Three ways to save Bitcoin | Bitcointalksearch.org

SgtSpike

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1005

Quote from: cypherdoc on October 26, 2011, 08:35:04 PM

Quote from: SgtSpike on October 26, 2011, 04:48:29 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on October 26, 2011, 04:40:54 PM

"The biggest individual holders of gold—central banks, international entities and governments—are believed to account for approximately 16.5 percent of the world's gold, holding about 30,700 tons."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/33242464/The_World_s_Biggest_Gold_Reserves?slide=1

and these are the entities most interested in NOT seeing the price of gold rise. and yet you are seeing record levels of investment from individuals, funds, etf's, speculators, etc. all risking a huge selloff from the CB's/gov'ts.

why then should you fear the large holders of Bitcoin all of whom probably want to see the price rise?

You're not getting it.

GOLD is a COMMODITY.

thats funny. there are alot of gold bugs out there who would call it real money which would encompass currency.

Quote

USD is a CURRENCY.
BITCOIN is meant to be a CURRENCY, but is currently seen as a COMMODITY because of the risk associated with it.

What I have been saying all along is that if Bitcoin is to be seen as a stable currency, there can't be any risk factors, and it must be trustable. Risk factors can be mitigated by increased usage and adoption, but the trust issue will always be there as long as a single person or small group of people owns a significant portion of it. People who want to see Bitcoin as an investment don't mind the risk of someone selling out (just like the gold example you mention above), but people who want to see Bitcoin as a currency will be pushed away by the looming possibility of someone manipulating the currency value with their large holdings of it.

well there certainly aren't any stable currencies that exist in the world today and yet we all use them. Bitcoin b/c of its fixed supply has a better chance in the long run to be the most stable of all if you have the vision.

but since you seem to have it all figured out please don't bother to respond.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

in fact, all you guys are working off this theory that Bitcoin has to have a stable price to enable merchants to succeed. how quickly you forget how many merchants got off and running when the price was steadily rising earlier this year.

you guys don't understand markets. i would argue the best thing for Bitcoin merchants would be if the price starts rising steadily from here. the cloud would lift, optimism would reappear, and businesses would start flourishing. speculative money would return to the community and many Bitcoin projects/businesses would be able to get off the ground. what the community needs is money be it speculative or investment and that will only come if the price stops falling.

i think we've bottomed on the price. just watch the optimism return if the price starts to go up toward its natural equilbrium which is higher than here.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: SgtSpike on October 26, 2011, 04:48:29 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on October 26, 2011, 04:40:54 PM

"The biggest individual holders of gold—central banks, international entities and governments—are believed to account for approximately 16.5 percent of the world's gold, holding about 30,700 tons."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/33242464/The_World_s_Biggest_Gold_Reserves?slide=1

and these are the entities most interested in NOT seeing the price of gold rise. and yet you are seeing record levels of investment from individuals, funds, etf's, speculators, etc. all risking a huge selloff from the CB's/gov'ts.

why then should you fear the large holders of Bitcoin all of whom probably want to see the price rise?

You're not getting it.

GOLD is a COMMODITY.

thats funny. there are alot of gold bugs out there who would call it real money which would encompass currency.

Quote

USD is a CURRENCY.
BITCOIN is meant to be a CURRENCY, but is currently seen as a COMMODITY because of the risk associated with it.

What I have been saying all along is that if Bitcoin is to be seen as a stable currency, there can't be any risk factors, and it must be trustable. Risk factors can be mitigated by increased usage and adoption, but the trust issue will always be there as long as a single person or small group of people owns a significant portion of it. People who want to see Bitcoin as an investment don't mind the risk of someone selling out (just like the gold example you mention above), but people who want to see Bitcoin as a currency will be pushed away by the looming possibility of someone manipulating the currency value with their large holdings of it.

well there certainly aren't any stable currencies that exist in the world today and yet we all use them. Bitcoin b/c of its fixed supply has a better chance in the long run to be the most stable of all if you have the vision.

but since you seem to have it all figured out please don't bother to respond.

SgtSpike

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1005

Quote from: Etlase2 on October 26, 2011, 04:52:47 PM

Stop wasting your breath, Spike. He can't see the forest for the trees because there's a pile of bitcoins in front of him that he has a vested interest to protect. Pyramids don't work if you can't trap more suckers, and bitcoin wasn't all that discerning about who was allowed to be in level 2.

It's my last attempt. If this doesn't get through to him, I'm done with that conversation.

Etlase2

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Stop wasting your breath, Spike. He can't see the forest for the trees because there's a pile of bitcoins in front of him that he has a vested interest to protect. Pyramids don't work if you can't trap more suckers, and bitcoin wasn't all that discerning about who was allowed to be in level 2.

SgtSpike

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1005

Quote from: cypherdoc on October 26, 2011, 04:40:54 PM

"The biggest individual holders of gold—central banks, international entities and governments—are believed to account for approximately 16.5 percent of the world's gold, holding about 30,700 tons."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/33242464/The_World_s_Biggest_Gold_Reserves?slide=1

and these are the entities most interested in NOT seeing the price of gold rise. and yet you are seeing record levels of investment from individuals, funds, etf's, speculators, etc. all risking a huge selloff from the CB's/gov'ts.

why then should you fear the large holders of Bitcoin all of whom probably want to see the price rise?

You're not getting it.

GOLD is a COMMODITY.
USD is a CURRENCY.
BITCOIN is meant to be a CURRENCY, but is currently seen as a COMMODITY because of the risk associated with it.

What I have been saying all along is that if Bitcoin is to be seen as a stable currency, there can't be any risk factors, and it must be trustable. Risk factors can be mitigated by increased usage and adoption, but the trust issue will always be there as long as a single person or small group of people owns a significant portion of it. People who want to see Bitcoin as an investment don't mind the risk of someone selling out (just like the gold example you mention above), but people who want to see Bitcoin as a currency will be pushed away by the looming possibility of someone manipulating the currency value with their large holdings of it.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

"The biggest individual holders of gold—central banks, international entities and governments—are believed to account for approximately 16.5 percent of the world's gold, holding about 30,700 tons."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/33242464/The_World_s_Biggest_Gold_Reserves?slide=1

and these are the entities most interested in NOT seeing the price of gold rise. and yet you are seeing record levels of investment from individuals, funds, etf's, speculators, etc. all risking a huge selloff from the CB's/gov'ts.

why then should you fear the large holders of Bitcoin all of whom probably want to see the price rise?

SgtSpike

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1005

Quote from: Dan The Man on October 26, 2011, 12:02:56 PM

Quote from: SgtSpike on October 26, 2011, 11:53:19 AM

Quote from: Dan The Man on October 26, 2011, 11:40:20 AM

Quote from: SgtSpike on October 26, 2011, 11:21:46 AM

Quote from: Dan The Man on October 26, 2011, 10:54:15 AM

I don't think it would be that catastrophic. What happens when there is a major find of some commodity? Suppose Oak Island had 5% of the world's gold buried. Would it destroy gold if that were to be dug up? It would certain tank the price, but things would just balance out again like ripples in a pond.

Value changes in a commodity don't matter.

Value changes in something that is trying to be used as a currency DO matter, because it affects whether people will want to use the currency or not. If there is a risk of the value of a currency dropping significantly in the future, without warning and at the whim of a random, unknown person, no one (except those who enjoy risk) will want to use it on a regular basis.

Kind of like printed money, and nobody uses that.

They don't print an additional 7% of the entire money supply in a day. Otherwise, yes, that would cause havoc too.

In some situations it has happened at much faster rates than that. But a day, a year, two years. Either way the value of your currency is fluxuating. What does the time scale matter? There is someone with an infinite reserve of cash that is slowly dumping it into the market. Basically if the money supply is controlled, it's like we are all playing with a tiny fraction of the total money and at any given time it COULD be flooded with as much new money as can be desired..

True, it has happened. And look at what happened to those currencies in which it did happen? People didn't want or trust those currencies anymore. They devalued to nothing, and then a new currency had to be created in order to take the old, worthless currency's place.

People are much more likely to trust a government with regards to handling a money supply than they are likely to trust a random, anonymous person. And even if the person was known, most would still rather trust the government.

Dan The Man

hero member

Activity: 672

Merit: 500

Quote from: SgtSpike on October 26, 2011, 11:53:19 AM

Quote from: Dan The Man on October 26, 2011, 11:40:20 AM

Quote from: SgtSpike on October 26, 2011, 11:21:46 AM

Quote from: Dan The Man on October 26, 2011, 10:54:15 AM

I don't think it would be that catastrophic. What happens when there is a major find of some commodity? Suppose Oak Island had 5% of the world's gold buried. Would it destroy gold if that were to be dug up? It would certain tank the price, but things would just balance out again like ripples in a pond.

Value changes in a commodity don't matter.

Value changes in something that is trying to be used as a currency DO matter, because it affects whether people will want to use the currency or not. If there is a risk of the value of a currency dropping significantly in the future, without warning and at the whim of a random, unknown person, no one (except those who enjoy risk) will want to use it on a regular basis.

Kind of like printed money, and nobody uses that.

They don't print an additional 7% of the entire money supply in a day. Otherwise, yes, that would cause havoc too.

In some situations it has happened at much faster rates than that. But a day, a year, two years. Either way the value of your currency is fluxuating. What does the time scale matter? There is someone with an infinite reserve of cash that is slowly dumping it into the market. Basically if the money supply is controlled, it's like we are all playing with a tiny fraction of the total money and at any given time it COULD be flooded with as much new money as can be desired..

SgtSpike

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1005

Quote from: Dan The Man on October 26, 2011, 11:40:20 AM

Quote from: SgtSpike on October 26, 2011, 11:21:46 AM

Quote from: Dan The Man on October 26, 2011, 10:54:15 AM

I don't think it would be that catastrophic. What happens when there is a major find of some commodity? Suppose Oak Island had 5% of the world's gold buried. Would it destroy gold if that were to be dug up? It would certain tank the price, but things would just balance out again like ripples in a pond.

Value changes in a commodity don't matter.

Value changes in something that is trying to be used as a currency DO matter, because it affects whether people will want to use the currency or not. If there is a risk of the value of a currency dropping significantly in the future, without warning and at the whim of a random, unknown person, no one (except those who enjoy risk) will want to use it on a regular basis.

Kind of like printed money, and nobody uses that.

They don't print an additional 7% of the entire money supply in a day. Otherwise, yes, that would cause havoc too.

Dan The Man

hero member

Activity: 672

Merit: 500

Quote from: SgtSpike on October 26, 2011, 11:21:46 AM

Quote from: Dan The Man on October 26, 2011, 10:54:15 AM

I don't think it would be that catastrophic. What happens when there is a major find of some commodity? Suppose Oak Island had 5% of the world's gold buried. Would it destroy gold if that were to be dug up? It would certain tank the price, but things would just balance out again like ripples in a pond.

Value changes in a commodity don't matter.

Value changes in something that is trying to be used as a currency DO matter, because it affects whether people will want to use the currency or not. If there is a risk of the value of a currency dropping significantly in the future, without warning and at the whim of a random, unknown person, no one (except those who enjoy risk) will want to use it on a regular basis.

Kind of like printed money, and nobody uses that.

SgtSpike

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1005

Quote from: Dan The Man on October 26, 2011, 10:54:15 AM

I don't think it would be that catastrophic. What happens when there is a major find of some commodity? Suppose Oak Island had 5% of the world's gold buried. Would it destroy gold if that were to be dug up? It would certain tank the price, but things would just balance out again like ripples in a pond.

Value changes in a commodity don't matter.

Value changes in something that is trying to be used as a currency DO matter, because it affects whether people will want to use the currency or not. If there is a risk of the value of a currency dropping significantly in the future, without warning and at the whim of a random, unknown person, no one (except those who enjoy risk) will want to use it on a regular basis.

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Quote from: Dan The Man on October 26, 2011, 11:01:54 AM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on October 26, 2011, 11:00:14 AM

Quote from: Dan The Man on October 26, 2011, 10:54:15 AM

I don't think it would be that catastrophic. What happens when there is a major find of some commodity? Suppose Oak Island had 5% of the world's gold buried. Would it destroy gold if that were to be dug up? It would certain tank the price, but things would just balance out again like ripples in a pond.

At first: It isn't

Second: You'd need to pay people to get that for you in the real world.

I guess you haven't read much about Oak Island. It might have excavation costs, but they would be less than insignificant in comparison to 5% of the world's gold.

What?
Are you saying that there actually is more than 5% of the worlds gold on there?
All I can see are speculative theories.... unlikely to be true from the way resources are distributed in nature. Pirate treasures... right Roll Eyes

With bitcoin it is something different, we can see that in the blockchain and confirm it.
But as I've written: It doesn't have to be that way.... I'm not saying there should be a 'robin hood' movement, a split of the blockchain or the liking... there are other ways to archive that, and if those people are really interested in profit instead of power they would join it... there are a lot of things in 'p2p' yet to be considered...

Dan The Man

hero member

Activity: 672

Merit: 500

Quote from: ElectricMucus on October 26, 2011, 11:00:14 AM

Quote from: Dan The Man on October 26, 2011, 10:54:15 AM

I don't think it would be that catastrophic. What happens when there is a major find of some commodity? Suppose Oak Island had 5% of the world's gold buried. Would it destroy gold if that were to be dug up? It would certain tank the price, but things would just balance out again like ripples in a pond.

At first: It isn't

Second: You'd need to pay people to get that for you in the real world.

I guess you haven't read much about Oak Island. It might have excavation costs, but they would be less than insignificant in comparison to 5% of the world's gold.

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Quote from: Dan The Man on October 26, 2011, 10:54:15 AM

I don't think it would be that catastrophic. What happens when there is a major find of some commodity? Suppose Oak Island had 5% of the world's gold buried. Would it destroy gold if that were to be dug up? It would certain tank the price, but things would just balance out again like ripples in a pond.

At first: It isn't

Second: You'd need to pay people to get that for you in the real world.

There simply isn't any equivalent, the only thing that comes somewhat close are diamonds, and I think it is clear what it is with them.
But it doesn't have to be that way with bitcoin, there are possibilities which weren't yet considered which could solve the problem, but it would have to be voluntary or at least democratic in an anarchistic sense.

Dan The Man

hero member

Activity: 672

Merit: 500

I don't think it would be that catastrophic. What happens when there is a major find of some commodity? Suppose Oak Island had 5% of the world's gold buried. Would it destroy gold if that were to be dug up? It would certain tank the price, but things would just balance out again like ripples in a pond.

Etlase2

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Quote from: SgtSpike on October 26, 2011, 10:30:47 AM

If you trust the people who hold on to 7% of a currency, then you have no reason for concern. But the vast majority of the population will NOT trust people who hold such a large amount of it. And for that reason, they will refuse to adopt it. That is my point. You can try to rationalize and justify the holdings of the early adopters all you want, but the bottom line is, it's TOO MUCH. Not from a greed or envious standpoint, but from a standpoint of wanting to achieve a stable and trustable currency.

And the sick part of it all is that no one can even be sure IF someone holds a large portion of the economy in their back pocket, so many will join up without realizing it. What a sick, sick way to pull off potentially the greatest pyramid scheme in history.

SgtSpike

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1005

Quote from: cypherdoc on October 25, 2011, 07:18:15 PM

Quote from: SgtSpike on October 25, 2011, 06:45:02 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on October 25, 2011, 06:37:58 PM

Quote from: SgtSpike on October 25, 2011, 05:58:16 PM

Quote from: Dan The Man on October 25, 2011, 04:25:35 PM

Quote from: SgtSpike on October 25, 2011, 02:26:10 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on October 25, 2011, 02:12:07 PM

i disagree that they are controlling the economy. i'd argue that the naysayers are the ones driving down the price and thus the eonomy. they've flooded this forum with FUD since the Spring.

It doesn't matter whether they are currently doing so or not. What matters is that they have the capability to do so. You can't trust a currency when people have that kind of power over it, even if they profess to be do-gooders and haven't shown any signs of potential malicious behavior.

If someone was dropping huge quantities of bitcoins to "control" the economy, they would be diluting their power pretty quickly. Basically it is better that someone dumps all of their coins now and causes the ripples in the economy when it doesn't really matter much.

You're missing the point.

It's not about the actual act of dumping coins, it's about the threat that they could do so at any time and cause economic turmoil, that makes a currency untrustable. I completely agree that it would be better if someone dumped all of their coins early on. It would spread the coins so that a single person doesn't have that kind of power anymore. But, with early adopters STILL holding on to Bitcoins, that threat is still there. And it will be there for a long time, even if those early adopters DO move their coins, simply because we wouldn't know whether they just moved them to a set of addresses they own elsewhere, or whether they actually sold them to a variety of people.

In summary: Dumping coins causes a currency to become unstable (with regards to its value), and the threat of dumping coins causing a currency to be untrustable.

its not worth worrying about large holders b/c they are just part of the market and will always be there. there's nothing you can do about them and you have no way of predicting what they'll do. and there will always be some of us who have more money than others. for all you know they all might all have agreed to not ever sell a coin until the price hits $10,000.

Not true. There are a variety of ways you could start a currency that avoids giving any single person more than 0.5% of the currency.

I don't mind people having a large amount of money. The richest man in the world has what, $60B? But that's pittance compared to the total amount of USD in circulation - $14T, or more. $60B of $14T is 0.4%. I don't have a problem with that. In fact, anything less than 1% would probably be ok.

But it's when you have early adopters in the case of Bitcoin, who have upwards of 7% of the total currency, that you cannot trust the currency until that amount of wealth is redistributed. Because having that much of the currency really truly DOES mean you wield the power to wreck the economy, just because you feel like it.

its not rationale for a large holder of btc's to dump them onto the market to crash the price at any pt in time unless you're the gov't or a bank who somehow got their hands on a large chunk of btc and want to destroy it.

for the early adopters however, they will slowly bleed their holdings out to minimize the impact on the price they decide to sell at. you see this happen all the time with penny stocks where the founders have their brokers slowly sell their large stock positions to minimize a selloff before they achieve their objectives.

I never said a malicious person would have to be rational. And do you really trust a person to make rational decisions 100% of the time anyway? I certainly don't.

If you trust the people who hold on to 7% of a currency, then you have no reason for concern. But the vast majority of the population will NOT trust people who hold such a large amount of it. And for that reason, they will refuse to adopt it. That is my point. You can try to rationalize and justify the holdings of the early adopters all you want, but the bottom line is, it's TOO MUCH. Not from a greed or envious standpoint, but from a standpoint of wanting to achieve a stable and trustable currency.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: SgtSpike on October 25, 2011, 06:45:02 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on October 25, 2011, 06:37:58 PM

Quote from: SgtSpike on October 25, 2011, 05:58:16 PM

Quote from: Dan The Man on October 25, 2011, 04:25:35 PM

Quote from: SgtSpike on October 25, 2011, 02:26:10 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on October 25, 2011, 02:12:07 PM

i disagree that they are controlling the economy. i'd argue that the naysayers are the ones driving down the price and thus the eonomy. they've flooded this forum with FUD since the Spring.

It doesn't matter whether they are currently doing so or not. What matters is that they have the capability to do so. You can't trust a currency when people have that kind of power over it, even if they profess to be do-gooders and haven't shown any signs of potential malicious behavior.

If someone was dropping huge quantities of bitcoins to "control" the economy, they would be diluting their power pretty quickly. Basically it is better that someone dumps all of their coins now and causes the ripples in the economy when it doesn't really matter much.

You're missing the point.

It's not about the actual act of dumping coins, it's about the threat that they could do so at any time and cause economic turmoil, that makes a currency untrustable. I completely agree that it would be better if someone dumped all of their coins early on. It would spread the coins so that a single person doesn't have that kind of power anymore. But, with early adopters STILL holding on to Bitcoins, that threat is still there. And it will be there for a long time, even if those early adopters DO move their coins, simply because we wouldn't know whether they just moved them to a set of addresses they own elsewhere, or whether they actually sold them to a variety of people.

In summary: Dumping coins causes a currency to become unstable (with regards to its value), and the threat of dumping coins causing a currency to be untrustable.

its not worth worrying about large holders b/c they are just part of the market and will always be there. there's nothing you can do about them and you have no way of predicting what they'll do. and there will always be some of us who have more money than others. for all you know they all might all have agreed to not ever sell a coin until the price hits $10,000.

Not true. There are a variety of ways you could start a currency that avoids giving any single person more than 0.5% of the currency.

I don't mind people having a large amount of money. The richest man in the world has what, $60B? But that's pittance compared to the total amount of USD in circulation - $14T, or more. $60B of $14T is 0.4%. I don't have a problem with that. In fact, anything less than 1% would probably be ok.

But it's when you have early adopters in the case of Bitcoin, who have upwards of 7% of the total currency, that you cannot trust the currency until that amount of wealth is redistributed. Because having that much of the currency really truly DOES mean you wield the power to wreck the economy, just because you feel like it.

its not rationale for a large holder of btc's to dump them onto the market to crash the price at any pt in time unless you're the gov't or a bank who somehow got their hands on a large chunk of btc and want to destroy it.

for the early adopters however, they will slowly bleed their holdings out to minimize the impact on the price they decide to sell at. you see this happen all the time with penny stocks where the founders have their brokers slowly sell their large stock positions to minimize a selloff before they achieve their objectives.

SgtSpike

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1005

Quote from: cypherdoc on October 25, 2011, 06:37:58 PM

Quote from: SgtSpike on October 25, 2011, 05:58:16 PM

Quote from: Dan The Man on October 25, 2011, 04:25:35 PM

Quote from: SgtSpike on October 25, 2011, 02:26:10 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on October 25, 2011, 02:12:07 PM

i disagree that they are controlling the economy. i'd argue that the naysayers are the ones driving down the price and thus the eonomy. they've flooded this forum with FUD since the Spring.

It doesn't matter whether they are currently doing so or not. What matters is that they have the capability to do so. You can't trust a currency when people have that kind of power over it, even if they profess to be do-gooders and haven't shown any signs of potential malicious behavior.

If someone was dropping huge quantities of bitcoins to "control" the economy, they would be diluting their power pretty quickly. Basically it is better that someone dumps all of their coins now and causes the ripples in the economy when it doesn't really matter much.

You're missing the point.

It's not about the actual act of dumping coins, it's about the threat that they could do so at any time and cause economic turmoil, that makes a currency untrustable. I completely agree that it would be better if someone dumped all of their coins early on. It would spread the coins so that a single person doesn't have that kind of power anymore. But, with early adopters STILL holding on to Bitcoins, that threat is still there. And it will be there for a long time, even if those early adopters DO move their coins, simply because we wouldn't know whether they just moved them to a set of addresses they own elsewhere, or whether they actually sold them to a variety of people.

In summary: Dumping coins causes a currency to become unstable (with regards to its value), and the threat of dumping coins causing a currency to be untrustable.

its not worth worrying about large holders b/c they are just part of the market and will always be there. there's nothing you can do about them and you have no way of predicting what they'll do. and there will always be some of us who have more money than others. for all you know they all might all have agreed to not ever sell a coin until the price hits $10,000.

Not true. There are a variety of ways you could start a currency that avoids giving any single person more than 0.5% of the currency.

I don't mind people having a large amount of money. The richest man in the world has what, $60B? But that's pittance compared to the total amount of USD in circulation - $14T, or more. $60B of $14T is 0.4%. I don't have a problem with that. In fact, anything less than 1% would probably be ok.

But it's when you have early adopters in the case of Bitcoin, who have upwards of 7% of the total currency, that you cannot trust the currency until that amount of wealth is redistributed. Because having that much of the currency really truly DOES mean you wield the power to wreck the economy, just because you feel like it.

Topic: Three ways to save Bitcoin (Read 4045 times)