Topic: Which token should Hive support next? - page 6. (Read 11941 times)
Add Feathercoin!!
Lol that trash coin isnt even anonymous. Plus it was originally abandoned by its "dev team" to go make zerocash instead.
Could we have feathercoin please 
Feathercoin pleeeeeeaaaase
you can message me if you have questions about the nxt api or simply post a message on http://nxtforum.org
+1, Nxt devs in da house
you can message me if you have questions about the nxt api or simply post a message on http://nxtforum.org
Definitely Nxt is among the ones to support.
anything but NXT. that 5 stakeholder 100% premined scam doesnt need anything supporting it.
agreed, NXT I will support.
will be great.
Counterparty
Wait, are you serious? I honestly couldn't tell without reading that twice, but I *think* you actually *are* being serious...
Which is awful. Especially if you work with crypto for a living. None of this works AT ALL without scarcity. The entire point of bitcoin, and altcoins for that matter, is recording the transfer of a scarce asset. Without scarcity there really is no asset, or at least no reason to record the transfer of it, since there's no value. How do you not get that*?
You can make arguments for supporting alts in your wallet if you like, but to categorically refute the validity of digital scarcity is just asinine.
* or maybe I'm just being expertly trolled...?
Which is awful. Especially if you work with crypto for a living. None of this works AT ALL without scarcity. The entire point of bitcoin, and altcoins for that matter, is recording the transfer of a scarce asset. Without scarcity there really is no asset, or at least no reason to record the transfer of it, since there's no value. How do you not get that*?
You can make arguments for supporting alts in your wallet if you like, but to categorically refute the validity of digital scarcity is just asinine.
* or maybe I'm just being expertly trolled...?
Digital scarcity within the framework of a single token—that of course makes sense.
Well, you can't have infinite tokens (I'll acquiesce and use your word of choice for now) with scarcity within each and still have scarcity over all, if there's functional crossover between tokens. However broad a domain you're considering, there must be scarcity somewhere or else there is no value.
But expecting everyone to value your assumptions equally re: precisely which token(s) are important ("artificial digital scarcity")? That is a non-starter, a fact which should be obvious to anyone who knows that human beings are not uniformly rational, nor uniformly in possession of the same set of needs and desires.
Kinda thinking you're taking my points out of context here and fighting a different battle... Not quite sure what, though.
To clarify my arguments, if bitcoin loses ultimately, and there are other coins with long-run value, that's fine. That just can't happen arbitrarily (or seemingly arbitrarily) or the world will not boardly adopt crypto-currency (or tokens...(semantics)). You are either pissed about something else, or are severely misunderstanding how *most* humans work.
Let me be clear: I love Bitcoin, I hold Bitcoin, and (for now) we run Hive on it, exclusively...
Good.
But I still feel that these arguments against other tokens are spurious at best. See my point about semantics.
Disagree. I don't particularly care what series of letters you use to describe a slot on a blockchain. The point is what those slots can be used for, and money is a fantastic use for them. There are indeed more uses, but it's near-ideal for money. All of our monetary constructs have boiled down to providing a memory function. On the surface it's ludicrous that hunks of metal ever held value above their industrial use, but turns out they provided the societal exchange memory function pretty darn well (until humans developed the need to transact over distance). Rai stones are obviously one of the most cited examples of the memory concept being taken to an extreme, and bitcoin is, for the way our society currently interacts, the intellectual pinnacle of this money-memory function. For now, anyways.
To realize those functions we can't have blockchains falling in and out of favor willy nilly. Luckily (in our short history) that has not yet happened, and I'm only interested in the crypto space because I'm reasonably confident it'll continue to not happen. Essentially, if bitcoin is unseated, most of the humans will have to pretty readily be able to describe why, or else confidence in the memory function will be lost and people won't use a decentralized construct for such anymore, having tested and disproved the notion that it can be accomplished without an entity demanding use of it by force.
tl;dr: I am indeed trolling you, but not in the way that you may think.
Indeed.
Wait, are you serious? I honestly couldn't tell without reading that twice, but I *think* you actually *are* being serious...
Which is awful. Especially if you work with crypto for a living. None of this works AT ALL without scarcity. The entire point of bitcoin, and altcoins for that matter, is recording the transfer of a scarce asset. Without scarcity there really is no asset, or at least no reason to record the transfer of it, since there's no value. How do you not get that*?
You can make arguments for supporting alts in your wallet if you like, but to categorically refute the validity of digital scarcity is just asinine.
* or maybe I'm just being expertly trolled...?
Which is awful. Especially if you work with crypto for a living. None of this works AT ALL without scarcity. The entire point of bitcoin, and altcoins for that matter, is recording the transfer of a scarce asset. Without scarcity there really is no asset, or at least no reason to record the transfer of it, since there's no value. How do you not get that*?
You can make arguments for supporting alts in your wallet if you like, but to categorically refute the validity of digital scarcity is just asinine.
* or maybe I'm just being expertly trolled...?
Digital scarcity within the framework of a single token—that of course makes sense. But expecting everyone to value your assumptions equally re: precisely which token(s) are important ("artificial digital scarcity")? That is a non-starter, a fact which should be obvious to anyone who knows that human beings are not uniformly rational, nor uniformly in possession of the same set of needs and desires.
Let me be clear: I love Bitcoin, I hold Bitcoin, and (for now) we run Hive on it, exclusively... But I still feel that these arguments against other tokens are spurious at best. See my point about semantics.
tl;dr: I am indeed trolling you, but not in the way that you may think.
No noobs here mate. I got banned by simply mentioning the word 'nxt' in the btc fourm! They must be scared of something right?
Okay NXT people, we get it. :-)
Ok, and just this last one from me for NXT and we're done
Connect to a public node and use its API, easy as pie.
anything but NXT. that 5 stakeholder 100% premined scam doesnt need anything supporting it.
This
I would strongly advise that you consider what you're doing a little more deeply. We're currently in this manic phase of new alt-coins, where every idea, ranging from the *very* few good/interesting ideas, to the irrelevant tweak/scam-coins, gets a day or three in the sun. It's clear that 99+% of the alt coins out there will not last, and that almost definitely includes what many would consider some of the top alts today.
The damage to crypto-currency in general caused by the current alt-mania is non-trivial. The existence of non-technically-interesting alt coins gives credence to the crypto-currency naysayers who insist that the entire space is a flash in the pan because alts prove you can't have digital scarcity. We only play into the hands of this argument by supporting alts.
I'm a firm believer that we'll only end up with 3 or 4 coins long-term (and we have *no idea* which those are going to be yet) and that they'll serve distinct market niches due to meaningful technical differentiation. This situation would actually be somewhat analogous to how the precious metals markets developed; there are only a few that carry non-industrial value.
I just hope that leading companies in the crypto space *do* consider these meta-dynamics and aren't just looking for short-run boosts to their own userbase at the expense of the long-run health of the entire community.
Choose wisely.
The damage to crypto-currency in general caused by the current alt-mania is non-trivial. The existence of non-technically-interesting alt coins gives credence to the crypto-currency naysayers who insist that the entire space is a flash in the pan because alts prove you can't have digital scarcity. We only play into the hands of this argument by supporting alts.
I'm a firm believer that we'll only end up with 3 or 4 coins long-term (and we have *no idea* which those are going to be yet) and that they'll serve distinct market niches due to meaningful technical differentiation. This situation would actually be somewhat analogous to how the precious metals markets developed; there are only a few that carry non-industrial value.
I just hope that leading companies in the crypto space *do* consider these meta-dynamics and aren't just looking for short-run boosts to their own userbase at the expense of the long-run health of the entire community.
Choose wisely.
Hive is a supporter of Token Neutrality:
• We do not believe it appropriate that wallet makers hold bias towards one token or another.
• We find arguments for artificial digital scarcity well-reasoned, but ultimately delusional.
No doubt the semantic framing of this topic is responsible for most of the confusion. If one swaps the word 'currency' for 'shares' as Daniel and Stan of Clan Larimer have been suggesting, things look quite a bit different. These two brilliant pieces are recommended reading for everyone:
http://bitshares.org/a-bitrose-by-any-other-name/
http://bitshares.org/the-end-of-cryptomoney/
We at Hive agree that so-called crypto-currency is not money—even if it can be used that way, and even if it is sometimes convenient to describe it that way. We're actively working on our language, but let me be crystal-clear about that perspective now.
I know that $1,000,000/BTC was an exit strategy for a handful of people, but there's nary a prayer of it playing out that way. We of Earth love our novelty, and I in particular find the idea of artificial digital scarcity so painfully fucking boring that I'm going to spend my time making your world view more difficult to sustain, as both a career and a hobby.
Wait, are you serious? I honestly couldn't tell without reading that twice, but I *think* you actually *are* being serious...
Which is awful. Especially if you work with crypto for a living. None of this works AT ALL without scarcity. The entire point of bitcoin, and altcoins for that matter, is recording the transfer of a scarce asset. Without scarcity there really is no asset, or at least no reason to record the transfer of it, since there's no value. How do you not get that*?
You can make arguments for supporting alts in your wallet if you like, but to categorically refute the validity of digital scarcity is just asinine.
* or maybe I'm just being expertly trolled...?
Okay NXT people, we get it. :-)
I would vote for Nxt.
I would strongly advise that you consider what you're doing a little more deeply. We're currently in this manic phase of new alt-coins, where every idea, ranging from the *very* few good/interesting ideas, to the irrelevant tweak/scam-coins, gets a day or three in the sun. It's clear that 99+% of the alt coins out there will not last, and that almost definitely includes what many would consider some of the top alts today.
The damage to crypto-currency in general caused by the current alt-mania is non-trivial. The existence of non-technically-interesting alt coins gives credence to the crypto-currency naysayers who insist that the entire space is a flash in the pan because alts prove you can't have digital scarcity. We only play into the hands of this argument by supporting alts.
I'm a firm believer that we'll only end up with 3 or 4 coins long-term (and we have *no idea* which those are going to be yet) and that they'll serve distinct market niches due to meaningful technical differentiation. This situation would actually be somewhat analogous to how the precious metals markets developed; there are only a few that carry non-industrial value.
I just hope that leading companies in the crypto space *do* consider these meta-dynamics and aren't just looking for short-run boosts to their own userbase at the expense of the long-run health of the entire community.
Choose wisely.
The damage to crypto-currency in general caused by the current alt-mania is non-trivial. The existence of non-technically-interesting alt coins gives credence to the crypto-currency naysayers who insist that the entire space is a flash in the pan because alts prove you can't have digital scarcity. We only play into the hands of this argument by supporting alts.
I'm a firm believer that we'll only end up with 3 or 4 coins long-term (and we have *no idea* which those are going to be yet) and that they'll serve distinct market niches due to meaningful technical differentiation. This situation would actually be somewhat analogous to how the precious metals markets developed; there are only a few that carry non-industrial value.
I just hope that leading companies in the crypto space *do* consider these meta-dynamics and aren't just looking for short-run boosts to their own userbase at the expense of the long-run health of the entire community.
Choose wisely.
Hive is a supporter of Token Neutrality:
• We do not believe it appropriate that wallet makers hold bias towards one token or another.
• We find arguments for artificial digital scarcity well-reasoned, but ultimately delusional.
No doubt the semantic framing of this topic is responsible for most of the confusion. If one swaps the word 'currency' for 'shares' as Daniel and Stan of Clan Larimer have been suggesting, things look quite a bit different. These two brilliant pieces are recommended reading for everyone:
http://bitshares.org/a-bitrose-by-any-other-name/
http://bitshares.org/the-end-of-cryptomoney/
We at Hive agree that so-called crypto-currency is not money—even if it can be used that way, and even if it is sometimes convenient to describe it that way. We're actively working on our language, but let me be crystal-clear about that perspective now.
I know that $1,000,000/BTC was an exit strategy for a handful of people, but there's nary a prayer of it playing out that way. We of Earth love our novelty, and I in particular find the idea of artificial digital scarcity so painfully fucking boring that I'm going to spend my time making your world view more difficult to sustain, as both a career and a hobby.
Jump to: