Topic: Try to answer the difficult questions... - page 3. (Read 3208 times)
Eventually, we're gonna need a new currency and it's gonna, most definately, be a cryptocurrency.
Suppose we have a technology at our disposal where we can move fiat currencies or anything else of value (that is not supposed to be double spent) using a distributed ledger system (allowing cheap, instant, global trust-less transfers) that is not dependent on the price of a native cryptotoken (that in this case you would not need) and using this distributed ledger system for smart contracts. In this case, should bitcoin be valuable?
What do you think? Yes? No?
Why?
VC money in the crypto space is more interested in the blockchain that in bitcoin, as any statement from these entities clearly shows. They all agree that "the blockchain is the main innovation".
So far the criticisms to the "it's about the blockchain, not bitcoin, stupid" way of thinking (http://www.miscmagazine.com/its-the-block-chain-stupid/) consists in saying that the blockchain is dependent on bitcoin (the miners need an incentive to keep the network running, the price of the token needs to be sufficiently high because security etc).
Therefore no bitcoin = no blockchain (https://twitter.com/nvk/status/522115773918359552)
But what if we had a system that works with decent security that doesn't rely on that cryptotoken? Wouldn't that make all cryptocurrencies themselves pretty much useless (unless they have a specific purpose that is not just a necessary security mechanism)?
Then sure, you might simply consider bitcoin to be valuable because it can be a store of value/new currency/replacement of fiat. But the world might not find these use cases to be useful, compromising bitcoin's high valuation scenarios.
What do you think? Yes? No?
Why?
VC money in the crypto space is more interested in the blockchain that in bitcoin, as any statement from these entities clearly shows. They all agree that "the blockchain is the main innovation".
So far the criticisms to the "it's about the blockchain, not bitcoin, stupid" way of thinking (http://www.miscmagazine.com/its-the-block-chain-stupid/) consists in saying that the blockchain is dependent on bitcoin (the miners need an incentive to keep the network running, the price of the token needs to be sufficiently high because security etc).
Therefore no bitcoin = no blockchain (https://twitter.com/nvk/status/522115773918359552)
But what if we had a system that works with decent security that doesn't rely on that cryptotoken? Wouldn't that make all cryptocurrencies themselves pretty much useless (unless they have a specific purpose that is not just a necessary security mechanism)?
Then sure, you might simply consider bitcoin to be valuable because it can be a store of value/new currency/replacement of fiat. But the world might not find these use cases to be useful, compromising bitcoin's high valuation scenarios.
How do you secure this mythical distributed blockchain allowing frictionless transfer of any assets?
I am not sure why you cannot see the value in the bitcoin blockchain. There are literally hundreds of other chains out there and the vast majority are worthless. The btc chain has value because people give it value. It had value with virtually no utility - simply as a transferable digital asset. Now its utility is going through the roof and the original monetary fundamentals of the currency remain as valid today at 300 dollars as they were two years ago at 30 dollars. Algorithmically limited by design.
I see a future with many digital chains which can interact, but there will always be a place for a digital gold-like asset such as bitcoin. I hope you aren't caught shorting bitcoin right now.
Suppose we have a technology at our disposal where we can move fiat currencies or anything else of value (that is not supposed to be double spent) using a distributed ledger system (allowing cheap, instant, global trust-less transfers) that is not dependent on the price of a native cryptotoken (that in this case you would not need) and using this distributed ledger system for smart contracts. In this case, should bitcoin be valuable?
What do you think? Yes? No?
Why?
VC money in the crypto space is more interested in the blockchain that in bitcoin, as any statement from these entities clearly shows. They all agree that "the blockchain is the main innovation".
So far the criticisms to the "it's about the blockchain, not bitcoin, stupid" way of thinking (http://www.miscmagazine.com/its-the-block-chain-stupid/) consists in saying that the blockchain is dependent on bitcoin (the miners need an incentive to keep the network running, the price of the token needs to be sufficiently high because security etc).
Therefore no bitcoin = no blockchain (https://twitter.com/nvk/status/522115773918359552)
But what if we had a system that works with decent security that doesn't rely on that cryptotoken? Wouldn't that make all cryptocurrencies themselves pretty much useless (unless they have a specific purpose that is not just a necessary security mechanism)?
Then sure, you might simply consider bitcoin to be valuable because it can be a store of value/new currency/replacement of fiat. But the world might not find these use cases to be useful, compromising bitcoin's high valuation scenarios.
What do you think? Yes? No?
Why?
VC money in the crypto space is more interested in the blockchain that in bitcoin, as any statement from these entities clearly shows. They all agree that "the blockchain is the main innovation".
So far the criticisms to the "it's about the blockchain, not bitcoin, stupid" way of thinking (http://www.miscmagazine.com/its-the-block-chain-stupid/) consists in saying that the blockchain is dependent on bitcoin (the miners need an incentive to keep the network running, the price of the token needs to be sufficiently high because security etc).
Therefore no bitcoin = no blockchain (https://twitter.com/nvk/status/522115773918359552)
But what if we had a system that works with decent security that doesn't rely on that cryptotoken? Wouldn't that make all cryptocurrencies themselves pretty much useless (unless they have a specific purpose that is not just a necessary security mechanism)?
Then sure, you might simply consider bitcoin to be valuable because it can be a store of value/new currency/replacement of fiat. But the world might not find these use cases to be useful, compromising bitcoin's high valuation scenarios.
Those who pledge for bitcoin do so not only because it is faster, easier and all the advantages that the blockchain brings us, but also due to it's decentralization and gold-like properties.
It can be finally the way to retreive the real ownership of money, that we had before gold pattern was discontinued.
I hope you are not short on marging - prepare to get
wiped out
wiped out
Just to add something:
I think the question is important because these technologies are being built today (as opposed to say 2011-2013 where "there was only bitcoin and the blockchain"), and it is naive to think that more of them won't be built in the future.
It is important because if a distributed ledger system is dissociable from the idea of a cryptocurrency, you have to find a better reason for your cryptocurrency to exist and have a price than "because the blockchain!" or "because cheap, global, instant money transfers!".
I think the question is important because these technologies are being built today (as opposed to say 2011-2013 where "there was only bitcoin and the blockchain"), and it is naive to think that more of them won't be built in the future.
It is important because if a distributed ledger system is dissociable from the idea of a cryptocurrency, you have to find a better reason for your cryptocurrency to exist and have a price than "because the blockchain!" or "because cheap, global, instant money transfers!".
Suppose we have a technology at our disposal where we can move fiat currencies or anything else of value (that is not supposed to be double spent) using a distributed ledger system (allowing cheap, instant, global trust-less transfers) that is not dependent on the price of a native cryptotoken (that in this case you would not need) and using this distributed ledger system for smart contracts. In this case, should bitcoin be valuable?
What do you think? Yes? No?
Why?
VC money in the crypto space is more interested in the blockchain that in bitcoin, as any statement from these entities clearly shows. They all agree that "the blockchain is the main innovation".
So far the criticisms to the "it's about the blockchain, not bitcoin, stupid" way of thinking (http://www.miscmagazine.com/its-the-block-chain-stupid/) consist in saying that the blockchain is dependent on bitcoin (the miners need an incentive to keep the network running, the price of the token needs to be sufficiently high because security etc).
Therefore no bitcoin = no blockchain (https://twitter.com/nvk/status/522115773918359552)
But what if we had a system that works with decent security that doesn't rely on that cryptotoken? Wouldn't that make all cryptocurrencies themselves pretty much useless (unless they have a specific purpose that is not just a necessary security mechanism)?
Then sure, you might simply consider bitcoin to be valuable because it can be a store of value/new currency/replacement of fiat. But the world might not find these use cases to be useful, compromising bitcoin's high valuation scenarios.
What do you think? Yes? No?
Why?
VC money in the crypto space is more interested in the blockchain that in bitcoin, as any statement from these entities clearly shows. They all agree that "the blockchain is the main innovation".
So far the criticisms to the "it's about the blockchain, not bitcoin, stupid" way of thinking (http://www.miscmagazine.com/its-the-block-chain-stupid/) consist in saying that the blockchain is dependent on bitcoin (the miners need an incentive to keep the network running, the price of the token needs to be sufficiently high because security etc).
Therefore no bitcoin = no blockchain (https://twitter.com/nvk/status/522115773918359552)
But what if we had a system that works with decent security that doesn't rely on that cryptotoken? Wouldn't that make all cryptocurrencies themselves pretty much useless (unless they have a specific purpose that is not just a necessary security mechanism)?
Then sure, you might simply consider bitcoin to be valuable because it can be a store of value/new currency/replacement of fiat. But the world might not find these use cases to be useful, compromising bitcoin's high valuation scenarios.
Jump to: