The Bitcoin threads could be interesting in the future
- Thread starter TheBigShort
- Start date
- Status
Never the same without you Firefly - good to have you back.
Not the worst analogy I've heard. It can't be killed off - so they're both the same in that respect. Industries tried as they might to fight it - but they couldn't. Some of them have suffered on that basis - and others have adapted and flourished.
So through that wave of innovation, the consumer has been better served. Torrent sites are not dead but I get the point that other services have emerged. As it relates to bitcoin, I agree that it's just the tip of the iceberg and that there are a whole host of services that are going to be developed off the back of it. That's a topic that's largely untouched here.
Like I mentioned, torrents have not gone away. More importantly, there are a range of options available to people to use. To your point, there will be a range of blockchain-related services for people to use also - in the fullness of time.
well, bitcoin is blockchain but I'm sure you mean other projects. For sure - there's a whole raft of innovation ongoing in the space. All sorts will emerge but bear in mind also that much of that innovation also centres on the bitcoin project. It (and its eco-system) remain work in progress.
I guess that's where we disagree a little i.e. that there's a bigger financial world out there than just micro-transactions (such as digital gold/store of value and larger settlements).and then, who knows, people might actually use this new currency, to you know, actually buy stuff
Well Firefly, Christmas will be soon upon us. Perhaps you could https://www.amazon.com/21-Lessons-Learned-Falling-Bitcoin/dp/1697526349 (gift him some guidance) in that regard.
Just once, how many refusals are you up to now?
I don't think I've banned any crypto-deniers as a result of their posting on this forum. For that matter, I haven't banned any of the pro-bitcoin cultists either. I have never banned anyone simply because I don't agree with them.
I'm not saying that Bitcoin will go completely the way of torrent sites, but more likley, blockchain will be used by someone to offer something a bit better and then, who knows, people might actually use this new currency, to you know, actually buy stuff
That's my sense of the space too. I believe in the future of cryptos and do foresee broad adoption. Bitcoin however is just too hampered by its limitations. That would be like thinking the first generation analogue cellular service brought us mobile phones, let's not bother with 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G....
I agree, and it's too cumbersome for the average person to use.
Also, I think Bitcoin's price fluctuates too much to be used by the general public. Sure it may claim to protect against inflation, but only in extreme cases does inflation cause too much bother for people. A crypto currency pegged to a number of large, global currencies would make more sense.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,211
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,449
Ah @Firefly you had to join the fun
I think that suggestion would make the crypto purists (not cultists, see I am learning) cringe. At least 2 reasons for such cringe. It would seem to need some trust in a central entity that guaranteed the peg. Secondly one of their main motivations is that they think conventional currencies are corruptible.
Absolutely, not having a central authority is a cornerstone of the appeal of bitcoin.
You are being modest Duke. Its not that we 'think' they are corruptible, we know they are corruptible
JP Morgan metal traders charged
"Michael Nowak, head of precious metals trading, was charged on Monday along with two colleagues, Gregg Smith and Christopher Jordan, on federal racketeering charges normally used to take down organised crime syndicates."
Welcome back @Firefly, I hope your absence was a fruitful one.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,449
Wolfie, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but here you unambiguously identify as a crypto purist or maybe even a cultist
Wolfie, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but here you unambiguously identify as a crypto purist or maybe even a cultist
Ah jeez Duke, I had long accepted that you pigeon-holed me into the cultist clique?
Its a bit of a shock to realise that you only had me pencilled in as a potential recruit?
Just once? Leo, how many of my questions do you think you've ignored or left unanswered?....because I can tell you, there's plenty of them. I just haven't been mr. pedantic about trying to nail you to the cross in that regard.
That said - taking this particular instance into account, why should there be any exception? My point was that there was ill-intent in your approach. If you have something to share with everyone, then share it. That's not what you were doing.
Re-read those sentences and the big reveal is your own bias. I'm aware of quite a lot of folks that were veering towards a positive view of bitcoin who have been banned from here over the course of three years - or had posts removed - yet I can't recall one instance in the opposite direction. Go figure.
Bitcoin has its drawbacks and difficulties - some of them locked in, some with potential to be overcome in one way or another. For which use case as there's more than one in play?
Again, for which use case?
What gets dismissed here is the proposition of a decentralised cryptocurrency and that's wayward. I too believe that there will be a number of digital currencies and assets for different purposes. That doesn't mean that bitcoin doesn't have a place in the world going forward.
I agree that its too cumbersome for regular joe's to use. The difference is that you don't seem to think that this can evolve. That's not guaranteed but I think that it's a definite possibility.
Isn't Paypal's rollout an example of this? Do you think that it will be difficult for an ordinary joe to use bitcoin through the Paypal interface they're familiar with once they facilitate bitcoin payments to 26 million US merchants in Q1, 2021?
I mean, If I lifted your wallet, took out x% and replaced it, what's the harm? It's theft by stealth and it goes well beyond the inaccurate CPI figures.
For the store of value use case, it doesn't matter so much. For a means of exchange use case, it's not ideal. However, again I'd put it to you that this is something that's likely to dissipate as bitcoin's market cap expands (today helps with bitcoin reaching a new record in terms of overall market cap).
First mover advantage matters, yes. Some guard against that, rolling out the 'MySpace' example. Only difference is that at its height, MySpace had a market cap. of $12 billion. As it stands today, bitcoin has a market cap of $335 billion.
Again, like Firefly you're not open to the consideration that usability can be improved upon. Other than that, if you or @Leo believes that there's a better alternative to bitcoin in terms of crypto's, which one is it? I've been waiting to hear you both tell us this over the course of three years. Not a dickiebird out of either of you.
You can poke fun at the notion of scarcity as it relates to stores of value all you like but at the end of the day, it reflects poorly on your own judgement. It's one of the key characteristics of what makes for a decent store of value - as acknowledged by Central Bankers and others. Bitcoin goes well beyond the scarcity of gold as in bitcoin's case, that scarcity is absolute.
Ireland is but a few million people. You can ignore vast swathes of the planet all you like but it makes for a wayward assessment.
As Wolfie pointed out to you, they've been proven to be corruptible. So - others have gone with digital currencies as @Firefly proposes. The thing is - they will work quite nicely for certain purposes - but they're not competition for bitcoin in the role that it is fulfilling and that it will fulfill.
Last edited:
DublinHead54
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,056
Technology does not replace trust by itself. The fiat currency system is still one of high trust that has a number of bad actors. If there is an argument for why the fiat system cannot be trusted then the same argument would apply for BTC. There are a number of bad actors involved in the system looking to deceive, fraud and steal BTC. Just yesterday an Irish Teenager got 3 years for stealing $2m of BTC.
A system is only as strong as its weakest point.
A system is only as strong as its weakest point.
This is a misunderstanding of the trustless concept. BTC does not proclaim to be theft proof. Anyone can steal or hack my phone or put a gun to my head for my private keys. Anyone can try lure me to part with my bitcoin under false pretences. This has nothing to do with bitcoin, this is just plain old fraud, theft and deception.
What bitcoin is, is that transactions that occur on its network are verifiable without third party confirmation. Those transactions cannot be manipulated, they cannot be placed 'off-balance sheet', they cannot be hidden, etc.
The transaction has taken place for an exact amount of bitcoin between and nothing can alter that fact. Ruling out the need for third party verification.
DublinHead54
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,056
I know very well what Bitcoin is, there is no misunderstanding. What I said is that the majority of issues that impact the fiat currency system not being trustworthy exist for BTC markets as well. Fraud, price manipulation, spoofing, pump and dump schemes etc.
The BTC algorithm may force trust from a technological standpoint, but that does not make the entire infrastructure more trusting than the current fiat system. That is the common misconception I observe in the general discourse for BTC.
Last edited:
Thats it in a nutshell.
DublinHead54
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,056
Yes that is it, and as we all know we don't earn trust simply from technology. My view is the 'trust' discourse around BTC, is not as important as it is made out to be. The existing system has enough controls in it to replicate trust, for example, I have never been able to spend money using my debit card that was not in my account. However, there are benefits to this DLT specifically for regulated financial markets that currently have a lot of manual transaction verification.
The market infrastructure for BTC is not very advanced, the controls and algorithms (trading bots) are way less advanced than what exists in traditional financial markets. THat is in part thanks to regulation that has forced controls. For example, there was an April fools joke posted on Twitter that the bots picked up and caused a surge in the price of BTC.
Trust is fundamental to what gives bitcoin value. The point is that bitcoin comes with its own monetary system and nobody can change that. The rules of the game are set out. At a systemic level, you are secure in the knowledge that nobody can print more bitcoin - devaluing your holding. The interest rate of bitcoin is predefined with bitcoin where its subject to change with fiat. Someone may attempt to steal your bitcoin and they may succeed if your security regimen isn't up to scratch. However, they can't confiscate it (without your consent or without ineptitude in terms of the storage of keys).
At that fundamental/systemic level, there's a world of difference between bitcoin and fiat money. Central banks have to be trusted not to debase a currency - yet history is littered with examples where that has happened.
Theft is not an issue of trust. The example you cite was a sim-swap attack. As for market manipulation, it exists in all markets. However, the smaller the market, the more susceptible it is to said manipulation. Manipulation will dissipate as market capitalisation expands. Notwithstanding that, it's not systemic - its external to bitcoin itself.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,449
I'm a simple soul. Like Dublinbay. I trust that when I see online that I have €X in my bank account that indeed I do have €X. If I owned btc I would certainly also trust that ownership. This level of trust is no big deal and was in fact a necessity not a feature of bitcoin.
But where trust really matters is can I trust that my digital entry (on whatever platform) will buy me in say a few years' time roughly what it can buy me now. I do not regard the digital entry of itself as a collectors' item, to quote Satoshi, it's what it will buy me in the future. I have a fair bit of trust that my €X in my bank account won't lose too much of its purchasing power or at least that if I see hyper-inflation looming I can take corrective action. How anybody can have any trust on bitcoin's purchasing power a month ahead never mind a few years absolutely escapes me.
I note from yesterday's court case that the judge was particularly moved by the couple who lost their life savings in bitcoin. The mind boggles.
But where trust really matters is can I trust that my digital entry (on whatever platform) will buy me in say a few years' time roughly what it can buy me now. I do not regard the digital entry of itself as a collectors' item, to quote Satoshi, it's what it will buy me in the future. I have a fair bit of trust that my €X in my bank account won't lose too much of its purchasing power or at least that if I see hyper-inflation looming I can take corrective action. How anybody can have any trust on bitcoin's purchasing power a month ahead never mind a few years absolutely escapes me.
I note from yesterday's court case that the judge was particularly moved by the couple who lost their life savings in bitcoin. The mind boggles.
DublinHead54
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,056
The issues may be external to the codebase of BTC, but they make up an important part of the overall system. So, they should not be ignored, the political, social and infrastructure issues are as important as the codebase of BTC.
With every system, there are positives and negatives. In the current Fiat world, the average Joe can earn fiat through work and the average Joe trusts the system. In BTC, there are only a small percentage that can earn BTC, there are the issues also related with the distribution of BTC. I am not sure if this still holds true but 99% of BTC holders hold less than 1 BTC.
So manipulation will not dissipate as market capitalisation expands, as an increase in market capitalisation does not change the ownership breakdown.
I have said this on the other thread, the technology is a nice novel concept, but technology is not the only factor on whether something should be adopted.
- Status