Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - toknormal

Pages: 1 [2] 3
16
General Discussion / Re: The unfortunate future of Bitcoin.
« on: November 29, 2014, 05:50:59 pm »
Without an upgrade bitcoin will have no function other than being the symbolic first blockchain.

 :o

Have you looked around lately ? Australia Bitcoin hearings, Canada senate hearings, Circle, Paypal, Overstock, Dish....

Take a look at this feed every couple of days... it's becoming a deluge of infrastructure development - all around Bitcoin http://www.thebitcoinchannel.com

I'm not saying that other alts like BTS aren't going to be successful as well - if I had thought that I wouldn't have sunk the biggest ever chunk of my BTC holdings into a risk asset. Some of them might even surpass BTC's marketcap at some point.

I'm just saying that, barring some catastrophic disaster like a show stopping hack or bug, Bitcoin's here to stay. It's far too dug in for newcomers with big risk capital to be going against the grain now.


17
General Discussion / Re: The unfortunate future of Bitcoin.
« on: November 29, 2014, 04:14:23 pm »
What about using bitUSD/bitGLD as a reserve currency? No price fluctuation or price manipulation, pegged to the market value of their "real world" equivalent, no fiat involved, and on top of that the yield will likely cover for inflation (depending on adoption and volume of transactions). Can Bitcoin provide that much?

A pegged currency can't be a reserve currency by definition. The two concepts are in contradiction.

The reason Bitcoin is volatile is because it's *base money*. In other words, seen from Bitcoin's perspective, it's everything else thats volatile and it's static.

Also, when you say BitUSD has no fluctuation, it's not actually true in general - only with respect to a specific, arbitrary fiat currency. In the Bitshares world, it's BTS that is the base money. It could theoretically act as a crypto reserve but it's designed for a specific vertical market. It has its own priorities. That's the beauty of Bitcoin - it's the mothership which is general enough to represent everything else. (Ask yourself this, for example, when you read the price of BTS and draw satisfaction from the fact that is has risen, what are you actually gaining ? Answer: Bitcoin).

Anyway, there is no need for new reserve crypto. We've already got a perfectly good one that's well past its "rights of passage" stage and which has a proven resilience against almost every type of competition that could be conceived.

I don't see that situation ever changing now that the alts have been "seen off". Litecoin came the closest but it's dropped way back from its all time high against Bitcoin a year ago. Ripple maybe has a high market cap but there's not a single market that I know of where anything's priced in Ripple.

Also, look at it this way. We are ants living inside the "cryptocurrency barrel". We are aware of the full spectrum and the subtle differences between currencies. But 99% of the general public - what represents crypto's future market - is outside the barrel. It just sees a single big barrel and the label on it says "Bitcoin".

18
General Discussion / Re: The unfortunate future of Bitcoin.
« on: November 29, 2014, 03:38:06 pm »
At the moment this is true, but I think that's largely because of a shortage of non-BTC gateways.  Once there are more gateways that bypass Bitcoin, there will be no need to price all crypto in relation to BTC.

At that point, Bitcoin can't just sit there like gold can, because "just sitting there" requires massive mining expenditures.

I appreciate non of us can know how everything's going to go, but thats not the way I see things at all.

Whatever number of fiat gateways exist, there'll always be the need for a cryptocurrency reserve. The ALT / BTC ratio has become a universal standard for measuring relative values in the altcoin market independently of the variations of fiat currencies.

I only see that situation consolidating - not least because so much of the trading volume is intra-crypto rather than fiat to crypto. Also, it's far easier for exchanges to set up BTC markets than it is to set up fiat markets because in the latter case there's the slight problem of a great big counterparty getting in the way known as a bank.


19
General Discussion / Re: The unfortunate future of Bitcoin.
« on: November 29, 2014, 03:13:28 pm »
Also there is clearly no interest in improving bitcoin within the community. Because the process with which bitcoin upgrades itself is so slow, cumbersome and uncompetetive, bitcoiners have this cognitive dissonance that causes them to claim that bitcoin is already perfect and should not be improved further.

It isn't bitcoin's role to provide advanced functionality - at least not as far as its valuation is concerned.

They could leave it just as it is for a couple of decades and it would still accrue in value because its role (increasingly) is to act as the reserve reference for the entire crypto currency economy. It doesn't need to do anything fancy, it just needs to exist, exhibit rock solid blockchain security and be reasonably accessible.

A 20-30 minute block time is just fine in this regard. Meanwhile, the rest of the alt coin world can get on with providing the singing and dancing wherever it's needed in specialised sectors such as Point of Sale, ultra-anonymity, equity management and decentralised exchanges.

As long as everything else continues to be priced in the BTC reserve, developments in alts will continue to attract capital to bitcoin itself without it having to justify its existence in terms of technological bells and whistles. Bitcoin isn't in competition with alts anymore - it's value is a proxy for the entire cryptocurrency economy the same way as the dollar reserve represented the entire western economy under the Bretton Woods system.

(P.S. Similarly, gold didn't loose its value when Visa and Amex were born. It just sat in vaults doing its "thang").

20
General Discussion / Re: The unfortunate future of Bitcoin.
« on: November 29, 2014, 11:57:51 am »

I don't put much store by this commentary.

Dowd (along with others) dismisses so many elephants in the room with this view that it borders on the foolish.

First of all, Bitcoin is still here and gaining huge traction with every week that passes. There is an entire industrial sector evolving around it including retail technologies, financial derivatives and more.

Dowd (and others) are highly selective in picking out a single dimension of Bitcoin's existence and projecting that into a catastrophic challenge that's insurmountable. It's not insurmountable. To me they are a bit like the people back in 1994 who said the internet wouldn't take off because http protocol is no use for video. Or it would die because it was it was impossible to find anything. All that happened was that Google got invented.

Secondly, dismissals of Bitcoin's viability based on hypothetical scenarios like this completely discount the concept of a "rights of passage" phase that a technology such as this has to endure to become trusted. Bitcoin "warts an' all" is becoming the accepted reference standard for cryptocurrencies *because* of it's troubles, not in spite of them. People are seeing that it's survived hacking attempts, a near-death by a 'media storm' of fud, competition from a flotilla of alt-coins numbering in their hundreds if not thousands, competition from more advanced blockchain technology.......and survived with barely a dent. After all that, the nearest competitor does not even exceed 1/30th of Bitcoin's marketcap.

All in all, these are hypothetical - not catastrophic - issues which just get solved the more people have an interest and a stake in its future.


21

This sounds awesome.

I'd love to see a demo. The BitAsset concept is a massive breakthrough in crypto IMO and nothing will demonstrate that more directly than an eCommerce implementation.

22
General Discussion / Re: Surely here's the market for Bitshares !
« on: November 28, 2014, 09:48:24 am »
In order to create a BitEuro, you need a buyer with a Euro's worth of BTS & someone taking a short position who locks up two Euro's worth of BTS. So BitEuros take a lot more liquidity out of the system is my understanding.

Why do you say they take liquidity out of the system ?

BitEUR (BitUSD) is collateralised with BTS, not Euros. BTS in turn is capitalised (not collateralised) worldwide. And anyway, even if BTS was only capitalised within the Eurozone the euros used to purchase BTS don't go out of circulation, they just pass from one holder to another.

If we do the algebra behind this there's a net liquidity addition which corresponds to the quantity of BitEUR borrowed.

Here's an example: I am going to start a business which buys up all the commercial debt in Spain that I can get my hands on at a 4% premium. The default rate is 2% so therefore my business plan is going to revolve around making a 2% margin from carrying all the transient commercial debt in Spain.

[1] - I have 1 million Euros. I use that 1 million euros to purchase 1 million Euros worth of BTS (my million Euros stays in circulation because the guy that sold me the BTS has now got it)

[2] - I use that 1 milllion EUR worth of BTS to collateralise 500,000 BitEUR. My old million is still in circulation and I've now - additionally - brought 500,000 BitEUR into existence by borrowing it

[3] - I now use the 500,000 BitEUR to purchase 520,000 EUR worth of Spanish commercial debt. (includes my 4% premium). The incentive for people to sell their debt to me is twofold:

a) - they are exchanging an unfungible "currency" for a fungible one
b) - they are getting paid 4 months earlier than they otherwise would be

[4] - the world is now a better place: The Spanish economy is now 50% more liquid (as it's gone from a 1 million EUR cap to 1 million EUR plus 500,000 BitEUR), I've made a 2% profit on my debts (assuming the other 2% defaulted) and my customers got paid early and are well on their way to spending their new-found liquid assets. The Spanish government bond risk premiums have reduced because their growth figures are up due to higher monetary velocity. Mr Draghi is also pleased because he can delay firing up the printing presses and keep Mrs Merkel happy

[5] - with my new profits I decide to consolidate the security of my business by purchasing some default swaps to further hedge the risk associated with my commercial debt carry trade

23
General Discussion / Re: Surely here's the market for Bitshares !
« on: November 27, 2014, 12:11:17 pm »
P.S. The reason I say it's a liquidity problem as much as an "economic growth" problem is that there are loads of businesses which are solvent in terms of commercial debt/credit but insolvent in terms of fungible currency.

For example, take the guy that delivered sand to the new kids playpark that's being built outside my house (see below for a picture of it just to ram the point home that we're not talking about ivory tower stuff). This is real money that's being spent out of a council budget but that doesn't end up in the hands of contractors for months due to the liquidity crisis.

I was chatting to the driver of the sand truck this morning (by co-incidence because I happened to know him). He is short the Euro (has a mortgage) and long commercial debt (i.e. he's invoiced out enough to cover his mortgage payments but he told me he's not going to see that money till March at the earliest). This is consistent with just about every other business I've come across around here, also public sector bodies such as Universities. Obviously that's a crap situation to be in because:

A. he's basically solvent
B. one side of his balance sheet is expressed in a fungible asset (EUR) and the other isn't (or put another way, the asset-side of his balance sheet is increasingly being used as a non-fungible currency)



If we zoom out from this anecdotal example and aggregate this situation nationally you basically end up with a certain percentage of the economy which is functioning on a non-fungible currency (commercial invoices and debit notes). This is where the market is for BitUSD and BitEUR IMO.

BitUSD / BitEUR needs to find a way to feed liquidity into this economy.


24
General Discussion / Surely here's the market for Bitshares !
« on: November 27, 2014, 09:35:47 am »
Hi

I'm living in Spain right now.

The economic situation here is DIRE. The reason, in a single word more than anything is "liquidity". Lack of Euro liquidity due to:

 - disparate rates of credit contraction in the euro zone
 - inability for sovereigns to revalue their own currencies unilaterally in response to this

As an example, a software development business I'm familiar with takes six months to get paid by their clients and then they in turn are up to a year in arrears with a lot of their own salary payments. Instead they hand out IOU's.

The whole country is functioning to a large extent on debt - invoices and IOU's which are acting as a substitute for the liquidity shortfall in growing quantity.

Now lets think for a minute what fiat currency is - it's a *fungible* token of DEBT (because someone on the other side of your 50 Euro note has taken a short position on the Euro by signing a mortgage application or corporate loan application or bank overdraft form to bring more Euro liquidity into existence).

Likeways, collateralised assets like BitUSD are just such a liquidity machine.

Surely the current deflationary situation in the Euro zone is just exactly the problem that a decentralised liquidity tool like BitUSD (in this case it would be BitEUR) was designed to solve ? Is it not ?

The challenge is to find the spark that lights the tinder pile. The detonator. It only needs to work for one tiny anecdotal scenario in some obscure commercial sector for the uptake to gain a self sustaining momentum. Such decentralised liquidity sources could then start to take market share from the commercial bank credit supply.

It needs to be seen to work for just 1 case because the genius of this system is that it facilitates a business model that's already known to work (the commercial banking system) and decentralises it, basically giving anybody that wants one a banking licence. (Another way to look at it is that it ‘granularises’ the banking system). It also represents a natural and powerful capitalisation of the tension that exists between the so called "1% ers" and the "99% ers" - i.e. it would feed off the big wealth disparity and help to reconcile it. Just to spell it out in technical terms:

Q. - Who is going to take the short side of the BitUSD (BitEUR) trade ?

A. - liquidity starved commercial markets such as that of our spanish software house example above and the concrete and sand suppliers below

Q. - Who is going to take the long side of the BitUSD (BitEUR) trade ?

A. - those with excess disposable income that currently don't know what to do with it other than to invest in a ballooning stock market or buy artwork who's value is based on nothing but central bank monetary expansion

That's what I mean by "feeding off the wealth disparity". There's a common interest there. Before anyone asks the obvious question "why don't the banks just provide it", the answer's name is Mr Mario Draghi - governor of the European Central Bank (ECB). The ECB has hitherto resisted implementing a full blown QE program like the US and Japan. The principle resisting force behind this is German - they do not like anything that promotes the wheelbarrow market and they also have the lowest unemployment rate in Europe which means they have the most "real" economic activity going on which means they have the most liquid commercial credit sector. So the aggregated Eurozone deflationary profile does not even tell the full story of the credit disparity that exists between sovereigns because it's more acute in the Mediteranean countries and less acute in Germany (See the graph below).

As I say - the spark needs to be found. A tiny working case study where a crypto-based, collateralised currency asset works as a substitute for all the business IOU's that are currently floating around the Eurozone economy due to deflation.

The key to creating the "spark" is the abundant supply of commercial debt notes (invoices, wage liability slips etc). People don't need much of an incentive to convert these into something tradeable.



25
Technical Support / Re: Can't Banks do Bitshares ?
« on: November 18, 2014, 06:09:23 pm »
The value of a bitAsset is not determined by a legally binding contractual agreement as you have assumed, it is determined by the distributed consensus of the free market. The genius behind bitAssets are that they replicate the value of derivatives but do not entail any legal ramification and most importantly they are fungible

Thanks ! I'll have to go away and have a think about that now :)

Could you elaborate on "fungible" ? I realise that fungible means that it doesn't matter which particular unit of the asset you have (i.e. they are interchangeable) but how is that different from, say, a gold ETF or futures contract. Is it because the contract itself prohibits fungibility ? (i.e. my "futures contract" is not the same as your futures contract ?).

By the way, I just realised one huge advantage of BitUSD over regular USD - no need for a bank account and counterparty to broker the transaction (duh). So in that sense it in fact is like a cryptocurrency.

26
General Discussion / Re: Why BTS is falling like this?
« on: November 18, 2014, 10:59:17 am »
I'm buying. I just pumped 5 BTC into BitsharesX.

It may be that it's overbought though because when I was weighing up my purchase I thought they were expensive.

Bitshares has almost no volume of asset trades. NXT has a very significant volume of asset trades. Yet Bitshares is nearly twice as expensive as NxT. Look at the marketcaps - Bitshares is number 4 despite the fact that it's basically still a beta, proof of concept project whereas NxT is now attracting launch after launch of new assets.

I think things will improve once assets start to be traded on the Bitshares platform because the "concept" is now probably priced in.

27
Technical Support / Re: Can't Banks do Bitshares ?
« on: November 18, 2014, 09:06:28 am »
Thanks for all the thoughtful replies. I see some interesting ideas but none which directly address the issue. In particular, I'm not sure that Bitshares has "first mover advantage" in this market because - unlike Bitcoin - it's not a cryptocurrency market. To me it's a derivatives market (at least as far as the assets are concerned) and that puts a very different characteristic on its competitive survivability I think.

Lets think this through from the ground up.

Why is cryptocurrency "revolutionary" ? Why did people get excited about it and its disruptive capacity ? What is the one single property that more than anything makes it compelling and resistant to competition from banks ?

Answer: It is unlevered base money and a payment system rolled into one.

In other words, it's "gold" that can travel through wires. Cryptocurrency is not a proxy for some other asset, it IS the asset.

Banks cannot compete with this because they are *brokers* who simply act as the counterparty between an asset derivative and its collateral base. (The derivative being account balances and the collateral being corporate & personal debt for the most part). They could use Bitcoin as capital (if they were allowed by regs) and then lever it to create derivatives but they cannot actually reproduce the concept to the same standard as Bitcoin - no matter how much money they throw at it - because something that's so decentralised requires a "rights of passage"phase that takes many years. It requires organic growth. Nor can you duplicate the concept AND the value (as we've seen with the altcoin phenomenon). On the other hand, with derivatives such as Bit-USD, you can duplicate the concept AND the value.

Now lets consider the Bitshares concept in this context.

Bitshares reverses the cryptocurrency concept. It de-couples the collateral from the traded token so that we're back to using derivatives again. (Thats the price it pays for non-volatility). This is where I see the weakness because there's no "first mover advantage" in this sector. It's simply another derivatives market amongst thousands. The fact that is uses shares on a blockchain as its collateral is immaterial - it could be anything as far as the asset customers are concerned. Their priorities as very similar to those of customers of any other type of derivative and although the Bitshares type derivative may be marginally more competitive in some cases there's nothing revolutionary about it. For example how are you going to sell "Bit-GOLD" backed by blockchain collateral to someone over a gold derivative that's backed by gold in a vault ? How are you going to sell "Bit-USD" over Paypal, Visa or Amex USD ? What's the USP here ? It's just an alternative route to the same derivative as far as I can see but the end product is no more competitive to its consumers.

There is one area I can see the Bitshares concept being unique though - and that is in decentralising the concept of banking.

A BIT-USD transaction to me is basically a granular bank by virtue of allowing the USD to be "borrowed into existence". Right now you need a banking licence to do that and it's a monopoly. This is an extremely powerful development I think but my problem is that I can't see how to make it competitive with Bank generated USD (or any other asset). Possibly I'm just not seeing the wood for the trees because I *can* see that the concept of granulising and decentralising banking is revolutionary.

To me this is the nub of the matter - determining what it is that makes Bitshares derivatives more competitive than other derivatives, and I think this needs to be thought through to death. It's all very well creating a cryptocurreny that doesn't have volatility anymore, but perhaps not so much if it isn't a cryptocurrency anymore - just a payments system.

28
Technical Support / Re: Can't Banks do Bitshares ?
« on: November 17, 2014, 01:56:29 am »
yes  you are right , other alt-coin cannot copy BTC, but the reason is not the hash power but the network effect.

To me, hashpower IS network effect - or at least part of it. I don't see how you can separate the two.

If people are investing a million dollars per day in INCREMENTAL mining power for a particular cryptocurrency as opposed to others, then that's one hell of a a significant phenomenon. You may say it's money down the drain but markets are a relative thing - it clearly isn't "money down the drain" for those who are spending it and it's their opinion that matters because they are the market. If there was no value for them in what they're mining then they wouldn't be spending that money.

Not only that, there is a correlation between Bitcoin adoption and hashpower.

I don't see any value in multi-billion dollar defence programs but others do, so by definition there's a market.

It can certainly be copied, but the security of bitUSD rests on security of DPOS, which in turn rests on the value of the stake: Delegates are "backed" by the value of the stake that votes for them. Of course we are only at 30 mill now, so any bank could come in and crush us still ;)

Thanks ! I'll have to go away and think about that. Delegates and voting is something that I need to look into more. Maybe that's the answer - that the asset branding isn't as centralised as it appears.

toknormal, there is a related thread I launched a month ago asking the same question. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10123.msg132088#msg132088
It was also brushed off with a lack of response. Is there complacency on this competitive threat?

Just read it. You read my mind :

Thanks for all the obliging responses - very useful ! Will digest !

29
Technical Support / Re: Can't Banks do Bitshares ?
« on: November 17, 2014, 12:34:52 am »
Once achieved it cant be copied.

I think that tripped off your tongue a bit to easily there  ;)

As far as I can see it most certainly can be copied and will be if it looks like having the slightest chance of adoption. By "adoption" what I mean is this type of scenario:

Lets say retailers get interested (due to an attractive package of low volatility of Bit-USD combined with the advantages of blockchain approach - low cost, speed etc). We are the "David" and the challenge for the Goliath is to match that package - low volatility combined with blockchain approach.

Because Bit-USD is a financial derivative (unlike Bitcoin) it's within the capacity of the big payment processors to reproduce it. We've basically come full circle. I'm not saying that the Bitshares network is copyable but the service / incentive it provides to the market to trade and hold the collateralised assets is as far as I can see.

I realise I'm painting a slightly negative scenario. It could also be a great success - the market is so huge that Bitshares could become absolutely massive and still only capture a small portion of the USD market. There are also other scenarios I see involving collapse of the dollar etc. There are lots of ways this could go.

But I'd be interested to know how far the adoption scenario has been thought through. We're talking about taking market share away from some of the most powerful and commercially aggressive co-orporations in the world. That fact isn't adequately addressed by simply saying "Once achieved it cant be copied".

P.S. The reason the "retail adoption" part is important I think is that initially I could see where the incentive is for traders to take short positions against the dollar in the BTS / BitUSD market, but I couldn't see where the long positions would come from. Then I suddenly realised that the whole commercial world ALREADY IS long the dollar of course. They need to be for commercial trade.

So that group only needs to be convinced to switch from trading / holding commercial bank USD to BitUSD which is within the realms of possibility given that it has a huge USP in removing the counterparty from the transaction and therefore most of the fees and clearing time.

So the business model is very compelling. However the implications of that is that is that it will engender competition and outright hostile action if it develops into the slightest threat. Bit USD is a brand that can be reproduced many times - that's my problem with it (and without the collateralised assets being created and adopted widespread, BTS looses its value).


30
Technical Support / Re: Can't Banks do Bitshares ?
« on: November 16, 2014, 10:47:32 pm »

ok - thanks.

Much appreciate your replies.

Pages: 1 [2] 3