Prior to that you claimed it was possible to send bitcoin over satellite in the absence of an internet connection. Why can't you explain how that works? Will you now?
Never the same without you Firefly - good to have you back.Greetings all, having fun I see!!
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.Bitcoin reminds me of peer-to-peer torrent sites that were all the rage a number of years ago. Those torrent sites were great for people who couldn't get programs from abroad, for those would didn't have the means, for those who didn't want to part with the fees or for those who were just interested in for the challenge. A lot of the content was illegal, e.g. pirated movies, but some content was perfectly legal...a bit like how Bitcoin is used today.
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.Netlix, Amazon Prime TV and others ultimately killed off torrent site...for a relatively small fee you could save yourself a lot of hassle and risk of the doorbell ringing.
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.I'm not saying that Bitcoin will go completely the way of torrent sites,
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.but more likley, blockchain will be used by someone to offer something a bit better
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.I am getting worried about your penchant for being led down so many rabbit holes.
You downright refused to do so initially.
And its just coincidence that we're talking about a group of crypto-deniers and AAM regulars like yourself, Leo? Tell me - how many anti-bitcoin (and that's what they are!) posters have you banned from this forum?
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
I agree, and it's too cumbersome for the average person to use.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....
That would be like thinking the first generation analogue cellular service brought us mobile phones, let's not bother with 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G....
Ah @Firefly you had to join the funA crypto currency pegged to a number of large, global currencies would make more sense.
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.
Wolfie, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but here you unambiguously identify as a crypto purist or maybe even a cultistIts not that we 'think' they are corruptible, we know they are corruptible
Wolfie, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but here you unambiguously identify as a crypto purist or maybe even a cultist
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.Just once, how many refusals are you up to now?
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.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.
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?Bitcoin however is just too hampered by its limitations.
Again, for which use case?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 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.I agree, and it's too cumbersome for the average person to use.
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.Sure it may claim to protect against inflation, but only in extreme cases does inflation cause too much bother for people.
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).Also, I think Bitcoin's price fluctuates too much to be used by the general public.
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.But surely the analogue phones had first mover advantage?
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.And they were in limited supply, like gold, so their value had to go up.
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.And people in developing countries, and Iran, love them.
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.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.
Just yesterday an Irish Teenager got 3 years for stealing $2m of BTC.
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.
The BTC algorithm my force trust from a technological standpoint,
Thats it in a nutshell.
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).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.
Manipulation will dissipate as market capitalisation expands. Notwithstanding that, it's not systemic - its external to bitcoin itself.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?