Why is Bitcoin "digital gold" crashing right now?

[WolfeTone]

I have lost my conviction that bitcoin will go to zero any time soon.

Well, that didn't hurt now, did it?

 

[tecate]

Just taking this point, the issue is that some of the criteria have little to do with money and are clearly chosen to favour bitcoin, so it loses all credibility.

That's your opinion Leo - I disagree. The vast majority of those characteristics have been formulated before programmable money existed. Even if you assess on the basis of those, Bitcoin scores very well. I'd imagine that you can only be talking about the last two on the list in terms of characteristics that are relative new-comers. I'm sorry that you dislike the fact but if you consider each of them, of course they bring something to the table in terms of what makes good money.
Decentralised: Why shouldn't that be listed if sovereign/'government backed' is listed? There are advantages and disadvantages with both - but they're both relevant.
Smart (Programmable): Programmability of money is an excellent ability - one which can enable smart contracts.

Not sure if you're deliberately misinterpreting there. To be clear, I don't the hype about bitcoin being digital when I'm already transacting digitally with my Euro on a daily basis.

My comment was exactly as intended. If you don't personally have a use case for Bitcoin, then don't use it. There are plenty of people around the world that don't have access to these traditional services you speak of. There are plenty of people around the world who live in countries where those traditional services have failed.
Bitcoin is peer to peer - and doesn't involve an intermediary. The services that you talk about do. So you'll need a bank account - some don't have that luxury (we're not just talking about Ireland - Bitcoin is to be considered on a global basis). Others don't want such a thing.
In terms of cost, it may on the face of it not seem to cost much but between vendor and user, there are additional costs with systems that involve intermediary banks. Credit card fraud came in at a whopping $24 billion in 2018. For the most part, those fees are borne by the vendor - and built into the cost of the product/service (accounting for about 3% of the sale price). Once Bitcoin becomes more user friendly, businesses stand to save substantial amounts of money by offering Bitcoin as a means of payment.

Why do crypto fans seem to think the digital qualities are somehow a game changer?

See above. They don't. They see the decentralised, peer to peer, trustless and censorship resistant aspects of Bitcoin a a game changer. They also recognise the benefit of hard (fixed supply) money.

You're the one pushing the ability to micro-transact as a great feature of bitcoin.

This originated with Dukey stating that Kelleher made a big deal about divisibility. Divisibility is a core characteristic of money - there hasn't been anyone that I'm aware of that hasn't included it as a characteristic of money. I tell you what I told him - that gold was the one that fails in that test and that whilst Bitcoin has greater divisibility than FIAT, that difference between them in practical terms is minor.

Are you now conceding it isn't practical, and may never be?

Go back and read my last two posts on the subject. I categorically stated that for incredibly small micro-transactions, this would most likely be the domain of a fee-less digital currency that is designed from the outset for IoT purposes. I said that was likely although we'd also have to see how LN fees work out as we go forward. I'm not conceding anything - I'm stating what I stated before.

LN isn't bitcoin, it's a separate solution that sits along side it in an attempt to solve some of the fundamental shortcomings of the bitcoin design.

On LNs classification - semantics. It's being developed to work with Bitcoin - and address smaller, day to day transactions. As regards shortcomings, there isn't a currency without shortcomings and trade-offs. There are cryptocurrencies that have (or claim to have) abilities to throughput vast volumes of transactions quickly and cheaply. More often than not, the trade off is some other aspect/characteristic of what makes for a decent decentralised digital currency.

You obviously don't have an understanding of the accountancy requirements that follow inter-company transactions, and the overheads involved in terms of infrastructure and people. From a technical point of view, transacting at that level to push every single data point through the network to the core billing systems to the consumers would be a really inefficient design in terms of energy usage and bandwidth requirements.

These are not likely to be consumer level transactions. We're talking about the world of machine to machine micropayments. I'm not an accountant but if you say there are accountancy requirements which prevent this digital interaction, fair enough. It doesn't seem like something that shouldn't be possible to overcome and it's not something I've heard mention of in discussions about M2M micropayments.

I don't ever foresee a point where we will actually monetise personal data at an individual level. The value (and it's a low value) is in the volume. Am I really going to bother signing up to supply my data to a service when feeding them maybe a dozen pieces of information a day earns me 5c a year?

I think that it starts with getting back control of our personal data. That starts with so all having a decentralised digital identity - similar to Microsoft's ION which is being built on top of the Bitcoin blockchain. In terms of it's value - its value is immense - first in taking back control over our own data - and secondly, making aspects of it available, as much for the greater good as for individual reward. I don't think its a case of signing up for an individual service. It should be something as intuitive as an option on an application.
There's a lot of work being done on this - but it's quite a few years away from mass market use yet. It's a separate discussion in its own right but if you google 'decentralised personal data marketplace', you'll find that info.

I think long before that even becomes close to a reality, governments around would pass the LTOPG act* to protect their income streams
Legal Tender Only Please Guys

It's a long time coming, Firefly - the LTOPG Act. Well, that's not quite correct - there are some countries where cryptocurrencies are illegal - they wouldn't be the most progressive of places to say the least! However, it's strange but why haven't all governments banned it outright - and have done with it? I know there are a few who banned it and then reversed the ban. Could it be that they're going to miss out on the upside of innovation if the do?
We had Trump talking about Bitcoin last year - yet no ban. We had both houses of Congress in prolonged debate about Libra - and by implication, Bitcoin last year - yet no ban. In recent days, Congressman Warren Davidson said that he thinks Bitcoin is a great store of value. You can listen to that interview here - and his thoughts on Bitcoin and innovation in the space. Last year Congressman Patrick McHenry said that there was "no capacity to kill Bitcoin". That's a recognition of the fact that Bitcoin is decentralised and can't be controlled.

So is it a case that the trade off is to benefit from the innovation in the space by not trying to slam the iron fist down on top of it? Isn't there a realisation that if they try to take a hard approach that they will lose whatever influence they have over the space entirely and such a move will backfire?

In the meantime, [broken link removed] and the Lindy Effect are in play - and every day that Bitcoin is still out there, it becomes harder and harder to stop.

But...but....it's divisible

That's your commentary with regard to the work that's ongoing on data marketplaces? Very insightful (though the insight isn't into data marketplaces in this instance! )

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

This originated with Dukey stating that Kelleher made a big deal about divisibility. Divisibility is a core characteristic of money - there hasn't been anyone that I'm aware of that hasn't included it as a characteristic of money. I tell you what I told him - that gold was the one that fails in that test and that whilst Bitcoin has greater divisibility than FIAT, that difference between them in practical terms is minor.

This is the height of silliness, though to be fair you have taken it from Mr Kelleher. There is absolutely no limit to the divisibility of fiat. Banks could choose to record people's account balances to 100 decimal places if there was a demand for same. And people could micro transact in fiat without any divisibility constraint if they so desired. For example Airtricity charge me €0.1496 per unit of electricity.
What you are referring to here is the granularity of fiat coin. Bitcoin doesn't even do coin, despite its name.

 

[Leo]

That's your opinion Leo - I disagree. The vast majority of those characteristics have been formulated before programmable money existed.

Can you point to where people assessed programambility as a characteristic of money before programmable money existed? Likewise with decentraisation or the ability to divide into values less than $0.01c, who was longing for the ability to pay someone $0.000001?

Smart (Programmable): Programmability of money is an excellent ability - one which can enable smart contracts.

My euro is programmable, I've set up all kinds of direct debits and standing orders that meet all my needs. I can use PayPal or Revolut apps to transfer money, split bills. Most major providers have APIs that can do anything useful that can be done with bitcoin.

Smart contracts might have some interesting applications, but let's not pretend bitcoin is the solution there.

My comment was exactly as intended.

So you intended to avoid the inconvenient truth.

See above. They don't. They see the decentralised peer to peer censorship resistant aspect of Bitcoin a a game changer. They also recognise the benefit of hard (fixed supply) money.

Then why the hype about it being digital?

Divisibility is a core characteristic of money - there hasn't been anyone that I'm aware of that hasn't included it as a characteristic of money.

Very true, it is. But why rate the dollar as only moderately divisible? Where is the demand to transact in fractions of cents?

Go back and read my last two posts on the subject. I categorically stated that for incredibly small micro-transactions, this would most likely be the domain of a fee-less digital currency that is designed from the outset for IoT purposes.

So bitcoin has no value in that scenario. Is a fee-less crypto viable on mass scale? Someone has to fund the network.

On LNs classification - semantics. It's being developed to work with Bitcoin

And it still isn't bitcoin.

These are not likely to be consumer level transactions. We're talking about the world of machine to machine micropayments. I'm not an accountant but if you say there are accountancy requirements which prevent this digital interaction, fair enough. It doesn't seem like something that shouldn't be possible to overcome and it's not something I've heard mention of in discussions about M2M micropayments.

It's not that they can't be overcome, it's that it's trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Every aspect of life will not get better through the introduction of a blockchain. There's no demand to push B2B transactions at that level when the costs of processing & reporting will exceed the transaction value. Collate the data centrally and batch bill on a monthly basis or whatever period that makes sense for the use case.

In terms of it's value - its value is immense - first in taking back control over our own data - and secondly, making aspects of it available, as much for the greater good as for individual reward.

So it's not about micro-payments any more?

I don't think its a case of signing up for an individual service. It should be something as intuitive as an option on an application.

If you're not signing up for a service then how do you manage access to your data? Is an option on an application not signing up to the app owner's service?

There's a lot of work being done on this - but it's quite a few years away from mass market use yet. It's a separate discussion in its own right but if you google 'decentralised personal data marketplace', you'll find that info.

So they're just decentralising data marketplaces the likes of which exist today. None of these operate at the individual level, there is no value to one person's data.

 

[Firefly]

It's a long time coming, Firefly - the LTOPG Act. Well, that's not quite correct - there are some countries where cryptocurrencies are illegal - they wouldn't be the most progressive of places to say the least! However, it's strange but why haven't all governments banned it outright - and have done with it?

I'm sure they've thought about it. But as with children, if you tell people they can't have it they might well make it more attractive. In any case, there isn't really the rush to introduce LTOPG yet, because nobody is using Bitcoin to buy stuff. But if/when they do in numbers, I would expect LTOPG to be introduced. Governments need taxes to fund public services afterall - how would you think they could manage compliance in a world of Bitcoin?

That's your commentary with regard to the work that's ongoing on data marketplaces? Very insightful (though the insight isn't into data marketplaces in this instance! )

I made this is jest. I am in no way an expert in Bitcoin and am like Wolf Tone in that regard, although to be fair he has become a lot learned of late.

 

[Leo]

Governments need taxes to fund public services afterall -

Don't worry about that! For all the talk about how great cryptos are as a means of protection from despotic regimes, the only real use case in those scenarios is to allow the wealthy in those countries escape with their riches.

 

[WolfeTone]

how would you think they could manage compliance in a world of Bitcoin?

Its a good question. Will this help?

Revenue taxation of cryptos

 

[tecate]

This is the height of silliness, though to be fair you have taken it from Mr Kelleher.

Priceless. You cite a specific tract of text from Kelleher (without linking to the article or citing the source) to support your world view but then when you are called on it - you then turn on the very source that you introduced in the first place? Makes sense.

There is absolutely no limit to the divisibility of fiat. Banks could choose to record people's account balances to 100 decimal places if there was a demand for same.

Hasn't this been thrashed out already in the course of this discussion? Was it not accepted that divisibility is a core characteristic of money in anyones book and that it's gold that scores badly in this category? Mountain out of a molehill much? That said, Satoshi had the foresight to provide for eight places of decimal because unlike FIAT - which robs people of their wealth by the constant money printing and inflation, he/she recognised that over the fullness of time, those decimal places will be required. Check out Gresham's Law sometime - FIAT money will never need to go beyond 2 places of decimal.

What you are referring to here is the granularity of fiat coin. Bitcoin doesn't even do coin, despite its name.

Of course it doesn't because it's the digital money for the digital age that Milton Friedman alluded to.

Can you point to where people assessed programambility as a characteristic of money before programmable money existed?

Please re-read what I wrote. I stated that the other characteristics (excluding smart programmable money and decentralisation) have been fundamental characteristics of money before decentralised digital money existed.
If something relevant now exists that didn't back then, I believe its merit should be considered as a characteristic of money. If 'sovereign/government backed' is listed as a characteristic, why shouldn't 'decentralisation' be considered? Clearly there are both advantages and disadvantages with both - but they're both entirely relevant as characteristics of money.
The very same with smart/programmable money. In a machine to machine transaction, a smart contract can be used. You can dismiss that if you wish - but I simply wouldn't agree with the suggestion that it's not relevant.

My euro is programmable, I've set up all kinds of direct debits and standing orders that meet all my needs. I can use PayPal or Revolut apps to transfer money, split bills. Most major providers have APIs that can do anything useful that can be done with bitcoin.

Your Euro - in and of itself - is not programmable.

Smart contracts might have some interesting applications, but let's not pretend bitcoin is the solution there.

There's an entire separate thread that could be started on the subject. For this thread - lets take it back to your claim that its not relevant. Bitcoin is still programmable money - your Euro (in and of itself) is not. Your Euro can't effect a smart contract.

So you intended to avoid the inconvenient truth.

I'm not shying away from any truth - inconvenient or otherwise. Even in agreeing with you, you want to pick an argument. (But fine! - no problem). You stated that you personally had no use case for Bitcoin. My point is that those may be your circumstances but you don't represent everyone in the universe. There are plenty who present with issues that can be overcome with Bitcoin. Oftentimes vendors offer a discount for payment with Bitcoin. But of course the fact that it could save billions is an inconvenient truth that you yourself intend to avoid.

Then why the hype about it being digital?

Firstly, what hype? There is no hype here. Secondly, it being digital is implicated within the context of it being decentralised, peer to peer, trustless, censorship resistant, programmable money with a fixed supply.

Very true, it is. But why rate the dollar as only moderately divisible? Where is the demand to transact in fractions of cents?

Ground covered already. The fact is that it is highly divisible - to a greater extent than FIAT. Maybe its entirely relevant for Bitcoin to be so as it doesn't just rob people of their wealth through money printing and inflation - and so it will actually need that high divisibility! Can you cite another commentator who has rated them differently in terms of divisibility then?

So bitcoin has no value in that scenario. Is a fee-less crypto viable on mass scale? Someone has to fund the network.

It remains to be seen as regards to what extent Bitcoin adds value in this context - until we see how LN fees pan out. On the fee-less crypto, I don't think we should go into greater detail (unless you want to open a separate thread on the topic).
One thing is for certain - visa is not equipped to deal with micro-transactions.

And it still isn't bitcoin.

Semantics. It's a Layer 2 solution that's being developed with Bitcoin in mind - to transact Bitcoin time and cost efficiently for small day to day transactions.

It's not that they can't be overcome, it's that it's trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Every aspect of life will not get better through the introduction of a blockchain. There's no demand to push B2B transactions at that level when the costs of processing & reporting will exceed the transaction value. Collate the data centrally and batch bill on a monthly basis or whatever period that makes sense for the use case.

I have never suggested that 'every aspect of life will get better through the introduction of blockchain'. There are situations where regular centralised databases work fine. However, there are also situations that could very much utilise secure and tamperproof data. In respect of costs, that depends on the implementation.

So it's not about micro-payments any more?

Data marketplaces are likely to implicate micro-payments - yes.

If you're not signing up for a service then how do you manage access to your data? Is an option on an application not signing up to the app owner's service?

Through decentralised digital identities. Microsoft are building one such system on top of the Bitcoin blockchain.

So they're just decentralising data marketplaces

Which data marketplaces are you referring to specifically? Can you provide a link to one? Decentralised systems can put the control of personal data back in the hands of the owner of that data.

there is no value to one person's data

Privacy is pretty valuable Leo. As regards the choice to sell or not to sell data, that will be the data owners prerogative.
That's personal data - we didn't even get to IoT data generally.

I'm sure they've thought about it. But as with children, if you tell people they can't have it they might well make it more attractive. In any case, there isn't really the rush to introduce LTOPG yet, because nobody is using Bitcoin to buy stuff. But if/when they do in numbers, I would expect LTOPG to be introduced. Governments need taxes to fund public services afterall - how would you think they could manage compliance in a world of Bitcoin?

I'm sure that they've thought about it too - and some of them have flip/flopped as they don't know how to deal with it. You can ban it all day long. There is no central office for Bitcoin. If they don't all ban it together - worldwide - then it will have little effect. There's no chance of that happening. Secondly, as I alluded to - every day above ground, it continues to gain ground and stake its claim. You heard McHenry - it can't be stopped.
As regards compliance, that is ongoing and it will continue to be ongoing for the next few years. Maybe you need to think of it a bit differently though - compliance belongs to centralised systems - not decentralised systems.

Don't worry about that! For all the talk about how great cryptos are as a means of protection from despotic regimes, the only real use case in those scenarios is to allow the wealthy in those countries escape with their riches.

Bitcoin is user agnostic Leo. Many people can't open bank accounts - but they can install a Bitcoin wallet in a couple of minutes. It's available to anyone - and I don't agree with this mantra of depriving people of something that's a societal good because some minority can abuse it. But cherry pick user groups as much as you want to support your world view.

 

[Firefly]

I'm sure that they've thought about it too - and some of them have flip/flopped as they don't know how to deal with it. You can ban it all day long. There is no central office for Bitcoin. If they don't all ban it together - worldwide - then it will have little effect. There's no chance of that happening. Secondly, as I alluded to - every day above ground, it continues to gain ground and stake its claim. You heard McHenry - it can't be stopped.
As regards compliance, that is ongoing and it will continue to be ongoing for the next few years. Maybe you need to think of it a bit differently though - compliance belongs to centralised systems - not decentralised systems.

Swapping Bitcoin between citizens would be impossible to police, but when those Bitcoins are converted to legal tender things it gets a little tricky...
Let's say Ireland passes a low banning Bitcoin today and tomorrow you and Duke have those pints and offer to pay in Bitcoin. Do you think a pub will accept Bitcoin knowing that it will show in its accounts?

 

[Leo]

Please re-read what I wrote.

Yeah, so you're trying to redefine what most people accept as the characteristics of money and choosing attributes that are weighted towards crypto.

Your Euro - in and of itself - is not programmable.

And it doesn't need to be, I have all the programmable benefits of bitcoin .

Your Euro can't effect a smart contract.

What's the average consumer missing out on here? Do you expect us all to be writing contracts?

I'm not shying away from any truth - inconvenient or otherwise. Even in agreeing with you, you want to pick an argument. (But fine! - no problem). You stated that you personally had no use case for Bitcoin.

Again, that's totally unrelated to the point I made.

Ground covered already. The fact is that it is highly divisible - to a greater extent than FIAT. Maybe its entirely relevant for Bitcoin to be so as it doesn't just rob people of their wealth through money printing and inflation - and so it will actually need that high divisibility! Can you cite another commentator who has rated them differently in terms of divisibility then?

Why not just answer the question and tell us where the demand to transact in fractions of cents is coming from?

One thing is for certain - visa is not equipped to deal with micro-transactions.

Of course not, they don't make any sense!

Semantics. It's a Layer 2 solution that's being developed with Bitcoin in mind - to transact Bitcoin time and cost efficiently for small day to day transactions.

It's absolutely not semantics unless you believe each LN transaction will be reflected in the bitcoin blockchain? That's like using Visa to fund a Paypal, then buying stuff with Paypal believing you're using Visa.

I have never suggested that 'every aspect of life will get better through the introduction of blockchain'. There are situations where regular centralised databases work fine. However, there are also situations that could very much utilise secure and tamperproof data. In respect of costs, that depends on the implementation.

That one was aimed more at others alright, the hype about what blockchain or smart contracts being somehow transformational are being way over played.

Through decentralised digital identities. Microsoft are building one such system on top of the Bitcoin blockchain.

How does that enable you more monetize your personal data?

Which data marketplaces are you referring to specifically? Can you provide a link to one? Decentralised systems can put the control of personal data back in the hands of the owner of that data.

I wasn't talking about any specifically, but you might have heard of Google, they're one of the biggest. Openprise would be another player, there are quite a few operating in the medical data space including Symphony Technologies. How do you have such conviction in the future value of decentralised data marketplaces when you don't seem to know anything about the setor?

Decentralised systems put the data in the hands of anyone hosting or with accessing to a node. They are not the privacy boon you suspect.

Privacy is pretty valuable Leo.

People consider their own data valuable, but no one else puts the same value on it. So the suggestion that people will sell their data over and over through micro-transactions doesn't make sense.

Maybe you need to think of it a bit differently though - compliance belongs to centralised systems - not decentralised systems.

What is it about decentralisation that prohibits compliance?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

tecate why are you are so stubbornly refusing to accept that Mr Kelleher got it badly wrong in bigging up this divisibility advantage of bitcoin over fiat? These days fiat is every bit as digital as crypto and the recording of numerical entries is only constrained by the limitations of current computer technology and crypto has no advantage over fiat in that regard.
Mr Kelleher is clearly placing some importance on the fiat cent. But that is only of relevance when considering fiat in the context of its physical representation by coin.
Yes we are in mountain out of molehill territory but it was Mr Kelleher who at lest made a small hillock out of a non existent divisibility edge and you climbed right to the very top of it.

 

[tecate]

Swapping Bitcoin between citizens would be impossible to police

Right now it provides more data than cash - although advanced users can transact with privacy and privacy updates can be applied to make it truly anonymous.
Surveilling and controlling peoples use of money is a more recent development in the history of money. We're told it's being done to 'fight terrorism' - and that excuse is used to breach peoples right to privacy. You may think that it's a good idea that the state knows every transaction you've ever made - but I don't. Crime/terrorism can be fought in the traditional way (by tackling the actual crime itself) without trampling over people's privacy. People will scream blue bloody murder about this - but that's my view and there are plenty who believe the very same.

Let's say Ireland passes a low banning Bitcoin today and tomorrow you and Duke have those pints and offer to pay in Bitcoin. Do you think a pub will accept Bitcoin knowing that it will show in its accounts?

It will hamper development and roll-out of Bitcoin for sure. It will then turn into something akin to the war on drugs (unwinnable). Any control they might have had will go out the window if they take that approach. Can they get every country onboard together in banning crypto? What will the effect be on innovation in the space if they do that (not just Bitcoin is implicated and most projects don't implicate a money use case as the primary goal). Check out Davidson's recent interview and see what he has to say on the subject. Here's Andreas Antonopoulos' view.
It can be driven underground - so sure - bricks and mortar businesses won't be able to use it in any official capacity (not because it will 'show up in their accounts as government have no such access to a Bitcoin wallet - but because it could be demonstrated that they were accepting bitcoin payment). Anything that is available online can still be facilitated through it. So bottom line is that it can retard its progress yes - but it won't kill it.

I still believe greater usability and improved UX trumps all of these things. If your granny can use it, then none of this matters to me.

 

[tecate]

Yeah, so you're trying to redefine what most people accept as the characteristics of money and choosing attributes that are weighted towards crypto.

I'm not trying to redefine anything Leo. Let me ask you a question. If you figure out a list of fundamentals as to what makes for good money today and that consideration did not take into account developments in the evolution of money, don't you think it's right and proper that there should be a re-evaluation? Perhaps you don't but I do.
We're talking about just two characteristics that he added. Lets go through them once again.
Decentralisation: Do you accept that there is an advantage in being able to transact money digitally - on a peer to peer basis - without an intermediary? To me, it's certainly significant and worthy of consideration.
Smart Programmable money: Programmable money allows the flexibility to set up rules that are enforced by the money itself. For anyone who would like to delve into that further, this medium article goes into greater detail.

You don't like those characteristics or don't think they're relevant? I don't agree - however if that's the case then just ignore them. Against all the other characteristics, Bitcoin scores very well already.

And it doesn't need to be, I have all the programmable benefits of bitcoin.

Not natively you don't - and the bigger point is that what you describe with the Euro is only possible through a centralised party. Bitcoin is decentralised - it's a technology of trust.

Again, that's totally unrelated to the point I made.

I disagree.

What's the average consumer missing out on here? Do you expect us all to be writing contracts?

Do I expect consumers to be writing smart contracts? No. I'd expect developers and innovators to do so to bring more efficient financial services to the fore. Have a read of this very same medium article I linked to above - and particularly the section on smart contracts.

Of course not, they don't make any sense!

Review the definition of a micro-transaction here. They make plenty of sense - and visa can't transact them economically.

It's absolutely not semantics unless you believe each LN transaction will be reflected in the bitcoin blockchain? That's like using Visa to fund a Paypal, then buying stuff with Paypal believing you're using Visa.

I think you need to review what the Lightning Network is then - as you must be misunderstanding something. Investopedia provide this summary here. You also seem to be misunderstanding that Bitcoin is a currency, store of value and a monetary system in its own right. Paypal is not. Visa is not....and of course they're both centralised services alongside that. Neither Bitcoin or LN are centralised entities.

That one was aimed more at others alright, the hype about what blockchain or smart contracts being somehow transformational are being way over played.

There was 'hype' back in late 2017 surrounding Bitcoin/Crypto/Blockchain/DLT/Smart Contracts. I'm not aware of any hype right now. However, they do have quite a lot of potential. We will have to see what the future brings in that respect though - in answer to your claim.

How does that enable you more monetize your personal data?

It will allow people to take control over their own digital identity - and in turn take greater control with regard to their data and privacy of said data. Included in that will be the facilitation of the ability to sell personal data (or aspects of it) or not.

I wasn't talking about any specifically, but you might have heard of Google, they're one of the biggest. Openprise would be another player, there are quite a few operating in the medical data space including Symphony Technologies. How do you have such conviction in the future value of decentralised data marketplaces when you don't seem to know anything about the setor?

I'm aware that a volume of work is being done on this. You'll have heard of the phrase 'data is the new oil'. If we accept that data is valuable, then it's not such a stretch that if you can design systems to put control of that data back in the hands of the original owners of that data, it's quite a big deal.

Decentralised systems put the data in the hands of anyone hosting or with accessing to a node. They are not the privacy boon you suspect.

That's not my understanding but you're the expert apparently.

People consider their own data valuable, but no one else puts the same value on it. So the suggestion that people will sell their data over and over through micro-transactions doesn't make sense.

If it's all automated and the only thing that the consumer has to do is select certain options on a decentralised application, then why not?

What is it about decentralisation that prohibits compliance?

Compliance is part of the legacy world. The type of 'compliance' you are referring to was never envisaged with decentralised digital currencies in mind. When I send Bitcoin from my Bitcoin wallet to someone elses Bitcoin wallet, there's no regulation involved - it wasn't designed with that in mind as it isn't designed to be part of the conventional system. Bitcoin doesn't challenge the status quo in the conventional system. It steps outside it. People can take it or leave it on that basis - Bitcoin doesn't care.

tecate you are either thick as champ, which I doubt, or you are stubbornly refusing to accept that Mr Kelleher got it badly wrong in bigging up this divisibility advantage of bitcoin over fiat. These days fiat is every bit as digital as crypto and the recording of numerical entries is only constrained by the limitations of current computer technology and crypto is no different from fiat in that regard.

Why did you quote his article then if you don't believe in what he has to say? That's right - you didn't cite him - you selectively quoted him.

Here's the deal. Divisibility has been an accepted characteristic of money before Kelleher or digital currency ever came into the picture. Bitcoin has much greater divisibility than FIAT and both of them have much greater divisibility than gold (such that gold couldn't possibly act as a medium of exchange on this basis alone). He scores Bitcoin as 'high' for this characteristic and scores FIAT money as 'moderate'. He's not wrong to do so - albeit sure - you can argue that it's not of so much relevance. I'm already on record as saying that this divisibility characteristic is much more profound a consideration when it comes to gold (as it knocks it out of the game in terms of consideration as a medium of exchange).

It facilitates Bitcoin in building up greater value over the fullness of time. You could say that this will never be necessary for FIAT as there is no fixed supply and it's not hard money....and you'd be right to say so. Bitcoin doesn't rob people blind year on year through money printing and inflation. We know how many Bitcoin have been minted...we have no idea from one moment to the next how many Euro or USD have been. We are led to believe that central banks around the world have magic'ed up an additional $25 trillion in recent months though.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Why did you quote his article then if you don't believe in what he has to say? That's right - you didn't cite him - you selectively quoted him.

I often quote Scripture, some good stuff in there, but I don't go with all that "eye for an eye" mullarkey. And I don't provide a link to the New Testament every time I make a quotation. I have noted subsequently that Mr Kelleher is something of an Evangelist on bitcoin. He seems to provide all of Investopedia's commentary on its theology. He is clearly a believer and I would disagree with the majority of his teachings. However, the particular extract which I did source is right on the button IMHO, and yes it suited my case - that's the way debates work.

Bitcoin has much greater divisibility than FIAT ...

Wrong, wrong wrong You clearly have a blind spot here. The digital entries of fiat on peoples bank accounts are every bit as divisible as bitcoin, if need be. And there is no constraint on digital transactions as evidenced by me giving an example of Airtricity charging €0.1496 per unit. You are being blinded by the granularity of its coin, which is not relevant to the divisibility debate.

 

[tecate]

I often quote Scripture, some good stuff in there, but I don't go with all that "eye for an eye" mullarkey.

You don't? You do surprise me your Dukeness :-D

I have noted subsequently that Mr Kelleher is something of an Evangelist on bitcoin..

It's more of the same then. Anyone who might have - inadvertently or otherwise - made reference to something that turns out to be favourable to Bitcoin immediately qualifies as a 'cultist' or 'evangelist' Priceless, your Dukeness!
I guess Fax Machine Guy would never qualify as a 'cultist' or 'evangelist', right?

He seems to provide all of Investopedia's commentary on its theology.

Does Investopedia come in for the 'cultist' tag also? Is it likely to feel the effects of the Dutchy of Marmalade's Inquisition?

However, the particular extract which I did source is right on the button IMHO.

Quoted out of context, yes - I'm sure you did find that to your liking.

Wrong, wrong wrong You clearly have a blind spot here. The digital entries of fiat on peoples bank accounts are every bit as divisible as bitcoin, if need be.

Repeat after me: "Alexa, how many places of decimal does FIAT currency have?".

I'm sure he's comparing native features of each currency - but fine - it can be divided further even if it's not a native feature of the currency. As I said before, in that context, it's not such a big deal. However, my point above stands - it will have little need to go into so many places of decimal as CBs keep printing up magic money. Only hard money needs eight places of decimal.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Repeat after me: "Alexa, how many places of decimal does FIAT currency have?".

Hi Alexa. As an entry on a digital account, as many as it takes. Bitcoin has a limit but I am sure the While Night LN will address even that limit. Alexa if you are the sort of gal who likes to do your business in notes and coin, I have bad news for you, the smallest unit in fiat is the cent. On the other hand crypto is not for you.
tecate you clearly have a blind spot on this, I won't drag this particular point any further for fear of being banned from AAM for drop bombing boredom.

 

[tecate]

Bitcoin has a limit but I am sure the While Night LN will address even that limit.

Not sure what you're referring to here.

tecate you clearly have a blind spot on this

I'm unsure what further clarification is required beyond the last exchange of posts.

 

[tecate]

I must say I didn't have tecate down for a communist being a proponent of a no government "currency" such as Bitcoin.

Here's an opportunity for you to out yourself as a commie, Firefly.

Bloomberg: The Fed becomes buyer of corporate bonds

In the course of these discussions, many of you have slated trustless Bitcoin and told us that Central Banks can do no wrong. This is a latent example of socialism for the rich. CBs make mistakes and they take decisions all the time that affect citizens unequally. This is one of them.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Not sure what you're referring to here.

I'm unsure what further clarification is required beyond the last exchange of posts.

Bitcoin does not have any edge theoretical or otherwise on divisibility. Back off.

 

[WolfeTone]

deleted-off topic