Topic: Your opinion on the future of "digital money" (cryptocurrencies)? (Read 1198 times)

Agree on the "sound money doctrine" having no grounds to exist in the cryptocurrency space. Cryptocurrency is code at its core, an idea, reproducible and clone-able in many forms, with permutations. Get used to like and embrace this notion or be frustrated that it doesn't conform to your illusions. It always cracks me up when Bitcoin maximalists refer to Bitcoin as digital gold.

I agree that if there is a future to free crypto currencies, then they must be multiple.  This is actually killing some (naive) economic ideas behind bitcoin, such as the "sound money doctrine".
Let us agree that when we talk about crypto, we talk about *free* crypto.  Using the *technology* or part of the technology in crypto to implement a kind of fiat, is not what crypto is about, even though it may use PoS, block chains, and several cryptographic ideas that can also be found in bitcoin and altcoins.  It is not because it uses chained blocks with hashes, that it has something to do with free crypto.

Indeed, although a single block chain is distributed, and has no single "node of failure", it has a "single network of failure" and can easily be attacked by TPTB.  However, if there is a continuous creation and continuous forking of coins, then this brings us to an even more distributed system which is much, much harder to break.  However, you cannot afford "long term digital gold" on such a living, warping, muting ecosystem of interacting crypto.  It can only serve short-term store of value.

An economic consequence of an ecosystem of forking and creating coins, is that there's not much left of the "sound money doctrine" ; and actually, this is normal, because the sound money doctrine contains a fundamental flawed hypothesis: namely that it is the UNIQUE and UNIVERSAL currency.  The sound money doctrine could apply to a central bank with its imposed fiat (but then it is radically opposing the hidden and announced purposes of central banks).  But the sound money doctrine has no leg to stand on when new currencies are continuously created and taking variable market share in the "currency market".  Each individual currency can be in "finite supply", if the supply of the NUMBER of different currencies is elastic, or the FORKING of currencies is elastic, then there's nothing left of that initial economic goal.

So I think that the future of free crypto is an ecosystem of continuously creating new coins and forks of coins.

Back to constructive.

In my opinion Bitcoin is a pilot project. Sometimes pilot projects do evolve to encompass users' needs, sometimes they don't. Let the best cryptocurrencies win. If this should be just Bitcoin out of all, let it be Bitcoin.

Purposeful wishing that one cryptocurrency wins just because one holds it is narrow-mindedness and setting oneself up for losing in the end, because the strength is in numbers. This includes numbers of cryptocurrencies. One can be wronged in some ways and lose its original goal; when there are many, it's a whack-a-mole game. To win this fight we need redundancy both in technology (nodes, miners, etc.) and of technologies (PoW, PoS, PoW/PoS, PoWhathaveyou, blockchain / not blockchain) if you know what I mean.

I agree, with this and in my opinions bitcoin will never be a universal currency.

And that's like bitcoin is more be a natural currency and no one can be controlled him and alhought bitcoin is made by human.
They're just familiar about bitcoin like the trading forex.
The bitcoin is already finding their niche and in this time they are just waiting for the development of bitcoin
too difficult for calculating about the users of cryptocurrencies and especially if someone is already having more than 1 wallet for storing the cryptocurrency and there are a various cryptocurrency and that's why we can't put the clear factor

I agree he is most likely misinformed, because there are several projects which probably needs more attention. I also agree that his posts are not always constructive and he often likes to bash everybody, but himself. Are you happy now? I'm not the boss, but there is nothing wrong if I want my first self-moderated thread to be constructive.

Why? He is misinformed or outright telling lies when he says nobody. Do you think it's wrong to stop that? But it's your thread, you're the boss. Let's see how pro free speech you are.

What I am 101% sure is that digital currencies will be widely used in future. They could and they will be a store of value. But, in my humble opinion, comparing them with gold is not serious. dinofelis has some point when saying that if a states accept that Bitcoin (for example) is money, then it must be hard forked and they must have full control over it (keys, distribution). Banks are already exploring the blockchain technology and I am not going to be surprised if the ECB comes up with their digital EURO. Same applies to FR of the USA. Bitcoin is not (and it is not serious to think it is) in the picture here.  

But here people forget something. There are other parts of the world. Everyone is talking about profits and governments to which we are (or we could be) depended. There are a lot more economies with trillions of $ combined wealth. We don't have only $, euro, CNY, RUB or JPY... we have hundreds of currencies more. What if I tell you that there is a country with 250M+ population and GDP close to a trillion $? I am talking about Indonesia. Why nobody is talking about Indonesia as a factor? Do you know that our "shitcoin" alone has 150+ members in its indonesian group? I have like 15 of them as friends on Facebook. Every single day like half of them is talking about cryptocurrencies. Most of them are happy with very small daily profits and they are constantly posting about different coins. You should see their discussions too. One if them is posting and immediately like 10 people are engaging in less than an hour.

So, guys, Bitcoin probably have its future, which is not depended on banks and their decisions on cryptocurrencies. I've said that if its user base becomes x10-30, it would be huge. I've also said that Bitcoin cannot fight the banks, but as dinofelis implied, it could achieve a certain freedom.

EDIT: freshman777, I haven't deleted his comment on purpose, but if this "fight" continue, I'll delete your new ones.

Iota does.

But you haven't paid attention because you like to talk random shit but actually know nothing. Even complete n00bs start to figure out they shouldn't listen to you any more because your knowledge of cryptocurrencies is... well... limited, to put it as softly as possible

This is a bit like saying "why should it be computer and network based ? Who is innovating this aspect ?".

There must be some public knowledge of spending, to avoid double spends.  The point is that digital data can be copied and transmitted as many times as you want, and in order for you do accept a digital coin against value, you don't want the owner of it to be able to spend it 5000 times to 5000 different people.  Now, the ONLY way to know that a coin one is giving to you has not been spend, is to be able to verify in one way or another whether it has been spend already or not, and the only way to do so, is to have a common database of "spent coins".  Also, you want to verify that when the spending is done to you, that the previous owner has "put his proof of spending" in that common database.

This common database has not to take on the form of a block chain, but it is close.  Because if it doesn't, you "had to be on the network when the spending was broadcast".  And the previous spending might be 7 years ago.  If you weren't on the network 7 years ago to capture the spending proof, you may not see that the coin he's giving you, has already been spend, unless that spending proof is locked up in an immutable database: a block chain.
Because it would be too easy not to broadcast your spending on the whole network, or to have it erased from the database at some point where people "pump the database from".

So the only way to have this kind of certainty that a coin has NOT been spend, must be a secured, immutable database, which comes close to a block chain, isn't it ?

That said, you don't truly need a block chain at this point.  You need a block chain because there's another necessity: the necessity to prove that new coins have been created in limited amounts, according to the rules of the protocol.

As a centralized entity, I could emit a certain number of distinct coins, namely, my digital signature of the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, .... N (N coins).  These N files are then the "coins" and I have all the seigniorage.  The "coins" become appended with all transactions, and only their successive spending has to be public.  You would only need a distributed immutable database of spending proofs that way, and not a genuine block chain.
But if coin creation is part of the distributed system, there's no other way but to record the unique creations once and for all, and you end up with a block chain.

So yes, at the basis of any distributed monetary system will be a block chain.

I can see this picture, but I honestly fail to see the use.  It is as if one is asking the question "what can we do for crypto", and not "what can crypto do for us ?".  Crypto is a tool to obtain something, and my point is and remains that its only use is to obtain freedom that has been taken away.  Crypto is NOT practical, crypto is not environment friendly or computing friendly.  To go through all that hassle, you must obtain something that you couldn't get otherwise, and all the hassle of crypto comes from the implementation of trustlessness, which is of course a concept related to freedom.  Without freedom, trustlessness doesn't mean anything, because you are forced to trust the one that takes your freedom away, the centralized authority.  And if you have true freedom, you cannot be supposed to trust a privileged elite, so the system has to be egalitarian (in rights - no "masternodes") and hence cannot be trusted otherwise than by  cryptographic proof.

So in either case, whether you are WILLING to give up your freedom for that centralized authority, or because you've GIVEN UP and consider that it is simply too strong, and you are AFRAID of it, all the hassle of crypto is useless.

This is why a "regulated crypto" (like bitcoin is becoming) is an oxymoron.  If it is regulated, there are much much simpler ways to do the same thing.

So the question now is: do we NEED a digital gold that is not a currency ?  What can we do with it that we can't do with gold ?  The biggest problem with a store of value on the long term is that states want to take it away.  When you see how states are chasing people that have "hidden bank accounts", you see what I mean.  In as much as bitcoin would obtain an extremely high market cap, for sure the chain will be analysed, will be taxed, and most of bitcoin will end up in a digital Fort Knox.  So if you're trying to hide long term digital gold from the states, on the transparent bitcoin chain, that's a risky thing to do.  And if you are playing it according to the rules, why would you use bitcoin in the first place ?

There are very many reasons not to trust bitcoin as a store of value in the long term.  I would say that the main reason is that sooner or later, bitcoin will start to fork.  In fact, I'm amazed it hasn't forked yet.  Ethereum showed the way.  If I were to make an altcoin, honestly, I wouldn't start a new chain with a genesis block, but I would fork off bitcoin.
Each time you fork a coin, you split (unevenly of course) the market cap.
Another reason is that such a purely speculative asset is highly volatile.  Gold is a different beast, because it has 5000 years of history as a value keeper.  But apart from gold, an asset that has no "stickiness of prices" and is pure speculative belief, is highly volatile.

So again, I don't see the use case of crypto, like bitcoin, if it is "storage of digital gold" on a transparent block chain in agreement with the laws of the day.  I think that holding gold (paper or physical), or holding a diversified set of shares, is the classical, and still much better way which will be preferred by the vast majority of law-abiding and less law-abiding wealthy people.

The real use of crypto is as a currency, to do those economic interactions that are hampered by law and state in one way or another.   In other words, as a short-term store of value between two trades.  There, and in my opinion ONLY there, crypto has its place.  The hassle is worth it, because it is simply not possible to do without, because the laws are forbidding you, stealing you, or making life impossible to do so, and hence it is impossible or highly risky to use classical means of payment which leak information to the state.  But crypto is a pain to use, compared to VISA.  So it has to be worth it and has to offer sufficient protection against being traced.

I don't see any other use of crypto, honestly.  If it is not to free trade, and if it is to do, with more troubles, what you can already do, I fail to see the point of it.

It is very easy to set up a state crypto, that undoes everything that crypto stands for.  You can, like ZCASH, have a trusted setup, where the state has the golden key.  You can also have a state golden "mining" key: instead of PoW or PoS, you have PoK : proof of key, to mint blocks.  So only the state can mint blocks cryptographically.  You can have a fee system that is nothing else but a kind of VAT: a percentage of every transaction goes to the state.  The state can make as much money as it desires.  The state could have a view key that can reveal the full transaction history, which is hidden for all others.   It would be true crypto, and I would totally fail to see its point: it is even worse than the banking system concerning Big Brother stuff.  So I fail to see the joy that would come with this "adoption of crypto".

Uhmm... Everything can happen on digital currencies include they will gone and growing, should they growing (bitcoin) because there are not like this before and it is something new in the world.

Yeah, this is one of the most likely scenarios. But I wouldn't rule altcoins/assets/tokens out. I think we have at least 150 currencies circulating around the world, so there might be some free spots to be taken by others.

my prediction btc will not be used as a currency, it will be used as the greatest store of value avialible . it will be value so high  the little bit of transaction fees is enough  to feed the miners to keep it running. the global govt will have no problem with btc sitting in the sidelines like gold . as for the alt coins, they will all be overpowered by the govt fiatcoin they will come up with. the best chance for any crypto is to work on the store of value aspect, u cant complete with the global govt, too many sheeps backing it.

Tough for me to predict..

I have a few random thoughts though  

Why do we assume it has to be a block-chain based system ?
Who is innovating this aspect of coins ?
NOBODY.

What if someone does down the road ?
I have said since day one i come here to see if something revolutionary gets rolled out.
It could happen !
And it could sweep Bitcoin aside instantaneously.
But no one is trying..

What else do we have ALREADY for "digital Money" as your topic title said ?
Interac eTransfer.. Paypal.. Credit Cards.. Apple Pay / Android Pay etc.

Difference ?
Trading "coins" on centralized exchanges for profits.
Hence WHY Bitcoin got as big as it did.
Which shows what it's really about doesn't it ?

Niche markets ? crock of shit !
They are poor excuses for trying to make an altcoin (that can be traded on exchanges for profit)
Like Pot / Weed coins.. we need them to buy dope ? LOL
Of course not..

We need a coin that builds off of Prime Coin or Grid Coin.
Wasting electricity mining BTC's is stupid.
If a brand new type of monetary system was unveiled that harnessed a useful purpose we NEED
AND could be traded as a commodity like "coins" then we have a winner !

So far all i see is Block-Chain mod's or worse.. scammy 100% premine coins called IPO/ITO/ICO's
There has been no real innovation.. nothing but an illusion and 6,000 ANN topics for more centralized exchange coins to trade for Bitcoin (ANN topic #1)

Quite likely there will be increased tougher regulations and that may change the environment in the Altcoin scene.
So far all these guys think they are untouchable and can do anything with virtually no repercussions.
I don't see Governments sitting on their hands forever about this.
How this will effect the altcoin scene though i am not sure when it comes to what coins we will have.

I do know one thing.. they will keep making them.
So...
How is it the world is going to settle on 1 as the winner when more and potentially better ones come out ?
We're talking about technology advancement.. it will plow forward.

I like to hope a game-changer coin will come out that fulfills what i said earlier.
I always envisioned a scientific type coin that could harness the worlds miners mining
for scientific projects that would solve problems we need super computers for.
Helping humanity move forward is the goal.

Or ? Who knows maybe it will stay like this forever.
Go look at the stats page here and see how many people log-in per 24/hrs.
That level of user base forever trading 6 or 16 or 160k coins

So..
Greed is good.
Free Market
NO REGULATIONS
Topple the government.

Right ? LOL

PS:
There is no RULE that says a "coin" needs to use Cryptography guys.
look further than your pocket book for once.
Try and be as visionary as Spoetnik  

Same goes for Luxembourg and their external debt. It is a GRAND scheme with over 100 different banks involved. And guess who pays for it?


Euro is the evil... same goes for the "almighty" $...

There's a difference.  A crazy bank doing essentially a ponzi, and then going on its face, I think that is not only normal, I find it normal that its gambling customers lose their money.  They were in for the 7%, they played, and they got burned.  Fair game.  It is even unfair to the taxpayer, that he has to cough up part of the gamblers' losses of those bank customers through state warranties.

However, in Cyprus there was simply a haircut *by the state* on ALL bank accounts.  That's (usual, but in this case excessive) state theft. 

The Euro is a very special construction.  The Euro is the first and probably only "private money" that is common fiat to several states.  It is the first time that a state doesn't control its fiat, but a private entity does.
The Euro was invented by European federalists, in their wild dreams to make a United States of Europe, with grave neglecting of the communities and different nations (people) that they were putting artificially together in one big state power house.  They tried to shove the European Union of Socialist Soviet Republics through the throats of the different people, with the collaboration of their states, but it failed.   As such we are in this funny experiment, where states have given up their monetary prerogatives to a weird club of bankers in Frankfurt.
On the other hand, this has decoupled the Euro from the standard frauds that states usually do with their own money, and for the first time in history, states are kept to do vaguely correct bookkeeping of their revenues and expenses, without cheating too much. They aren't used to that, and this is why almost no European state gets its finances in order.  They never did, but could print money in the old days.  Now they have to borrow money from the bankers of Frankfurt.   

Almost the same btw happened in Bulgaria with CCB (Corporate Commercial Bank) back in 2014. The bank ended up with a 4.2 Billion BGN loss ($2.43 Billion or 2.15 Billion EURO). To get the bigger picture, I'll say that GDP of Bulgaria is about $50 Billion and that loss represents ~4.5$ of entire country's GDP. Some time ago they gave ridiculous rates on term deposits (up to 7%/year) and a lot of people got burned. I'm not sure if people got part of their money back (up to 100k EURO, of course... no matter if you had 200k or 2Mn).   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Commercial_Bank
http://www.novinite.com/articles/161964/Bulgaria's+Central+Bank+Revokes+License+of+Corporate+Commercial+Bank

Do you believe your premise will still hold true when events like this become an everyday occurrence?

I think for any coin to reach to the level where bitcoin is in terms of acceptance and use cases will take more than decades and by that time bitcoin may get more than what it is today. So basically if there will be no any fault found in bitcoin codebase, bitcoin being downgraded in crypto world is almost impossible. Bitcoin may remain king in crypto, but i also think bitcoin replacing traditional fiat currency is not quite possible.

There is a great reading:

https://www.princeton.edu/~kiyotaki/papers/Evilistherootofallmoney.pdf