Topic: Why Bitcoin changed the world... and its price will crash - page 4. (Read 6876 times)

Ok so I'm wrong because... I just am?

Good argument old chap.

No, it is you who is talking shit.

Learn something, just a little would be a start, about technical networking protocols. Nuff said.

Can you be more specific? Cause otherwise it sounds like you're talking shit. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to be proven wrong.

Yeah, I am saying someone will come along with something so similar to Bitcoin, and it will be banks and governments, and it will make Bitcoin obsolete. I said in my example that "Even though the fundamental technology hasn't changed all that much since the 80s", which it seems you've missed, the internet of today isn't the internet of the yesteryears. The tech is very similar, or even the same, but the final product isn't.

In the cryptocurrency world, things like Litecoin and Peercoin prove this point. It's easy enough to take the basic tech and build something extra on top of it. And the final product is Bitcoin-based, but it is not Bitcoin itself. Much like how the server that runs this forum is running the same technology as the first linked-up computers back in the day, but it is not those exact computers.

The leap from an Altcoin to a government/bank-backed coin really doesn't take that much imagination.

Cryptocurrency is not designed to be backed by anything. I don't know how a bank would do that, or deal with a distributed network. This whole design is about cutting out the banks and trusted third parties. The software becomes the issuer and trust in the accounting is created through proof-of-work and cryptography.

The banks could issue their own cryto-cash, but they'd have to get regulatory approval. You would withdraw cash under their proprietary system from their centralized server, and it could then be traded anonymously just like cash. Anyone who wants to cash out of the token would take it back to the issuing bank for redemption.

This would actually be a great innovation. This is different from a Paypal-like arrangement where people all have accounts at one bank and the service just moves money between them. This would be actual electronic dollars which are allowed to trade outside the dollar system and then come back like cash would. Banks would not know the path it traveled, so it would be great for privacy like cash but more useful. That kind of product could compete with Bitcoin.

I do agree that the establishment may co-opt Bitcoin in some ways. Wall Street will probably want to trade the heck out of it, short it, etc. The fed has UNLIMITED funds with which to play in markets, and Bitcoin is a very small market with great potential for manipulation every which way. They may not co-opt it in such dark ways, however. They may just find a way to integrate it into their services and charge fees. That seems like the logical thing to do. They don't have to fight it. They can just tame it and make it work for them rather than against them. Bringing it into the fold would help the government to collect taxes on it as well. Many people would want to have Bitcoin seamlessly integrate with their bank accounts, so there's a lot of leverage the establishment has just from their economic power. They may not have to get nasty at all in order to keep Bitcoin under their wing.

People who are not that technically aware often make this mistake that the Internet now is somehow different than it was 'back then' ... it isn't, some of the the layers above, the facade that the users know is different, underneath it is still TCP/IP (or UDP) and packet technology. Bitcoin, the network is the TCP/IP for internet money.

You are saying that someone will come along with something so different to bitcoin, the network protocol, and it will be banks and governments and it will make bitcoin obsolete? That's just simply ignorant of how network technology works and how it is developed. Frankly, it sounds like wishful thinking or stupidity masquerading as informed commentary.

institution X assigns $1bn gold or other asset to BullionCoin. They premine 10million coins and sell those coins. you now have a cryptocurrency based on gold.  advantage?  you can trade those coins over the internet and have them redeemed the other end for the asset.  (yes, i'm aware this is exactly the same as the foundation of early banking)

Trust?  yep, but one needs to understand that 99% of the population will more likely trust this proposition tomorrow than Bitcoin.  I predict we will see this, and not even backed by gold but simply cash.  If there's a market to deliver this type of secured money transfer ability (which no one advocating Bitcoin is going to disagree with, shirley?), then we have to expect sooner or later an organisation will deliver it without all that messing about with a uncontrolled, decentralised network, in their view.

But this is exactly the point the OP was making.

Essentially the internet we have today is not the internet of two computers connected together back in the 1980s. Remember a few years ago when they started calling it Web2.0? That was when sites came up where the users themselves were the content. Youtube and whatnot. Even though the fundamental technology hasn't changed all that much since the 80s, the nature of the internet itself changed significantly, to the point where it's really not the same thing anymore.

All the OP is saying, and I've been saying the same thing, is that the tech itself is amazing, but Bitcoin itself will probably not be the currency of the future. Much like connecting two computers together in the 80s is awesome, but those two specific computers connected together aren't the internet of today per-se.

Some other public ledger will likely come up, either an Alt-coin, or something backed by the 1% through a bank, that will do what Bitcoin itself is trying to do. Essentially Bitcoin is just a proof-of-concept. The examples of Litecoin and Peercoin aren't to say that those two specific ones will dethrone Bitcoin. Just that they manage to offer something similar, yet different enough, that it seems likely that something of the sort will come up in the future.

+1

This ... I think most people have been undervaluing bitcoin since day one mostly because they are innumerate, particularly when using large numbers and dimensional analysis for calculations assessing relative significance. The amount of uses already out there for bitcoin, in black, gray and white markets is quite staggering considering the relatively small amount of total users (even a latent bitcoin holder is a user).

Another property of the network effect is that the more users that use the network the more unit value it has to the users already connected .... 2 fax machines are better than 1, 3 is better than 2, 5 million is better than 1 million, etc, i.e. bitcoin becomes more valuable per user the more users that exist, the price will eventually reflect that when we go through the super-exponential valuation/growth phase (vertical) before approaching the saturation plateau.

No doubt we will hear anguished screams of "bubble!" and "Crash to zero!" warnings the whole way up by those who are outside looking in.

When people were connecting computers together in the 1980's, they didn't have the goal of the internet as we know it now, much less websites such as Facebook or Twitter. It was clear that the value of two computers connected together was greater than two computers not connected, so it was done. Protocols were written which are still in use today. Today, there appears to be a value in a public ledger, otherwise it wouldn't be done. The early adopters of the internet failed to see Facebook.com and Twitter.com, but that doesn't mean they didn't see value at the time.

How can an algorithmic artifact be a proxy for physical gold?
Someone has to update the network manually on the amount of gold in existence, since the digital network can't figure it itself.

This means: trust.

Trust & cryptocurrencies don't mix.

Want to quantify such speculative prognostications?

There are 12e10^6 in existence, at least 25% which are not in circulation, somewhere between 1-10 million users seems an OK approximation ... =>the average bitcoin holder has ~ $1000 in bitcoin ...

ummm doesn't sound all that speculative to me, more like pocket change found down the back of the sofa, maybe the cookie jar cash kitty has gone into bitcoin.

I'm afraid you still don't quite get it (you're not alone!) You cannot back a cryptocurrency with gold or fiat. You can create an electronic form of money backed by gold or fiat. We already have that. Just open your internet banking software to see it.

The whole reason a cryptocurrency is attractive is because it has no third party. That is what brings its cost down to near zero and, more importantly, makes it essentially impossible to control or regulate.

If you try to create an asset-backed digital instrument, you need someone or something to keep that backing stable and ensure/enforce it. You need a third party. We've already seen such systems, and they are entirely different to Bitcoin.

If institution X created a cryptographically secured proxy for gold, $, wheat futures or whatever, and its widely available and accepted, its a cryptocurrency.  Thats the OP's premise, that the primary advantage of Bitcoin is the secure, trusted, transfer of funds.  Now, many would not agree this is the only purpose and say there are alot of other reasons, but its a fair point it is one of the major advantages.  Take that advantage and replicate it in to some thing that is trusted and easy to access/obtain/reimburse etc and you have something which will possibly have larger mainstream acceptance than Bitcoin.  A large amount of the value is based on speculation that Bitcoin is destined to become common use and therefore highly valuable (due to limited supply) and you lose that speculative value if a common replacement is in use.  

... economic incentives are strong ... we get a fresh wave of them after every "bubble crash", i.e new 10-folding adoption spike.

Sometimes the variations on the theme can be entertaining, depending on the personalities involved, the latest batch seem quite banal (might be the banksters, accountants and lawyers showing up?)

Blah blah blah, Bitcoin is finished, blah blah blah, Bitcoin is inevitably going to fail, blah blah blah...

Why do so many random people suddenly have an "epiphany" and post crap like this over and over and over and over and over again, it got tiresome 4 years ago.  

OP ... wants to buy in cheaper?

What do you mean by "backed"?
Backing a virtual currency by a physical commodity implicitly means that the "backer" has the power to generate coins as he wishes.
Cryptocurrencies don't need any tangible backing, as they're backed by mathematics.

Sure, financial & political institution will try to ride Bitcoin's success, and create their own versions of "crypto" "currencies", but it won't be nor "crypto" nor "currencies".
As soon as people understand the difference between trust and proof, they'll say goodbye to the fiat schemes.

Disagree.  BTC's current value relates to the accurate prediction that it was first on the scene, is currently the most widely adopted, and is slated to have hundreds of millions more poured into it, in the future.  The mere existence of copycats doesn't mean the first version is automatically the same value as the copycat.  That logic doesn't resonate with me at all.  

That would be like saying a Led Zeppelin cover band could sell the same number of albums as Led Zeppelin.  


That's exactly why its justified.  Not sure what predordained has to do with it.  What really matters is moreso adoption.

-Burger-

The value of the coin is irrelevant, as long as everyone agrees it has value and can be exchanged. (Agrees to "a value", for an exchange.)

But I agree, for me, that the current value people are asking for is too high. If you believe that too, feel free to give me your coins for half the price they say it is worth. I will take all you have to offer, up to $30,000,000 worth.

Money is nothing more than credit, backed by nothing more than a promise from a bank, that promise is, "I will be happy to take this from you, and give you less than you gave me, after I tell your government that you are in possession of these funds."

They will also happily give your money to some stranger, in the hope that the stranger gives them back more than the bank let them borrow. Thus, extending the promise of, "I will be happy to take more of this from you, then what we had originally given you." (Slightly modified, but it is still the same promise.)

The future of BTC is also over-rated, since BTC is not the only digital-coin with the same "limited" individual attributes. So, the illusion that digital-coins are limited in quantity, is just that. Only the specific coins are limited, but just like a bank, endless coins can be created by just making another coin to split the value or hide the value. So in that aspect, BTC is a failure. (That was one of the many issues/flaws with the coin from the beginning.)

Will it replace money? No, just as credit-cards and ATM cards have not replaced money. Because you can easily launder money, and hide it, and keep its transactions anonymous. BTC transactions are not anonymous, only the individuals identity of ownership is anonymous. It is not the same thing. You can actually send physical money anonymously, and no-one would ever know you sent it to anyone, or who sent it, other than you. Well, the person who gets it, would know they got it, and might record it, but they would not know who it came from. As opposed to sending a BTC, which records the send and the receive.

Loved reading what you wrote, all of you. Great perceptions.

BTC (digital-coins), with limited production, have a purpose in society. To that, BTC is a 100% winner. Even with all the short-falls. Every currency has a short-fall. So it is right up on par with the rest.