It makes it sound like bitsharesX is just a one particular set of DACs, but that the core developers and perhaps the community are not committed to working towards bitsharesX becoming the main way of moving money around, making mobile retail payments, etc.
I am curious how did you get to that conclusion?Nice way to remind all of us how grateful we can be of our dev team (and the community, how is available 24/7 to answer questions in the forum!)
-Was it from the fact that the whole dev team is working well more than 8h a day on it, and in my observation 6 (and quite likely 7) days a week.
-Was it from to fact that some of that team have promising DAC's of their own, that are left for later, while BTSX is rapidly developed.
-Is it due to versions coming every 2 to 4 days.
-was it due to the fact that new features (and significantly new) are coming at least once a week.
It makes it sound like bitsharesX is just a one particular set of DACs, but that the core developers and perhaps the community are not committed to working towards bitsharesX becoming the main way of moving money around, making mobile retail payments, etc.
I am curious how did you get to that conclusion?
-Was it from the fact that the whole dev team is working well more than 8h a day on it, and in my observation 6 (and quite likely 7) days a week.
-Was it from to fact that some of that team have promising DAC's of their own, that are left for later, while BTSX is rapidly developed.
-Is it due to versions coming every 2 to 4 days.
-was it due to the fact that new features (and significantly new) are coming at least once a week.
It makes it sound like bitsharesX is just a one particular set of DACs, but that the core developers and perhaps the community are not committed to working towards bitsharesX becoming the main way of moving money around, making mobile retail payments, etc.
I am curious how did you get to that conclusion?
-Was it from the fact that the whole dev team is working well more than 8h a day on it, and in my observation 6 (and quite likely 7) days a week.
-Was it from to fact that some of that team have promising DAC's of their own, that are left for later, while BTSX is rapidly developed.
-Is it due to versions coming every 2 to 4 days.
-was it due to the fact that new features (and significantly new) are coming at least once a week.
Any BitShares Y DAC would honor BitShares X so buying BTSX is getting a cut in any other DACs that leverage that technology.
Of course BitShares Y would have new features funded by new capital and thus likely dilute BTSX holders when upgrading but BTSX would continue on its own.
So betting on BTSX is betting on all DACs derived from it (to some extent).
Developers own a lot of BTSX so they have reason to see it grow.
Does that answer you question? I understand that the community is working hard on BitsharesX right now. But is the plan to make a succession of competitors? If so, the future of BitsharesX looks bleak compared to Bitcoin...
Are you familiar with the snapshot concept? BM addressed above how btsx holder value is preserved even if a successor is announced
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
Does that answer you question? I understand that the community is working hard on BitsharesX right now. But is the plan to make a succession of competitors? If so, the future of BitsharesX looks bleak compared to Bitcoin...
The plan is not to make competitors to Bitshares X.
The new DACs that are under development, which you will get shares of if you own PTS, serve very different purposes: Bitshares DNS, Bitshares Vote, Bitshares Music, etc. They are not competitors to BitsharesX.
These other projects are being worked on by other people than the core dev team of Bitshares X. (I think?)
To summarize:
Bitshares X is the stock market and derivative exchange DAC. It is being worked on very hard by the dev team. If you want it, you need to buy BTSX.
Other DACs are being worked on as well, which do not compete with Bitshares, but instead serve other functions. If you want in on these, you buy PTS.
Are you familiar with the snapshot concept? BM addressed above how btsx holder value is preserved even if a successor is announced
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
I read this: http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/Sharedrops_and_Snapshots
But that talks about giving a small amount to PTS and AGS holders. It doesn't say anything about honoring BTSX.
Also, the snapshot concept does not address the importance of network effects for making a coin actually useful. For the mainstream to want to use a coin many other people need to already be using it (that is what make it useful for transactions). Bitcoin looks like it might be able to successfully bootstrap itself into mainstream use, but none of the other altcoins are even close. BitShares X has enough innovation that maybe it also has a chance to bootstrap. But not if half the community moves to BitShares Y, and then BitShares Z.
Also, lets say that contrary to the snapshots wiki page, 10% of Bitshares Y goes to BitShares X and 10% of BitShares Z goes to BitShares Y and then BitShares Z achieves critical mass and becomes mainstream, while X and Y wither and die. The snapshot concept means I retain 1% of my market share (10% of 10%). That is not really very reassuring.
Are you familiar with the snapshot concept? BM addressed above how btsx holder value is preserved even if a successor is announced
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
I read this: http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/Sharedrops_and_Snapshots
But that talks about giving a small amount to PTS and AGS holders. It doesn't say anything about honoring BTSX.
Also, the snapshot concept does not address the importance of network effects for making a coin actually useful. For the mainstream to want to use a coin many other people need to already be using it (that is what make it useful for transactions). Bitcoin looks like it might be able to successfully bootstrap itself into mainstream use, but none of the other altcoins are even close. BitShares X has enough innovation that maybe it also has a chance to bootstrap. But not if half the community moves to BitShares Y, and then BitShares Z.
Also, lets say that contrary to the snapshots wiki page, 10% of Bitshares Y goes to BitShares X and 10% of BitShares Z goes to BitShares Y and then BitShares Z achieves critical mass and becomes mainstream, while X and Y wither and die. The snapshot concept means I retain 1% of my market share (10% of 10%). That is not really very reassuring.
It would likely honor 100%, not 10%.
I assume he has a small % in BTSX already, so he will keep that.Are you familiar with the snapshot concept? BM addressed above how btsx holder value is preserved even if a successor is announced
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
I read this: http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/Sharedrops_and_Snapshots
But that talks about giving a small amount to PTS and AGS holders. It doesn't say anything about honoring BTSX.
Also, the snapshot concept does not address the importance of network effects for making a coin actually useful. For the mainstream to want to use a coin many other people need to already be using it (that is what make it useful for transactions). Bitcoin looks like it might be able to successfully bootstrap itself into mainstream use, but none of the other altcoins are even close. BitShares X has enough innovation that maybe it also has a chance to bootstrap. But not if half the community moves to BitShares Y, and then BitShares Z.
Also, lets say that contrary to the snapshots wiki page, 10% of Bitshares Y goes to BitShares X and 10% of BitShares Z goes to BitShares Y and then BitShares Z achieves critical mass and becomes mainstream, while X and Y wither and die. The snapshot concept means I retain 1% of my market share (10% of 10%). That is not really very reassuring.
It would likely honor 100%, not 10%.
Really? You wouldn't keep a small percentage for yourself?
I assume he has a small % in BTSX already, so he will keep that.Are you familiar with the snapshot concept? BM addressed above how btsx holder value is preserved even if a successor is announced
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
I read this: http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/Sharedrops_and_Snapshots
But that talks about giving a small amount to PTS and AGS holders. It doesn't say anything about honoring BTSX.
Also, the snapshot concept does not address the importance of network effects for making a coin actually useful. For the mainstream to want to use a coin many other people need to already be using it (that is what make it useful for transactions). Bitcoin looks like it might be able to successfully bootstrap itself into mainstream use, but none of the other altcoins are even close. BitShares X has enough innovation that maybe it also has a chance to bootstrap. But not if half the community moves to BitShares Y, and then BitShares Z.
Also, lets say that contrary to the snapshots wiki page, 10% of Bitshares Y goes to BitShares X and 10% of BitShares Z goes to BitShares Y and then BitShares Z achieves critical mass and becomes mainstream, while X and Y wither and die. The snapshot concept means I retain 1% of my market share (10% of 10%). That is not really very reassuring.
It would likely honor 100%, not 10%.
Really? You wouldn't keep a small percentage for yourself?
Wait. Now I am confused. What DACS are honoring btsx? I thought Pts and Ags were the only thing honored in a snapshot. I am pretty sure DNS isn't honoring btsx nor is peertracks. Can I get an example of which DACS will honor btsx and which ones won't. I may want to sell Pts for btsx.
I'm trying to conceive a scenario in which some entity scoops BitsharesX, releases a knock-off and screws AGS/PTS/Community.
Can't come up with one that is viable.
At this point in time I can't see another group of devs jumping in and doing a better job at developing/marketing the platform, ie. winning the race.
In the future, once the platform is mature, I can't see another group of devs copying and adding enough gee-whiz to lure the community while simultaneously screwing the community.
In between, I can't see an attack or flaw that the devs/delegates could not fix/fork themselves.
Unless I'm missing something obvious this risk seems to be an armchair issue rather than something investors (myself included) need to worry about.
And finally... if someone rips off the code, what could they possibly call their knock-off that would compete with the Bitshares branding (CitiBank? Wells Fargo? BOA?).
I'm trying to conceive a scenario in which some entity scoops BitsharesX, releases a knock-off and screws AGS/PTS/Community.
Can't come up with one that is viable.
At this point in time I can't see another group of devs jumping in and doing a better job at developing/marketing the platform, ie. winning the race.
In the future, once the platform is mature, I can't see another group of devs copying and adding enough gee-whiz to lure the community while simultaneously screwing the community.
In between, I can't see an attack or flaw that the devs/delegates could not fix/fork themselves.
Unless I'm missing something obvious this risk seems to be an armchair issue rather than something investors (myself included) need to worry about.
And finally... if someone rips off the code, what could they possibly call their knock-off that would compete with the Bitshares branding (CitiBank? Wells Fargo? BOA?).
I'm becoming convinced. Is it true that the community would view any new DAC designed to function as a currency as a competitor to BitShares X and thus will not launch such a DAC (at least not with broad community support)?
BTSX is not a currency, BitAssets within BTSX are the currency.
BTSX is the "bank" that is the source of credit behind the BitUSD issued.
BTSX is not a currency, BitAssets within BTSX are the currency.
BTSX is the "bank" that is the source of credit behind the BitUSD issued.
Well BTSX is being traded as a currency on Bter, and can be sent to people like a currency from the wallet software. I understand that BTSX is the value put up for collateral which underlies the market pegging of BitUSD. But it is thus functioning as a currency is it not? People can and will use it to buy/sell things. Why do you say it's not a currency?
Maybe you are imagining that once BitUSD is stable people would just buy and sell things by transfering BitUSD instead of BTSX? But they may also choose to use BTSX, no? Especially if one of the parties believes that USD is being devalued by overprinting. BTSX may be viewed as a more reliable currency...
BTSX is not a currency, BitAssets within BTSX are the currency.
BTSX is the "bank" that is the source of credit behind the BitUSD issued.
Well BTSX is being traded as a currency on Bter, and can be sent to people like a currency from the wallet software. I understand that BTSX is the value put up for collateral which underlies the market pegging of BitUSD. But it is thus functioning as a currency is it not? People can and will use it to buy/sell things. Why do you say it's not a currency?
Maybe you are imagining that once BitUSD is stable people would just buy and sell things by transfering BitUSD instead of BTSX? But they may also choose to use BTSX, no? Especially if one of the parties believes that USD is being devalued by overprinting. BTSX may be viewed as a more reliable currency...
BTSX is not a currency, BitAssets within BTSX are the currency.
BTSX is the "bank" that is the source of credit behind the BitUSD issued.
Well BTSX is being traded as a currency on Bter, and can be sent to people like a currency from the wallet software. I understand that BTSX is the value put up for collateral which underlies the market pegging of BitUSD. But it is thus functioning as a currency is it not? People can and will use it to buy/sell things. Why do you say it's not a currency?
Maybe you are imagining that once BitUSD is stable people would just buy and sell things by transfering BitUSD instead of BTSX? But they may also choose to use BTSX, no? Especially if one of the parties believes that USD is being devalued by overprinting. BTSX may be viewed as a more reliable currency...
Are you one of those excessive writers (as opposed to dedicated readers)? Not trying to be rude but, can you first read the wiki or listen to some videos?
BTSX is not a currency, BitAssets within BTSX are the currency.Do we have a plan on which projects get funded and which do not? current example is the development of http://www.ripplecharts.com/ for btsx by svk (who also built bitsharesblocks.com - and may receive fund support, doesn't he?)
BTSX is the "bank" that is the source of credit behind the BitUSD issued.
Network effect is the #1 driver for long term growth. Achieving network effect for BTSX holders is my #1 goal.
However, everyone who has a stake in BTSX got it on equal footing by mining/buying/etc with their own funds. I do not expect any individual including myself to fund development out of their own pocket so that everyone else can benefit from it. BTSX has a development fund of ~100M BTSX and as long as we can grow the value of BTSX faster than we spend it the network can thrive.
BTSX is not a currency, BitAssets within BTSX are the currency.
BTSX is the "bank" that is the source of credit behind the BitUSD issued.
Well BTSX is being traded as a currency on Bter, and can be sent to people like a currency from the wallet software. I understand that BTSX is the value put up for collateral which underlies the market pegging of BitUSD. But it is thus functioning as a currency is it not? People can and will use it to buy/sell things. Why do you say it's not a currency?
Maybe you are imagining that once BitUSD is stable people would just buy and sell things by transfering BitUSD instead of BTSX? But they may also choose to use BTSX, no? Especially if one of the parties believes that USD is being devalued by overprinting. BTSX may be viewed as a more reliable currency...
Are you one of those excessive writers (as opposed to dedicated readers)? Not trying to be rude but, can you first read the wiki or listen to some videos?
I've read most of the wiki and watched a couple videos. Everybody who is new to BitShares X seems to find it confusing. It's not just me. These things aren't clearly spelled out on the wiki as far as I could see.
BTSX is not a currency, BitAssets within BTSX are the currency.
BTSX is the "bank" that is the source of credit behind the BitUSD issued.
Well BTSX is being traded as a currency on Bter, and can be sent to people like a currency from the wallet software. I understand that BTSX is the value put up for collateral which underlies the market pegging of BitUSD. But it is thus functioning as a currency is it not? People can and will use it to buy/sell things. Why do you say it's not a currency?
Maybe you are imagining that once BitUSD is stable people would just buy and sell things by transfering BitUSD instead of BTSX? But they may also choose to use BTSX, no? Especially if one of the parties believes that USD is being devalued by overprinting. BTSX may be viewed as a more reliable currency...
Are you one of those excessive writers (as opposed to dedicated readers)? Not trying to be rude but, can you first read the wiki or listen to some videos?
I've read most of the wiki and watched a couple videos. Everybody who is new to BitShares X seems to find it confusing. It's not just me. These things aren't clearly spelled out on the wiki as far as I could see.
http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/What_is_BitShares%3F
and all the links from there...
BTSX is not a currency, BitAssets within BTSX are the currency.
BTSX is the "bank" that is the source of credit behind the BitUSD issued.
Well BTSX is being traded as a currency on Bter, and can be sent to people like a currency from the wallet software. I understand that BTSX is the value put up for collateral which underlies the market pegging of BitUSD. But it is thus functioning as a currency is it not? People can and will use it to buy/sell things. Why do you say it's not a currency?
Maybe you are imagining that once BitUSD is stable people would just buy and sell things by transfering BitUSD instead of BTSX? But they may also choose to use BTSX, no? Especially if one of the parties believes that USD is being devalued by overprinting. BTSX may be viewed as a more reliable currency...
http://107.170.163.35/index.php/Distributed_Autonomous_CompaniesBTSX is not a currency, BitAssets within BTSX are the currency.
BTSX is the "bank" that is the source of credit behind the BitUSD issued.
Well BTSX is being traded as a currency on Bter, and can be sent to people like a currency from the wallet software. I understand that BTSX is the value put up for collateral which underlies the market pegging of BitUSD. But it is thus functioning as a currency is it not? People can and will use it to buy/sell things. Why do you say it's not a currency?
Maybe you are imagining that once BitUSD is stable people would just buy and sell things by transfering BitUSD instead of BTSX? But they may also choose to use BTSX, no? Especially if one of the parties believes that USD is being devalued by overprinting. BTSX may be viewed as a more reliable currency...
Are you one of those excessive writers (as opposed to dedicated readers)? Not trying to be rude but, can you first read the wiki or listen to some videos?
I've read most of the wiki and watched a couple videos. Everybody who is new to BitShares X seems to find it confusing. It's not just me. These things aren't clearly spelled out on the wiki as far as I could see.
http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/What_is_BitShares%3F
and all the links from there...
Yup. Read those. I don't see answers to my questions there.
BTSX is not a currency, BitAssets within BTSX are the currency.
BTSX is the "bank" that is the source of credit behind the BitUSD issued.
Network effect is the #1 driver for long term growth. Achieving network effect for BTSX holders is my #1 goal.
However, everyone who has a stake in BTSX got it on equal footing by mining/buying/etc with their own funds. I do not expect any individual including myself to fund development out of their own pocket so that everyone else can benefit from it. BTSX has a development fund of ~100M BTSX and as long as we can grow the value of BTSX faster than we spend it the network can thrive.
http://107.170.163.35/index.php/Distributed_Autonomous_Companieshttp://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/What_is_BitShares%3F
and all the links from there...
Yup. Read those. I don't see answers to my questions there.
http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/The_History_of_BitShares
These are links in the article aren't they?
Also read this:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2425270
It is from independent (not connected to Bitshares) author. You might learn something that you clearly do not get, judging by your questions....
The concept of BitShares is based on the notion that the units issued by Bitcoin and all other cryptocurrency systems more intuitively resemble shares in startups with small capitalizations than legal tender of sovereign nations. Carrying the company analogy a bit further, the goal of maximizing the 'equity-value-per-share' ratio replaces the goal of maintaining a constant 'purchasing-power-per-unit' ratio in a currency system. With a currency, the general tendency is to strive for a stable price-per-stuff ratio. Shares, on the other hand, are expected to pay profits in shares, appreciate in value, or both. When we think of a DAC as a company, rather than as a mint, the idea of units that increase in value comes more naturally. In this way, the cryptocurrency acts as a medium of exchange and store of value, but not as a unit of account or measure of value... just like transferable shares in an investment portfolio... rather like buying goods and services with shares from one's investment portfolio.
read the paper!
Kind of long, but you will learn stuff that will serve you for life!
I've read most of the wiki and watched a couple videos. Everybody who is new to BitShares X seems to find it confusing. It's not just me. These things aren't clearly spelled out on the wiki as far as I could see.fussyhands, firstly welcome! I think you are asking the right questions. I think the questions you are asking are important and not easily found in the wiki (the wiki is far from perfect).
read the paper!
Kind of long, but you will learn stuff that will serve you for life!
read the paper!
Kind of long, but you will learn stuff that will serve you for life!
OK I read the paper. It makes some sense. I think many people over estimate the importance of a perfectly stable currency, compared to, say USD, which is slightly but predictably inflationary. I don't think perfect stability will change very much. (Indeed, as I'm sure you are aware, there are many economist who believe that mild but predictable inflation leads to better economic growth because it counteracts wage rigidity.) But compared to the currencies of failed states, or to Bitcoin, either USD stability or perfect stability would be a huge improvement in some respects. On the other hand, I think much of Bitcoin's appeal is the possibility of making huge returns. I think that is why a lot of people are invested in it, and why it is hovering around $400 instead of something that reflects its current transactional utility (i.e. something much much less, perhaps a couple dollars).
At any rate reading the paper did help me understand the vision of Bitshares X a little better. If Bitshares BitAssets system stands the test of time it will give you the best of both worlds. You can peg your money to USD or a commodity basket, or you can go on the wild ride and keep it as BTSX. Personally, I don't see any reason to be an early adopter, and take all the risk of catastrophic system failure that that entails, if you are just going to peg your money to USD. Might as well hold onto real USD in that case. But down the road, if the system has shown itself to be robust, that will be a great feature.
And it makes Bitshares X the first cryptocurrency system that I know of that allows you to instantly send "USD" through a meaningfully decentralized network ("meaningfully decentralized" is meant to exclude the likes of Ripple). That seems like a pretty big deal.
Are there plans to make a BitBasket that will be pegged to the basket of commodities used to calculate the CPI?
Are there plans to make a BitBasket that will be pegged to the basket of commodities used to calculate the CPI?
1st You really do not want to hear my comments regarding those ecumenist saying inflation is good... and yes I am fully aware of their existence.
2nd bitBasket- why not, nothing is preventing us of doing it... till then we have bitGold, though!
First BTSX isn't just a little better than Bitcoin; it's orders of magnitude and solves fatal flaws. Bitcoin can't stay at the top given the competition.
1st You really do not want to hear my comments regarding those ecumenist saying inflation is good... and yes I am fully aware of their existence.
2nd bitBasket- why not, nothing is preventing us of doing it... till then we have bitGold, though!
Price of gold is also highly volatile, and thus not suitable for currency, at least according to the paper you had me read.
I'm well aware of the importance of network effects. I think you underestimate how broken Bitcoin is. Bitcoin would have to change in very big fundamental ways to stay competitive and I don't see it. It's kind of like arguing that VHS tapes won't be replaced because they have the network effect. I also think you underestimate how much more far reaching this tech is than "finding one coin to rule them all to replace Bitcoin."First BTSX isn't just a little better than Bitcoin; it's orders of magnitude and solves fatal flaws. Bitcoin can't stay at the top given the competition.
I think you underestimate the importance of incumbency and economic network effects. Bitcoin gets the essentials done: it allows you to send money through the internet much faster, cheaper, and without the limitations of the banking system. Altcoins are useless because of low adoption. As far as the rest of the world is concerned there is only one cryptocurrency: Bitcoin. That is what is being integrated into the world's financial systems and into retail and online payments systems, what the highest quality easiest to use wallets are tailored to, what the cryptocurrency ATMs are using, etc. For most people its becoming easy to get and spend Bitcoin, but remains prohibitively difficult to use any altcoin.
To get high adoption you need a lot of people to adopt ONE altcoin simultaneously and stick to that ONE altcoin for an extended period of time, so there is a chance to integrate it with all the systems that will make it useful. Which altcoin should we adopt? A groundbreaking new altcoin comes out every few months. It doesn't really matter how much better than Bitcoin each new altcoin is if there is another one coming out in a month that will steal the attention and momentum.
Meanwhile Bitcoin infrastructure continues to rapidly grow, and the usefulness of Bitcoin compared to every altcoin continues to climb exponentially. Like it or not, Bitshares are currently useless to most people, and no amount of technical sophistication alone will change that. And like it or not, the usefulness gulf between Bitcoin and all altcoins has been *growing*, not shrinking, even as technically superior altcoins come out.
I'm here because I think Bitshares X has a chance. But it's only a chance. It wouldn't take too many missteps to miss the chance.
First BTSX isn't just a little better than Bitcoin; it's orders of magnitude and solves fatal flaws. Bitcoin can't stay at the top given the competition.
I think you underestimate the importance of incumbency and economic network effects. Bitcoin gets the essentials done: it allows you to send money through the internet much faster, cheaper, and without the limitations of the banking system. Altcoins are useless because of low adoption. As far as the rest of the world is concerned there is only one cryptocurrency: Bitcoin. That is what is being integrated into the world's financial systems and into retail and online payments systems, what the highest quality easiest to use wallets are tailored to, what the cryptocurrency ATMs are using, etc. For most people its becoming easy to get and spend Bitcoin, but remains prohibitively difficult to use any altcoin.
To get high adoption you need a lot of people to adopt ONE altcoin simultaneously and stick to that ONE altcoin for an extended period of time, so there is a chance to integrate it with all the systems that will make it useful. Which altcoin should we adopt? A groundbreaking new altcoin comes out every few months. It doesn't really matter how much better than Bitcoin each new altcoin is if there is another one coming out in a month that will steal the attention and momentum.
Meanwhile Bitcoin infrastructure continues to rapidly grow, and the usefulness of Bitcoin compared to every altcoin continues to climb exponentially. Like it or not, Bitshares are currently useless to most people, and no amount of technical sophistication alone will change that. And like it or not, the usefulness gulf between Bitcoin and all altcoins has been *growing*, not shrinking, even as technically superior altcoins come out.
I'm here because I think Bitshares X has a chance. But it's only a chance. It wouldn't take too many missteps to miss the chance.
1st You really do not want to hear my comments regarding those ecumenist saying inflation is good... and yes I am fully aware of their existence.
2nd bitBasket- why not, nothing is preventing us of doing it... till then we have bitGold, though!
Price of gold is also highly volatile, and thus not suitable for currency, at least according to the paper you had me read.
highly volatile??? in what? in $
... funny man you are...
I'm well aware of the importance of network effects. I think you underestimate how broken Bitcoin is. Bitcoin would have to change in very big fundamental ways to stay competitive and I don't see it. It's kind of like arguing that VHS tapes won't be replaced because they have the network effect. I also think you underestimate how much more far reaching this tech is than "finding one coin to rule them all to replace Bitcoin."
Ok, I think I may have overestimated how much time you have spent researching. I think we can agree to disagree. I also never said BTSX toppling Bitcoin is a sure thing.I'm well aware of the importance of network effects. I think you underestimate how broken Bitcoin is. Bitcoin would have to change in very big fundamental ways to stay competitive and I don't see it. It's kind of like arguing that VHS tapes won't be replaced because they have the network effect. I also think you underestimate how much more far reaching this tech is than "finding one coin to rule them all to replace Bitcoin."
Bitcoin is pulling further and further away from the competition everyday. The gap of usefulness and adoption is not closing. Bitcoin is increasing its usefulness faster than any altcoin, simply due to network effects. Adoption is driven by usefullness. BitsharesX is not useful because it has virtually no adoption. Technology can increase usefulness only to a limited degree.
Does Bitcoin have to change in fundamental ways to stay competitive? Well it is becoming more dominant and more competitive compared to altcoins every day, despite its glacial technological evolution. Usefulness drives adoption, not technology.
If Bitcoin is increasing in usefulness so much faster than any other altcoin, why will it have to change in fundamental ways to stay competitive? It's competitive superiority is increasing, not decreasing.
(I think BitsharesX might have a chance, toppling Bitcoin is a long shot, not a sure thing.)
I'm well aware of the importance of network effects. I think you underestimate how broken Bitcoin is. Bitcoin would have to change in very big fundamental ways to stay competitive and I don't see it. It's kind of like arguing that VHS tapes won't be replaced because they have the network effect. I also think you underestimate how much more far reaching this tech is than "finding one coin to rule them all to replace Bitcoin."
Bitcoin is pulling further and further away from the competition everyday. The gap of usefulness and adoption is not closing. Bitcoin is increasing its usefulness faster than any altcoin, simply due to network effects. Adoption is driven by usefullness. BitsharesX is not useful because it has virtually no adoption. Technology can increase usefulness only to a limited degree.
Does Bitcoin have to change in fundamental ways to stay competitive? Well it is becoming more dominant and more competitive compared to altcoins every day, despite its glacial technological evolution. Usefulness drives adoption, not technology.
If Bitcoin is increasing in usefulness so much faster than any other altcoin, why will it have to change in fundamental ways to stay competitive? It's competitive superiority is increasing, not decreasing.
(I think BitsharesX might have a chance, toppling Bitcoin is a long shot, not a sure thing.)
Bitcoin is pulling further and further away from the competition everyday. The gap of usefulness and adoption is not closing. Bitcoin is increasing its usefulness faster than any altcoin, simply due to network effects. Adoption is driven by usefullness. BitsharesX is not useful because it has virtually no adoption. Technology can increase usefulness only to a limited degree.
Does Bitcoin have to change in fundamental ways to stay competitive? Well it is becoming more dominant and more competitive compared to altcoins every day, despite its glacial technological evolution. Usefulness drives adoption, not technology.
If Bitcoin is increasing in usefulness so much faster than any other altcoin, why will it have to change in fundamental ways to stay competitive? It's competitive superiority is increasing, not decreasing.
(I think BitsharesX might have a chance, toppling Bitcoin is a long shot, not a sure thing.)
I'm well aware of the importance of network effects. I think you underestimate how broken Bitcoin is. Bitcoin would have to change in very big fundamental ways to stay competitive and I don't see it. It's kind of like arguing that VHS tapes won't be replaced because they have the network effect. I also think you underestimate how much more far reaching this tech is than "finding one coin to rule them all to replace Bitcoin."
Bitcoin is pulling further and further away from the competition everyday. The gap of usefulness and adoption is not closing. Bitcoin is increasing its usefulness faster than any altcoin, simply due to network effects. Adoption is driven by usefullness. BitsharesX is not useful because it has virtually no adoption. Technology can increase usefulness only to a limited degree.
Does Bitcoin have to change in fundamental ways to stay competitive? Well it is becoming more dominant and more competitive compared to altcoins every day, despite its glacial technological evolution. Usefulness drives adoption, not technology.
If Bitcoin is increasing in usefulness so much faster than any other altcoin, why will it have to change in fundamental ways to stay competitive? It's competitive superiority is increasing, not decreasing.
(I think BitsharesX might have a chance, toppling Bitcoin is a long shot, not a sure thing.)
How did you got to that conclusion? Are you really that...., or you just play one here? Anyway I am done with you also.1st You really do not want to hear my comments regarding those ecumenist saying inflation is good... and yes I am fully aware of their existence.
2nd bitBasket- why not, nothing is preventing us of doing it... till then we have bitGold, though!
Price of gold is also highly volatile, and thus not suitable for currency, at least according to the paper you had me read.
highly volatile??? in what? in $
... funny man you are...
In basket of goods. In buying power. Don't delude yourself. Buying power of gold is highly volatile.
If you support bitcoin fine. Keep supporting it but as long as the peg is proved to work (which i am 98% certain it will work with all the bots trading) why not invest your bitcoins to bitbtc and earn interest? A small % of your bitcoins changed for bitbitcoins I think will convince you, and if not you can withdraw back to real bitcoin any time you feel like..
Ok, I think I may have overestimated how much time you have spent researching.
I have no doubt that Bitcoin will be replaced in the medium term. It's unique selling point was that it solved the disadvantages of centralisation and was private. In practice it's very bad at both for most.
It's not pulling away from the competition either despite global exposure and massive investment this year it's down and struggling.
Atm BTSX isn't a competitor as it's still new and in rapid development and is currently more CPOS than DPOS. + I guess they need the same merchant, PayPal type access as Bitcoin. But in general they're developing so fast that it's a few months away from changing everything.
If you support bitcoin fine. Keep supporting it but as long as the peg is proved to work (which i am 98% certain it will work with all the bots trading) why not invest your bitcoins to bitbtc and earn interest? A small % of your bitcoins changed for bitbitcoins I think will convince you, and if not you can withdraw back to real bitcoin any time you feel like..
What interest rate can I earn?
I guess it depends on whether the interest rate seems commensurable with the possibility that the peg fails. If the peg fails bitBTC could easily become worthless. The peg is still experimental...
I have no doubt that Bitcoin will be replaced in the medium term. It's unique selling point was that it solved the disadvantages of centralisation and was private. In practice it's very bad at both for most.
It's not pulling away from the competition either despite global exposure and massive investment this year it's down and struggling.
It's pulling away in terms of adoption and therefore usefulness. Not altcoins are making significant progress in adoption, but Bitcoin has important new announcements every week. (The entire crypto space is currently down, lead by Bitcoin's decline price decline.)Atm BTSX isn't a competitor as it's still new and in rapid development and is currently more CPOS than DPOS. + I guess they need the same merchant, PayPal type access as Bitcoin. But in general they're developing so fast that it's a few months away from changing everything.
I doubt that PayPal is going to add support for 5 different cryptocurrencies. Adding even 1 more is probably well more than a few months away. No altcoins are making significant strides in mainstream adoption. Bitcoin widens the gap everyday.
I have no doubt that Bitcoin will be replaced in the medium term. It's unique selling point was that it solved the disadvantages of centralisation and was private. In practice it's very bad at both for most.
It's not pulling away from the competition either despite global exposure and massive investment this year it's down and struggling.
It's pulling away in terms of adoption and therefore usefulness. Not altcoins are making significant progress in adoption, but Bitcoin has important new announcements every week. (The entire crypto space is currently down, lead by Bitcoin's decline price decline.)Atm BTSX isn't a competitor as it's still new and in rapid development and is currently more CPOS than DPOS. + I guess they need the same merchant, PayPal type access as Bitcoin. But in general they're developing so fast that it's a few months away from changing everything.
I doubt that PayPal is going to add support for 5 different cryptocurrencies. Adding even 1 more is probably well more than a few months away. No altcoins are making significant strides in mainstream adoption. Bitcoin widens the gap everyday.
Bitcoin is pulling further and further away from the competition everyday. The gap of usefulness and adoption is not closing. Bitcoin is increasing its usefulness faster than any altcoin, simply due to network effects. Adoption is driven by usefullness. BitsharesX is not useful because it has virtually no adoption. Technology can increase usefulness only to a limited degree.
You act as if the infrastructure built around bitcoin couldn't be adapted to BTSX very quickly. Here is the little secret that gives BTSX an edge: it works at almost any scale.
Regardless of BTSX market cap users can settle and contract in dollars, gold, silver, etc while getting a higher yield than their bank. At the end of the day BTSX produces real value while BTC consumes real value. BTC network effect is based upon people building infrastructure around BTC hoping to make money in this industry. Their infrastructure becomes more valuable with BTSX and thus they will support it.
PayPal has said it's working with 3 processors. BitPay, Coinbase and GoCoin.
GoCoin already processes Bitcoin, LiteCoin & Dogecoin. (1,2 & 5 on CMC) Considering we're no.4, well really no.3 if you discount Ripple's re-jig last month, it's very likely GoCoin will consider BTSX & BitAssets soon enough if they wanted to go that route.
How did you got to that conclusion? Are you really that...., or you just play one here? Anyway I am done with you also.1st You really do not want to hear my comments regarding those ecumenist saying inflation is good... and yes I am fully aware of their existence.
2nd bitBasket- why not, nothing is preventing us of doing it... till then we have bitGold, though!
Price of gold is also highly volatile, and thus not suitable for currency, at least according to the paper you had me read.
highly volatile??? in what? in $
... funny man you are...
In basket of goods. In buying power. Don't delude yourself. Buying power of gold is highly volatile.
Bitcoin is pulling further and further away from the competition everyday. The gap of usefulness and adoption is not closing. Bitcoin is increasing its usefulness faster than any altcoin, simply due to network effects. Adoption is driven by usefullness. BitsharesX is not useful because it has virtually no adoption. Technology can increase usefulness only to a limited degree.
I know this argument well. It's one I used to personally hold onto until I realized one crucial thing... How technically difficult do you think it will be to tweak BitPay, Coinbase, Circle and every wallet that exists to be universal? It's pretty easy. Bitcoin is a proof of concept that's doing a great job laying the initial infrastructure but it you seriously think that infrastructure is "locked in" for bitcoin...
You act as if the infrastructure built around bitcoin couldn't be adapted to BTSX very quickly. Here is the little secret that gives BTSX an edge: it works at almost any scale.
Regardless of BTSX market cap users can settle and contract in dollars, gold, silver, etc while getting a higher yield than their bank. At the end of the day BTSX produces real value while BTC consumes real value. BTC network effect is based upon people building infrastructure around BTC hoping to make money in this industry. Their infrastructure becomes more valuable with BTSX and thus they will support it.
Actually I think it takes quite a bit of time and expense to integrate new cryptocoins into existing Bitcoin infrastructure. Especially making sure you've done so securely. Security is expensive. The big players will not want to invest in adding a new altcoin unless they see that it has staying power and that it is going to become very widespread.
Also a lot of the big players do not see an advantage to it in terms of increasing the value of their infrastructure. To them the challenge of cryptocurrencies is to make it dead simple and easy for everyday people to use it. Reducing mental overhead is of absolutely paramount importance. Adding choices for multiple different cryptocurrencies is in itself enough to confuse people and drive them away. That is part of why the likes of Bitpay etc., are not jumping on the altcoin bandwagon. They see more advantage to their infrastructure from one successful currency with extensive penetration than with dozens of competing currencies, each with partial penetration.
Also, this gets to one of Bitshares most obvious weaknesses, which partly has to do with how new it is. The mental overhead is way way way too high. There is drastically too much to learn to get started and feel that you have a grasp of how to use it. The client is way too complicated. And there is too much redefining of terminology that really doesn't need to be redefined. Making people learn complicated new terminology imposes mental overhead and retards adoption. The client can obviously be streamlined with time (or alternatives be offered). But the community doesn't seem to get how all the new terminology, which is really unnecessary, is seriously hurting them. If you just said "BitShares is a new cryptocoin that is nearly instant, more secure, less wasteful, more anonymous, more decentralized, and where you can peg value to any currency or asset you like" that would be a lot more effective than talking about multiple "decentralized autonomous corporations", "crypto equities", "bank and exchange", etc. All this attempt at changing the paradigm gets little and costs a lot.
I think it's possible to get some of the infrastructure to support a coin technology like Bitshares, but it won't be easy either for the providers of the infrastructure or for Bitshares to convince them.
Every argument you have made is true today but will not be true in the future.... to presume that this community and our product cannot find people to create similar infrastructure is a tad insulting and fatalistic. We know what we have to do, there are HUGE profits to be made by doing it and I am confident that we can convince major infrastructure providers to get on board BTSX.
Every argument you have made is true today but will not be true in the future.... to presume that this community and our product cannot find people to create similar infrastructure is a tad insulting and fatalistic. We know what we have to do, there are HUGE profits to be made by doing it and I am confident that we can convince major infrastructure providers to get on board BTSX.
I'm not presuming it can't be done. I'm not here for my health. I'm merely pointing out that it will be extremely difficult. I definitely don't buy the idea that we're going to have 100 (or even 5) different viable altcoins integrated into the world's financial systems. Bitshares might be able to unseat Bitcoin, but to get the mainstream support you have to convince people that Bitshares is going to be the one. That is hard when they can see that Bitcoin has 1000 times more adoption. I've invested in Bitshares. I think it can be done. I just think there is a high chance for failure, and I'm trying to feel out the details of how the community thinks about these things.
You are living up to your name.... fussy. Nothing you stated is fixed or inherent in the technology... the technology at its core makes things easier to use: names, price stability, etc. What you are really describing is OPPORTUNITY for growth. Imagine what BTSX would be worth once we have "stability", "history", "infrastructure", etc.... you buy now and hold you make money as those things are added. The last thing you want to invest in is something that has no room for easy improvement.
I just don't understand your reason for posting... what is your goal?
1) Tell us it is hopeless and nothing can ever overcome Bitcoin? That kind of attitude is not welcome nor productive.
2) Help us improve things so that we can overcome Bitcoin? That kind of attitude is welcome and productive.
3) Wine about things and do nothing?
4) Justify to yourself why you are not buying?
What is your goal in posting? If you do not see the vision or the future then invest in what is king today (BTC).
Fair enough. This was mostly an exploratory expedition to decide whether to invest. I mostly want to understand how the community thinks about BitSharesX and the possibility of competing DACs within the community. I think I understand that and I've invested. Then I got sidetracked.
I have no idea how I can help. One thing that I think would help would be rewriting the entire wikipage to get rid of all the superfulous terminology and recast the idea in terms that people are already familiar with. And then redesign the client UI to hide nearly everything behind an "advanced user" interface (e.g. the typical user definitely does not need to see options for shorting, market depth charts, etc). But I doubt the community wants either of those, which is unfortunate since they are major stumbling blocks.
Actually they are working on the client to make it a lot more user friendly. As for the wiki it's a work in progress.You are living up to your name.... fussy. Nothing you stated is fixed or inherent in the technology... the technology at its core makes things easier to use: names, price stability, etc. What you are really describing is OPPORTUNITY for growth. Imagine what BTSX would be worth once we have "stability", "history", "infrastructure", etc.... you buy now and hold you make money as those things are added. The last thing you want to invest in is something that has no room for easy improvement.
I just don't understand your reason for posting... what is your goal?
1) Tell us it is hopeless and nothing can ever overcome Bitcoin? That kind of attitude is not welcome nor productive.
2) Help us improve things so that we can overcome Bitcoin? That kind of attitude is welcome and productive.
3) Wine about things and do nothing?
4) Justify to yourself why you are not buying?
What is your goal in posting? If you do not see the vision or the future then invest in what is king today (BTC).
Fair enough. This was mostly an exploratory expedition to decide whether to invest. I mostly want to understand how the community thinks about BitSharesX and the possibility of competing DACs within the community. I think I understand that and I've invested. Then I got sidetracked.
I have no idea how I can help. One thing that I think would help would be rewriting the entire wikipage to get rid of all the superfulous terminology and recast the idea in terms that people are already familiar with. And then redesign the client UI to hide nearly everything behind an "advanced user" interface (e.g. the typical user definitely does not need to see options for shorting, market depth charts, etc). But I doubt the community wants either of those, which is unfortunate since they are major stumbling blocks.
We have a strategy for getting there that no coin, not even Bitcoin, can compete with.... it is still secret though :)
I have no idea how I can help. One thing that I think would help would be rewriting the entire wikipage to get rid of all the superfulous terminology and recast the idea in terms that people are already familiar with. And then redesign the client UI to hide nearly everything behind an "advanced user" interface (e.g. the typical user definitely does not need to see options for shorting, market depth charts, etc). But I doubt the community wants either of those, which is unfortunate since they are major stumbling blocks.
Every argument you have made is true today but will not be true in the future.... to presume that this community and our product cannot find people to create similar infrastructure is a tad insulting and fatalistic. We know what we have to do, there are HUGE profits to be made by doing it and I am confident that we can convince major infrastructure providers to get on board BTSX.
I'm not presuming it can't be done. I'm not here for my health. I'm merely pointing out that it will be extremely difficult. I definitely don't buy the idea that we're going to have 100 (or even 5) different viable altcoins integrated into the world's financial systems. Bitshares might be able to unseat Bitcoin, but to get the mainstream support you have to convince people that Bitshares is going to be the one. That is hard when they can see that Bitcoin has 1000 times more adoption. I've invested in Bitshares. I think it can be done. I just think there is a high chance for failure, and I'm trying to feel out the details of how the community thinks about these things.
We have a strategy for getting there that no coin, not even Bitcoin, can compete with.... it is still secret though :)
Every argument you have made is true today but will not be true in the future.... to presume that this community and our product cannot find people to create similar infrastructure is a tad insulting and fatalistic. We know what we have to do, there are HUGE profits to be made by doing it and I am confident that we can convince major infrastructure providers to get on board BTSX.
I'm not presuming it can't be done. I'm not here for my health. I'm merely pointing out that it will be extremely difficult. I definitely don't buy the idea that we're going to have 100 (or even 5) different viable altcoins integrated into the world's financial systems. Bitshares might be able to unseat Bitcoin, but to get the mainstream support you have to convince people that Bitshares is going to be the one. That is hard when they can see that Bitcoin has 1000 times more adoption. I've invested in Bitshares. I think it can be done. I just think there is a high chance for failure, and I'm trying to feel out the details of how the community thinks about these things.
We have a strategy for getting there that no coin, not even Bitcoin, can compete with.... it is still secret though :)
+5% +5%
Are you gonna show up at today's mumble hangout?
Every argument you have made is true today but will not be true in the future.... to presume that this community and our product cannot find people to create similar infrastructure is a tad insulting and fatalistic. We know what we have to do, there are HUGE profits to be made by doing it and I am confident that we can convince major infrastructure providers to get on board BTSX.
I'm not presuming it can't be done. I'm not here for my health. I'm merely pointing out that it will be extremely difficult. I definitely don't buy the idea that we're going to have 100 (or even 5) different viable altcoins integrated into the world's financial systems. Bitshares might be able to unseat Bitcoin, but to get the mainstream support you have to convince people that Bitshares is going to be the one. That is hard when they can see that Bitcoin has 1000 times more adoption. I've invested in Bitshares. I think it can be done. I just think there is a high chance for failure, and I'm trying to feel out the details of how the community thinks about these things.
Every argument you have made is true today but will not be true in the future.... to presume that this community and our product cannot find people to create similar infrastructure is a tad insulting and fatalistic. We know what we have to do, there are HUGE profits to be made by doing it and I am confident that we can convince major infrastructure providers to get on board BTSX.
I'm not presuming it can't be done. I'm not here for my health. I'm merely pointing out that it will be extremely difficult. I definitely don't buy the idea that we're going to have 100 (or even 5) different viable altcoins integrated into the world's financial systems. Bitshares might be able to unseat Bitcoin, but to get the mainstream support you have to convince people that Bitshares is going to be the one. That is hard when they can see that Bitcoin has 1000 times more adoption. I've invested in Bitshares. I think it can be done. I just think there is a high chance for failure, and I'm trying to feel out the details of how the community thinks about these things.
First BTSX isn't just a little better than Bitcoin; it's orders of magnitude and solves fatal flaws. Bitcoin can't stay at the top given the competition.
The whole concept of Bitshares is precisely not to create another altcoin to compete with Bitcoin.
Bitshares upgrades existing assets with new features and benefits via cryptography and the decentralized ledger.
bitUSD etc. Are not an altcoins and will happily coexist with Bitcoin.
This is why Bitshares will succeed: Bitcoin will sell the masses on crypto-assets and BTSX will provide the diversification, yield and liquidity necessary for wide scale adoption.
The tech really is that good!
Also, this gets to one of Bitshares most obvious weaknesses, which partly has to do with how new it is. The mental overhead is way way way too high. There is drastically too much to learn to get started and feel that you have a grasp of how to use it. The client is way too complicated. And there is too much redefining of terminology that really doesn't need to be redefined. Making people learn complicated new terminology imposes mental overhead and retards adoption. The client can obviously be streamlined with time (or alternatives be offered). But the community doesn't seem to get how all the new terminology, which is really unnecessary, is seriously hurting them. If you just said "BitShares is a new cryptocoin that is nearly instant, more secure, less wasteful, more anonymous, more decentralized, and where you can peg value to any currency or asset you like" that would be a lot more effective than talking about multiple "decentralized autonomous corporations", "crypto equities", "bank and exchange", etc. All this attempt at changing the paradigm gets little and costs a lot.
First BTSX isn't just a little better than Bitcoin; it's orders of magnitude and solves fatal flaws. Bitcoin can't stay at the top given the competition.
The whole concept of Bitshares is precisely not to create another altcoin to compete with Bitcoin.
Bitshares upgrades existing assets with new features and benefits via cryptography and the decentralized ledger.
bitUSD etc. Are not an altcoins and will happily coexist with Bitcoin.
This is why Bitshares will succeed: Bitcoin will sell the masses on crypto-assets and BTSX will provide the diversification, yield and liquidity necessary for wide scale adoption.
The tech really is that good!
I like your thinking on this Oldman! Your thinking aligns with my developing philosophy that Bitshares should be positioning Bitcoin as an ally (at least in these early stages) and not as an adversary as we tend to do now.
I like your thinking on this Oldman! Your thinking aligns with my developing philosophy that Bitshares should be positioning Bitcoin as an ally (at least in these early stages) and not as an adversary as we tend to do now.
I like your thinking on this Oldman! Your thinking aligns with my developing philosophy that Bitshares should be positioning Bitcoin as an ally (at least in these early stages) and not as an adversary as we tend to do now.
I agree. This is key to getting bitcoiners to keep an open mind and investigate bitshares.
The following is how I came to buy my first bitshares:
* The blockchain technology is amazing!
* Use the blockchain technology for currency, and you get Bitcoin!
* Use the blockchain technology for stocks and you get.....BITSHARES! Hey look, they pay dividends!
This is how bitshares needs to be presented, imo. Bitcoin = your currency. Bitshares = your stocks (and commodities, and futures...)
The name is perfect for making this connection.
How did you got to that conclusion? Are you really that...., or you just play one here? Anyway I am done with you also.1st You really do not want to hear my comments regarding those ecumenist saying inflation is good... and yes I am fully aware of their existence.
2nd bitBasket- why not, nothing is preventing us of doing it... till then we have bitGold, though!
Price of gold is also highly volatile, and thus not suitable for currency, at least according to the paper you had me read.
highly volatile??? in what? in $
... funny man you are...
In basket of goods. In buying power. Don't delude yourself. Buying power of gold is highly volatile.
Sorry dude. Go look it up. Gold's buying power is HIGHLY volatile. Type "gold buying power over time" into Google and look at the charts. You're just dead wrong on this. If you don't change your mind to accommodate the facts then you are just a deluded moron. Not only that, but the HayekMoney article that YOU told me to read says exactly the same thing: gold is volatile.
Lets avoid name calling.
How did you got to that conclusion? Are you really that...., or you just play one here? Anyway I am done with you also.1st You really do not want to hear my comments regarding those ecumenist saying inflation is good... and yes I am fully aware of their existence.
2nd bitBasket- why not, nothing is preventing us of doing it... till then we have bitGold, though!
Price of gold is also highly volatile, and thus not suitable for currency, at least according to the paper you had me read.
highly volatile??? in what? in $
... funny man you are...
In basket of goods. In buying power. Don't delude yourself. Buying power of gold is highly volatile.
Sorry dude. Go look it up. Gold's buying power is HIGHLY volatile. Type "gold buying power over time" into Google and look at the charts. You're just dead wrong on this. If you don't change your mind to accommodate the facts then you are just a deluded moron. Not only that, but the HayekMoney article that YOU told me to read says exactly the same thing: gold is volatile.
Dude, Can you give me more precise instruction in what imaginary thing I have to type "gold buying power over time", to get those magical results of yours?... also, are spaces required to get the results you get...aka should I type "gold buying power over time",
searching... 'No confirmations'
searching... 'No confirmations'
searching... 'No confirmations'
Changing to "Is BTC price more stable then Gold"... disappointed.
Changing to "Commodity price during the gold standard".... boring... very much so...'What the f**k people did with those flat prices? Weird stuff?
If you don't change your mind to accommodate the facts then you are just a deluded moron.
I am quite fine with the fact that I am 'deluded moron'... now tell me how you so cleverly discovered this thing about me so quickly ?
I don't think it's as volatile as you make it seem, at one point people did use gold to buy things and that worked (kind of but bitGLD solves many problems physical gold has as a currency volatility not being one of them)How did you got to that conclusion? Are you really that...., or you just play one here? Anyway I am done with you also.1st You really do not want to hear my comments regarding those ecumenist saying inflation is good... and yes I am fully aware of their existence.
2nd bitBasket- why not, nothing is preventing us of doing it... till then we have bitGold, though!
Price of gold is also highly volatile, and thus not suitable for currency, at least according to the paper you had me read.
highly volatile??? in what? in $
... funny man you are...
In basket of goods. In buying power. Don't delude yourself. Buying power of gold is highly volatile.
Sorry dude. Go look it up. Gold's buying power is HIGHLY volatile. Type "gold buying power over time" into Google and look at the charts. You're just dead wrong on this. If you don't change your mind to accommodate the facts then you are just a deluded moron. Not only that, but the HayekMoney article that YOU told me to read says exactly the same thing: gold is volatile.
Dude, Can you give me more precise instruction in what imaginary thing I have to type "gold buying power over time", to get those magical results of yours?... also, are spaces required to get the results you get...aka should I type "gold buying power over time",
searching... 'No confirmations'
searching... 'No confirmations'
searching... 'No confirmations'
Changing to "Is BTC price more stable then Gold"... disappointed.
Changing to "Commodity price during the gold standard".... boring... very much so...'What the f**k people did with those flat prices? Weird stuff?
If you don't change your mind to accommodate the facts then you are just a deluded moron.
I am quite fine with the fact that I am 'deluded moron'... now tell me how you so cleverly discovered this thing about me so quickly ?
Just like I said. Type "buying power of gold over time" into Google and the very first image that appears shows that the BUYING POWER of gold is highly volatile.
(http://www.dailywealth.com/images/charts/2009/oct/20091017-chart_b.gif)
(In case you don't know this already, when you measure something in "1971 dollars" you are measuring the change in BUYING POWER. If you see the graph going all over the place, like it does in that picture, then you know that buying power is highly volatile. But seriously, you should know these basic economic concepts already if you are pretending to be knowledgeable about economics.)
Just like I said. Type "buying power of gold over time" into Google and the very first image that appears shows that the BUYING POWER of gold is highly volatile.I don't think it's as volatile as you make it seem, at one point people did use gold to buy things and that worked (kind of but bitGLD solves many problems physical gold has as a currency volatility not being one of them)
(http://www.dailywealth.com/images/charts/2009/oct/20091017-chart_b.gif)
(In case you don't know this already, when you measure something in "1971 dollars" you are measuring the change in BUYING POWER. If you see the graph going all over the place, like it does in that picture, then you know that buying power is highly volatile. But seriously, you should know these basic economic concepts already if you are pretending to be knowledgeable about economics.)
"This is the classic example of gold wealth preservation. Some historians have noted that one ounce of gold today would buy you a suit, a belt, a shirt and a pair of shoes. One ounce of gold in 1900 would do the same. One ounce of gold at the founding of the country would do the same. And some have said that going back to Roman times it would have bought the equivalent."http://www.crawlingroad.com/blog/2009/05/26/does-gold-preserve-purchasing-power/
sorry for crossposting:
Fussyhands,
The statement: "the buying power of gold is highly volatile" is a subjective statement rather than a "FACT". When you use words like "highly" "extremely" you are making a subjective judgment and these statements must be considered in context. In the context of the discussion taking place about altcoin cryptocurrencies I think it is fair to say that the buying power you can expect from gold is significantly less volatile and more predictable than the buying power you can expect from most altcoins. Rather than present the statement as incontrovertible fact, perhaps if you explained more specifically what "highly volatile" means to you there would be opportunity for agreement.
Quote"This is the classic example of gold wealth preservation. Some historians have noted that one ounce of gold today would buy you a suit, a belt, a shirt and a pair of shoes. One ounce of gold in 1900 would do the same. One ounce of gold at the founding of the country would do the same. And some have said that going back to Roman times it would have bought the equivalent."http://www.crawlingroad.com/blog/2009/05/26/does-gold-preserve-purchasing-power/
Consumer Price index is highly manipulated and near completely worthless representation of actual inflation.
I'm hard pressed to find anything better than gold as far as long term historically stable purchasing power.
sorry for crossposting:
Fussyhands,
The statement: "the buying power of gold is highly volatile" is a subjective statement rather than a "FACT". When you use words like "highly" "extremely" you are making a subjective judgment and these statements must be considered in context. In the context of the discussion taking place about altcoin cryptocurrencies I think it is fair to say that the buying power you can expect from gold is significantly less volatile and more predictable than the buying power you can expect from most altcoins. Rather than present the statement as incontrovertible fact, perhaps if you explained more specifically what "highly volatile" means to you there would be opportunity for agreement.
I have no doubt that Bitcoin will be replaced in the medium term. It's unique selling point was that it solved the disadvantages of centralisation and was private. In practice it's very bad at both for most.
It's not pulling away from the competition either despite global exposure and massive investment this year it's down and struggling.
It's pulling away in terms of adoption and therefore usefulness. Not altcoins are making significant progress in adoption, but Bitcoin has important new announcements every week. (The entire crypto space is currently down, lead by Bitcoin's decline price decline.)Atm BTSX isn't a competitor as it's still new and in rapid development and is currently more CPOS than DPOS. + I guess they need the same merchant, PayPal type access as Bitcoin. But in general they're developing so fast that it's a few months away from changing everything.
I doubt that PayPal is going to add support for 5 different cryptocurrencies. Adding even 1 more is probably well more than a few months away. No altcoins are making significant strides in mainstream adoption. Bitcoin widens the gap everyday.
I have no doubt that Bitcoin will be replaced in the medium term. It's unique selling point was that it solved the disadvantages of centralisation and was private. In practice it's very bad at both for most.
It's not pulling away from the competition either despite global exposure and massive investment this year it's down and struggling.
It's pulling away in terms of adoption and therefore usefulness. Not altcoins are making significant progress in adoption, but Bitcoin has important new announcements every week. (The entire crypto space is currently down, lead by Bitcoin's decline price decline.)Atm BTSX isn't a competitor as it's still new and in rapid development and is currently more CPOS than DPOS. + I guess they need the same merchant, PayPal type access as Bitcoin. But in general they're developing so fast that it's a few months away from changing everything.
I doubt that PayPal is going to add support for 5 different cryptocurrencies. Adding even 1 more is probably well more than a few months away. No altcoins are making significant strides in mainstream adoption. Bitcoin widens the gap everyday.
Isn't PayPal partnered with Bitcoin payment processors so that people that use PayPal can also use Bitcoin?