Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 14463. (Read 26609360 times)

Surprise surprise BTC goes green.  Everything else instantly goes green.

It would look like a crypto asset with a value stabilization mechanism?

And this so called future cryptoasset would look like what exactly, Mr. Genius?

Put up or shut up. Criticize or create.

All you fkn idiot trolls are the same. You come with heaps of smarmy handwaving and criticism, but offer zero solutions.

In this reality these things just don't have the needed mechanics for the job..
Don't take me as a pessimist by this. I think that in the future we will have an cryptoasset that is able to break this currency boundary and will be able to actually offer an predictable value without the need for the support of fiat value.

Why do people think you don't reinvent the wheel?

The wheel is reinvented all the time for all sorts of applications.

Meanwhile...

@Jacques_Bittard  please post your BTC address.

You praise the blockchain technology in general Bitcoin doesn't equal the blockchain technology. I see that the blockchain technology isn't dependent on bitcoin and bitcoin value isn't guaranteed by the blockchain technology.
I think that you are bringing forward first mover advantage with the e-mail comparison. That the e-mail protocols mostly remained the same and this will probably make bitcoin remain dominant also.
I think e-mail can't be compared because of the simple nature of the problem they were solving. You can't exactly re-invent something as simplistic as a wheel. This new field of cryptos or financial protocols are a lot more complex and can improved a lot by re-inventive improvement. We have seen radical development with new generation cryptos in terms of speed, costs and practical usability.

As long as you see it as just a payment network, or a financial protocol you will have trouble seeing it's true potential. It is a protocol that enables digital scarcity in a decentralized manner without the need for trust. It allows for hard promises. After a few blocks a transaction is effectively irreversible. So it has to be extremely expensive to 'overwrite history'. I mean overwhelmingly expensive. It's a feature, not a bug.

Will this scale to the entire population. Of course not! Nobody is saying it will not change and evolve. The current implementation is great for a settlement layer while the LN would be used as a payment network.

We have been running out of IPv4 addresses for the last 30+ years, but things still work. People have been hard at work and incrementally IP was able to handle more and more devices (Address Classes, Classless Inter-Domain Routing, NAT, ...).

I think that the development of bitcoin shows genius in software development, but not so much genius in financial implementation. Bitcoin is innovative and complex in the software perspective, but it is childish and silly in financial perspective. Modern economy needs a lot more then bitcoin is able to offer as an practical tool.
The system will always be centralized around something. The software development of bitcoin is centralized around specific people, and the financial markets of bitcoin are centralized around specific organizations and people. As long as there are people, there will always be natural centralization of systems around people who can do things that most others can't. This is not something that should be fought by itself.

I agree it is the first most simplistic, and it's quite hard for it to deviate from its original consensus plan - a store of value, peer-to-peer electronic cash system that has an in-built decentralised transaction history with high-tech-class security. Nothing more should be expected from it, other than for a scaling function to accommodate mainstream usage; because, I think that's the only thing the developers didn't factor in during the early development phase. But for stability and predictability only a centralised system can achieve such regulatory benchmark.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/olumyd-1066312
Coincidentally pops up to discuss things and matters and to debate ideas and opinions.

Can you both come clean now and present your shitcoin. Is it better than ETH? and NEO? Will it change crypto fundamentally?

In my eyes, the problem is exactly that bitcoin isn't nothing but an expensive payment network. It is often called a "cryptocurrency", but in my eyes it is a gimmick of an currency, when it doesn't have an independent mechanism for value stabilization. As long as it has to use fiat to give it value, then fiat will still be the only currency in the pair and bitcoin is just the temporal solution to transfer fiat. That is why, in my technical point of view, it is the same to hope for bitcoin to replace fiat then to hope for your car to fly to the moon. In this reality these things just don't have the needed mechanics for the job..
Don't take me as a pessimist by this. I think that in the future we will have an cryptoasset that is able to break this currency boundary and will be able to actually offer an predictable value without the need for the support of fiat value. Trying to wish bitcoin to do this isn't just constructive use of energy. All these false hopes and illusions will only make a big mess and the people who profit for it aren't exactly the good kind.
I also think that you can't compare the e-mail protocol to bitcoin protocol. One is a communication protocol, you can compare it to IRC if you like. Bitcoin is an financial protocol with a lot more complexities and different rule-sets.

The main thing I pointed out with this is that bitcoin doesn't actually offer anything practical for doing business. It's not simple, secure, fast or cheap enough to be useful in practical finance. I think that the reason is that being the first, bitcoin is just the most simplistic, general and non-specialized product. New generation of cryptos are built from the ground up to solve specific practical problems and that is why they are a lot more efficient and useful.
Bitcoin was trying hard to define itself as a store of value asset. In my eyes this won't work because an asset, that's value is highly dependent on speculation, will never be a good store of value asset. This would be as moronic as to recommend pink sheets as store of value investments. Store of value needs stability and predictability the most.

... and another one added to the ignore list. Jesus...