What has been clear from the outset of this aspect of the discussion is that gold is the one that loses out in terms of divisibility. That Bitcoin is scored slightly better than FIAT in terms of divisibility is technically correct. It's yourself that's sensitive on that score and I think you should park it up yourself. If not, please cite a similar comparison that doesn't score Bitcoin and FIAT in this way when it comes to divisibility.Bitcoin does not have any edge theoretical or otherwise on divisibility. Back off.
This provides some good commentary on the Fed's corporate bond buying announcement:We really are in the realm of fantasy economics. Capitalism is dead now, how much longer is the pretense going to continue for? In the end, it isnt nuclear holocaust, famine or rising ocean levels, instead it is a tiny microscopic virus that is sticking the final nail in the coffin.
I searched but couldn’t find any other divisibility comparison between bitcoin and fiat.What has been clear from the outset of this aspect of the discussion is that gold is the one that loses out in terms of divisibility. That Bitcoin is scored slightly better than FIAT in terms of divisibility is technically correct. It's yourself that's sensitive on that score and I think you should park it up yourself. If not, please cite a similar comparison that doesn't score Bitcoin and FIAT in this way when it comes to divisibility.
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.
Review the definition of a micro-transaction here. They make plenty of sense - and visa can't transact them economically.
I think you need to review what the Lightning Network is then - as you must be misunderstanding something.
There was 'hype' back in late 2017 surrounding Bitcoin/Crypto/Blockchain/DLT/Smart Contracts. I'm not aware of any hype right now.
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.
That's not my understanding but you're the expert apparently.
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?
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.
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.
Kelleher displayed either a woeful naïveté or just a self fulfilling desire to drum up any advantage for bitcoin in bigging up this divisibility thing. tecate should know better but he has this trait that once he starts to defend a point he just won't drop it against all the odds.That's a very good point, the crypto believers seem to limit their interpretation of money to the physical manifestation. I wonder why the fixation on that, is it because they long to hold something that represents bitcoin?
Divisibility without function is pointless, unless there is demand to transact at sub cent levels, bitcoin is more divisible than is useful.
...…….but he has this trait that once he starts to defend a point he just won't drop it against all the odds.
I guess we'll have to go back over this one more time. It was more or less agreed that the greater point in terms of divisibility was that gold fails the test. However, Kelleher - who you introduced to the discussion - is technically right. As it stands today, Bitcoin has EIGHT places of decimal. FIAT has TWO.It is a total red herring yet Mr Kelleher marks fiat down against bitcoin on this score.
Wishful thinking my friend. :-DThat's a very good point, the crypto believers seem to limit their interpretation of money to the physical manifestation. I wonder why the fixation on that, is it because they long to hold something that represents bitcoin?
Ok, so you at least accept that it is more divisible. Can you go and tell Dukey as he seems a tad confused. As regards function, FIAT has extra 'ability' that Bitcoin doesn't have. It can just be printed off - there's no limit to it. That's why those eight places of decimal are needed for hard money (Bitcoin) and they're not necessary for 'money printer go brrr' FIAT.Divisibility without function is pointless, unless there is demand to transact at sub cent levels, bitcoin is more divisible than is useful.
As outlined previously, you introduced him/his article to this discussion without citing his work but selectively quoting his article out of context because a particular tract of text in isolation supported your world view. Now, you trash talk his article. You couldn't make this stuff up.Kelleher displayed either a woeful naïveté or just a self fulfilling desire to drum up any advantage for bitcoin in bigging up this divisibility thing.
You mean I won't be brow beaten into accepting an untruth from you? Sounds about right.tecate should know better but he has this trait that once he starts to defend a point he just won't drop it against all the odds.
I haven't had to make 'concessions'. I can list off a whole host of issues and challenges with Bitcoin/cryptocurrency that I readily acknowledged/brought up myself without any pressing from you or anyone else. Contrast that with you and others taking the naysayer/no-coiner side of this discussion. I've brought this up a few times. How many positive characteristics of Bitcoin have you acknowledged? Answer - not one.I don't think he has made one concession so far.
QED..You mean I won't be brow beaten into accepting an untruth from you? Sounds about right.
There's a third party involved. If you can't see the benefit of peer to peer value transfer then I can't help you.As a consumer, why do I care if the functionality is native or not? What's the benefit? The only reason I can see where that might have value is if I want to start coding again so I can create my own smart contracts. The vast majority of people aren't going to do that, we they will use the services created by third parties just like I do with fiat today.
The accountability comes via opensource code that is open to community scrutiny.A technology of trust with no accountability and no oversight.
Go and use it then - and pay the 3% extra for the billions that are clocked up in credit/debit card fraud every year then (the 3% being rolled in to the price of the good/service). So if you had the opportunity to pay $10 for something with visa or $9.50 with Bitcoin, you'd still pay with visa right?I prefer to have my bank, Mastercard or Visa providing oversight and protecting me from fraudsters and giving me the ability to reverse a transaction should I send money to the wrong account.
Luckily not everyone is going to judge this based on your semantics. Whether you like it or not, Lightning Network is developing nicely into a role where it can effect Bitcoin transfers at scale - with low transaction time/cost.Thanks, I understand it well enough to know it is not bitcoin.
Another guy in a hurry! How long did the development of the internet, AI, mobile tech, IoT or any other technology take?Almost 3 years later, in an era of hyper-adoption, they haven't changed the world, maybe it's time to move on from thinking all money needs to support smart contracts.
Go read up on decentralised identities and find out. We've been here many times before - i'm not going running around fetching and carrying for you Leo.How?
If you are saying that I don't have the knowledge and claiming that you do, then drop the questions and start with the answers.In a decentralised system, where is the data stored? In a private database in a secure data center?
I guess we'll see how it all pans out. All these foolish people going to great trouble to establish decentralised data marketplaces. Don't know what they could be thinking of!A complete financial profile costs less than $0.005 per person at the moment, and that's way more data than most people will ever willingly share. If decentralisation ends up with more people exposing their data, do you think the price will go up or down?
I never said such a thing.So you're happy to encourage money laundering and facilitating rogue states like North Korea get around international sanctions?
By trampling over people's financial privacy? Try again!Regulation of financial services serves the greater good.
No kidding? That's an understatement. The friction it causes is unreal. The cost of such systems is unreal - and is ultimately borne by the consumer. Financial services companies and banks have no business taking the role of the police - they'll tell you that themselves.It's not always done well
I'm not even sure what this is for an analogy.we don't make murder legal just because we don't convict 100% of perpetrators.
Asked and answered. That you don't like the answer is your problem Leo.Again, what about decentralisation prevents compliance?
If you mean QED insofar as I won't countenance blatant lies, then sure - we're on the same pageQED..
I too am going to try one more time, probably the last as this really is a mole hill made into a small hillock by Keleher and promoted to Mount Everest by your good self.I guess we'll have to go back over this one more time. It was more or less agreed that the greater point in terms of divisibility was that gold fails the test. However, technically, Kelleher - who you introduced to the discussion - is technically right. As it stands today, Bitcoin has EIGHT places of decimal. FIAT has TWO.
You're the one that's labouring the point Dukey - when it has been acknowledged from the outset that in the comparison of gold/bitcoin/FIAT in terms of divisibility - gold is the loser. That's not Kelleher's doing - he's technically correct to say that Bitcoin has greater divisibility than FIAT. One has eight places of decimal - the other has two places of decimal. What part of that do you not understand?Duke of Marmalade said:I too am going to try one more time, probably the last as this really is a mole hill made into a small hillock by Keleher and promoted to Mount Everest by your good self.
You can't prove your point so you will resort to this nonsense? As you wish, Dukey.Duke of Marmalade said:2. It is not General Relativity but it is a reasonably nuanced point confronting first impressions. If it is beyond your intellectual capacity then it would be unfair to keep exposing that deficiency.
As alluded to in my last post, there's a very quick and easy test for this. Outline to readers where you have once acknowledged a positive trait of Bitcoin. On the flipside, I can list a whole host of posts where I've drawn attention to shortcomings and challenges facing Bitcoin.Duke of Marmalade said:3. Having taken a position you will die in a ditch before you withdraw from it.
I'm sorry that you feel aggrieved that our opinions on aspects of the subject differ.Duke of Marmalade said:Given that after 21 pages of mostly dialogue you are of the view that nothing that you have said needs corrected
As outlined above and in far too many posts on this thread than should be needed....Duke of Marmalade said:So here goes, very very slowly.
I am not so versed in the minutiae of bitcoin as your good self and was surprised to see that in fact bitcoin's divisibility is not at all limited to 8 decimal places. By changes to the protocol the divisibility of bitcoin is in fact unlimited.
So to is fiat in its digital manifestation except it doesn't even need the equivalent of a change to the protocol to go to whatever number of decimal places its customers may demand. The understandable illusion that entrapped Mr Kelleher is the granularity of its physical manifestation or maybe the fact that there isn't an actual name for € .0000001 whereas there is a name for 1/100 millionth of a bitcoin - the satoshi.
Ok, so you at least accept that it is more divisible. Can you go and tell Dukey as he seems a tad confused.
There's a third party involved. If you can't see the benefit of peer to peer value transfer then I can't help you.
Nobody ever suggested that consumers would start coding their own smart contracts!
So if you had the opportunity to pay $10 for something with visa or $9.50 with Bitcoin, you'd still pay with visa right?
Lightning Network is developing nicely into a role where it can effect Bitcoin transfers at scale - with low transaction time/cost.
Another guy in a hurry! How long did the development of the internet, AI, mobile tech, IoT or any other technology take?
Go read up on decentralised identities and find out. We've been here many times before - i'm not going running around fetching and carrying for you Leo.
I fear that it may be explanation 2 in post #414 that prevents you understanding that fiat in its digital manifestation is not restricted to 2 decimal places. Ask Airtricity - €0.1496 per unit . Ask any life company who routinely quote their unit prices to 3 decimal places.- Bitcoin has eight places of decimal - FIAT money has two..
The understandable illusion that entrapped Mr Kelleher is the granularity of its physical manifestation or maybe the fact that there isn't an actual name for € .0000001, say, whereas there is a name for 1/100 millionth of a bitcoin - the satoshi.
tecate has frequently referenced the people's of the second and third world, the unbanked. He has often citied these people are who are excluded, in no small part because the global financial system is unduly dominated by first world bungling financial overseers.
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?