anyone whos tried to use cryptos as a currency would see).

so what is needed in a p2p currency?

my point was more they need less stealing of their resources by the developed nations, and less war.

at the end of the day tis all about resources rather then fiat.

It is not just about charity. I am talking about transactions, including for profit commerce, anywhere in the world where:

1) At least one of the participants has an income below the US poverty line. 11,770 USD for single person or 24,250 USD for a family of four. http://aspe.hhs.gov/2015-poverty-guidelines
2) It is not an in person transaction. (Cash is very much still king for in person transactions involving poor people)

I am not saying this is the only market but rather that this is a huge if not the largest market for p2p crypto currency.

Edit: In many underdeveloped parts of the world this is the vast majority of the population and many people whose income is below the US thresholds would not even be considered "poor" by local standards.

Right, they'd need infrastructure to handle that as well. How many of them share a phone, or smartphone, if you're lucky enough to locate one? Those things are increasingly designed to be used by about one person. Not a community centered around crypto banking.

Then they'd need a functional network on which to support a crypto banking infrastructure with mostly full coverage across the geographic area, and a non-subsidized way to pay for that.

Then they'd need so much more.

There's so much that you'd basically just have to hand to them freely that you'd basically save more money by tossing out the crypto and giving the homeless a home.

It's just too costly for the third world. First world doesn't have much left to give with all these trillions of dollars of debt and inflating population growth through social programs these days.

These people don't need crypto.

They need railways. They need roads. They need water. They need livestock. They need farmland.

Alternatively, after more than 6000 years of history has shown, perhaps the extent of the third world is exactly where it's at right now, and they instead need nothing.

but you see thats the point, i do have a need for a p2p currency (and within my needs is a huge market) yet that need todate is not being served.

you're expressing as if the only need for cryptocurrency is humanitarian type issues, does anyone in development really care what tribes in africa do, or feeding the homeless?  not saying it from a heartles point of view, many would help were they can, but seriously its certainly not the driving force behind the tech.

certainly way better ways to help the underdeveloped world then token efforts with cryptos.

Better clearing, yes I agree with that. It is a niche application that won't ever matter to people outside the industry, but nevertheless it is a significant opportunity. As for decentralized exchanges, I'm not so sure they don't increase opportunities for front running by being slow. When you talk about HFTs those are situations where speed of light delays matter. People have tried to build non-real-time liquidity pools before and it hasn't really caught on. So we'll see, but I'm not convinced it is compelling.

Even so that's largely inside baseball for traders (whether professional or otherwise) and wouldn't be of much interest to the Average Joe or Jane by any means. What ArticMine is talking about seems closer, potentially.

This is not an uncommon experience for many people. Same here. Why would I use Bitcoin for a domestic payment when I can get 1-2% cash back by using a credit card? The reality is that more often than not those who are involved with crypto - currency as: developers, investors / speculators, miners, investors or employees of crypto currency businesses etc., are not the primary market for the use of crypto currency as a payment method. The same online payment that "costs" me -1%, with a credit card can cost someone else 100% or more in fees.

A stock exchange which clears trades trustlessly without frontrunning and hfts is a compelling case for a dex usecase. The assets that people care about have on/off ramps which instantly create value in those assets proportionate to the level of service those ramps can provide.

Hmm. Isn't that the opposite of what Buffet was saying? I'm not sure since I don't know the context but "the blockchain not the currency" is something that is claimed a lot by various commentators.



I don't see it. Using regular dollars seems fine for that. It certainly hasn't hampered Steam or thousands of games published on Steam, Xbox, mobile.

Where is the compelling value here?

And what good are decentralized exchanges if the things you are exchanging have no real use? It seems like a dog chasing its tail to me.