Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 37

Thread: More Ron Paul Followers Prefer Bitcoin To Gold

  1. #1

    More Ron Paul Followers Prefer Bitcoin To Gold

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-1...r-bitcoin-gold

    Former Texas Representative Ron Paul conducted an online survey on December 6, 2017, which showed that a majority of the respondents would choose a cash ‘gift’ in the form of the leading cryptocurrency Bitcoin if they could not get hold of it for 10 years.



    Only 2% of the respondents opted to receive the gift in US dollars.

    A wealthy person wants to gift you $10,000. You get to choose in which form you'll take the gift. But there's a catch: You must keep the gift in the form that you choose, and you can't touch it for 10 years.

    In which form would you take the gift?

    — Ron Paul (@RonPaul) December 5, 2017


    ...
    Full article on link...
    1776 > 1984

    The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintian an
    Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.

    The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide

    You are Ron Paul's Media!

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Our central bank is not privately owned.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    I saw RP's report on this and he said he was pretty surprised at this.

    The bitcoiners that voted must be the same RP supporters who got stoned and didn't show up to the real polls to vote for Ron.
    "Every post is about Hillary and pedophilia. I love them both soooo much!!!!!!!" Zippyjuan

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    the commenters are the usual gold bugs... oh well. no understanding of what crypto is.

  5. #4
    Yes, quite the shame when people dont really understand what gives money its actual value. Its called WORK, not MONEY MANIPULATION or ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY, as seems to be the case with Bitcoin...
    1776 > 1984

    The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintian an
    Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.

    The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide

    You are Ron Paul's Media!

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Our central bank is not privately owned.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by sparebulb View Post
    I saw RP's report on this and he said he was pretty surprised at this.

    The bitcoiners that voted must be the same RP supporters who got stoned and didn't show up to the real polls to vote for Ron.
    Or just the subset of RP supporters that actively follow twitter and respond to polls on it. I doubt that represents many of his supporters.

  7. #6
    I like Bitcoin, but only to make money on suckers who believe it's going to infinity.

    Even though gold can potentially go to (near) zero with asteroid mining or a whole lot lower if suddenly a WHOLE LOT is discovered, I would definitely call it a better store of value. It is even though it has been relatively unstable over time, very stable when you look at it over millennia. Gold has always been 'money' and it has always had a certain worth, which has fluctuated, but people have never called gold worthless... I can see a time, not too long from now, maybe 6months, maybe a year or maybe two, where people will call bitcoin 'worthless'.
    "I am a bird"

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by luctor-et-emergo View Post
    I like Bitcoin, but only to make money on suckers who believe it's going to infinity.

    Even though gold can potentially go to (near) zero with asteroid mining or a whole lot lower if suddenly a WHOLE LOT is discovered, I would definitely call it a better store of value. It is even though it has been relatively unstable over time, very stable when you look at it over millennia. Gold has always been 'money' and it has always had a certain worth, which has fluctuated, but people have never called gold worthless... I can see a time, not too long from now, maybe 6months, maybe a year or maybe two, where people will call bitcoin 'worthless'.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by sparebulb View Post
    I saw RP's report on this and he said he was pretty surprised at this.

    The bitcoiners that voted must be the same RP supporters who got stoned and didn't show up to the real polls to vote for Ron.
    Ron shouldn't be surprised as his followers tend to be gen x thru gen z.

    Also my friends and I pushed out the old guard and took over a Senate District for Ron Paul in Minnesota after his 2008 run. What did you do?

    I've had a 170,000% gain since 2012. Cry more. Your tears are delicious.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by sparebulb View Post
    I saw RP's report on this and he said he was pretty surprised at this.
    No he wasn't, you could tell from his voice inflection that he was just a little surprised.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Yes, quite the shame when people dont really understand what gives money its actual value. Its called WORK, not MONEY MANIPULATION or ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY, as seems to be the case with Bitcoin...
    What the $#@! are you talking about?

    Pretty sure gold wouldn't be valuable if it weren't somewhat scarce
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  13. #11

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by muh_roads View Post
    Ron shouldn't be surprised as his followers tend to be gen x thru gen z.

    Also my friends and I pushed out the old guard and took over a Senate District for Ron Paul in Minnesota after his 2008 run. What did you do?

    I've had a 170,000% gain since 2012. Cry more. Your tears are delicious.
    Are you OK?

    You seem triggered.
    Last edited by sparebulb; 12-11-2017 at 01:15 PM.
    "Every post is about Hillary and pedophilia. I love them both soooo much!!!!!!!" Zippyjuan

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by sparebulb View Post
    Are you OK?

    You seem triggered.
    I imagine he is doing quite well
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    What the $#@! are you talking about?

    Pretty sure gold wouldn't be valuable if it weren't somewhat scarce
    Exactly. Gold is physical so its scarcity is not artificial. Bitcoin is artificial, where the inventor claims that only 21 million bitcoins will ever be generated. That 21 million limit is an artificial limit. It may be mathematical in nature, but it is still artificial. When the time comes, people will flock to other digital currencies due to misconceptions.

    So yes, I actually do fully agree with you, but Gold is NATURALLY scarce.
    1776 > 1984

    The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintian an
    Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.

    The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide

    You are Ron Paul's Media!

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Our central bank is not privately owned.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Exactly. Gold is physical so its scarcity is not artificial. Bitcoin is artificial, where the inventor claims that only 21 million bitcoins will ever be generated. That 21 million limit is an artificial limit. It may be mathematical in nature, but it is still artificial. When the time comes, people will flock to other digital currencies due to misconceptions.

    So yes, I actually do fully agree with you, but Gold is NATURALLY scarce.
    Nearly everyone that owns bitcoins knows about the 21 million coin limit, as that's one of the reason they purchased it.

    There is as near 0 support as possible in any large group for changing the 21 million limit. There is likely greater support for cutting ones own balls off for fun.

    But in insanity land let's say they tried. In order to change the 21 million limit you'd have to convince the vast majority of the network to download the new software that changed one of the fundamental aspects about bitcoin they liked. Nearly impossible. It'd be like asking me if I'd like my money to be worth less tomorrow and if so download this new software. Who would do that? No one that had any bitcoin would, and if you aren't an economic actor in bitcoin, then you matter not one bit.

    They can go to other coins, but for what? you can break a bitcoin down to like 8 decimal points, there is plenty of room for people as far as currency units go. Going to the movies would cost like 0.002 bitcoins, not a problem, you can pay or buy portions of a bitcoin.

    If they go to another coin that inflates at a high rate, well, that'd be dumb as their coin would become worth less over time.
    Last edited by RonPaulIsGreat; 12-11-2017 at 06:06 PM.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by RonPaulIsGreat View Post
    Nearly everyone that owns bitcoins knows about the 21 million coin limit, as that's one of the reason they purchased it.

    There is as near 0 support as possible in any large group for changing the 21 million limit. There is likely greater support for cutting ones own balls off for fun.

    But in insanity land let's say they tried. In order to change the 21 million limit you'd have to convince the vast majority of the network to download the new software that changed one of the fundamental aspects about bitcoin they liked. Nearly impossible. It'd be like asking me if I'd like my money to be worth less tomorrow and if so download this new software. Who would do that? No one that had any bitcoin would, and if you aren't an economic actor in bitcoin, then you matter not one bit.

    They can go to other coins, but for what? you can break a bitcoin down to like 8 decimal points, there is plenty of room for people as far as currency units go. Going to the movies would cost like 0.002 bitcoins, not a problem, you can pay or buy portions of a bitcoin.

    If they go to another coin that inflates at a high rate, well, that'd be dumb as their coin would become worth less over time.
    Many of the troubles you mention are valid, and exactly what will happen if either Govt or Federal Reserve Bank (or any Central Bank) becomes involved in cryptocurrency. Bitcoin is not necessarily the only cryptocurrency out there. There are several. Another one is Ethereum. If Central Banks ever claim authority over cryptocurrency, you can guarantee that we are all $#@!ed as a result.

    Other thing is that many people that dont fully understand Bitcoin also dont know of the 21 million limit, so the explanation is more for everyone else.
    1776 > 1984

    The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintian an
    Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.

    The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide

    You are Ron Paul's Media!

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Our central bank is not privately owned.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by muh_roads View Post
    Ron shouldn't be surprised as his followers tend to be gen x thru gen z.

    Also my friends and I pushed out the old guard and took over a Senate District for Ron Paul in Minnesota after his 2008 run. What did you do?

    I've had a 170,000% gain since 2012. Cry more. Your tears are delicious.
    What is your net worth?

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    Or just the subset of RP supporters that actively follow twitter and respond to polls on it. I doubt that represents many of his supporters.
    Probably the ones under 30 ?

  22. #19
    Yes, this is where me and Ron Paul part ways - Cryptos are new fuel of Freedom. IS it GOLD? No. IS it definable money, no. Its a confined/restricted fiat with some qualities of gold. However, it sure as hell is not a cabal of government power freaks in a love trist with the Central banks of the world and their Marxists followers.
    Doge says...


    Bitcoin, LiteCoin, Ethereum, Dash!
    Monero, Vertcoin, Bitcoin Cash

    IOTA, ADA, Ripple, and PAY
    L' put money in your pocket all damn day!
    ...Damn I'm good! Ha Ha ^^My Portfolio )
    Last edited by TruckinMike; 12-12-2017 at 10:18 PM.
    “No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.”
    ― Samuel Adams

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by RonPaulIsGreat View Post
    Nearly everyone that owns bitcoins knows about the 21 million coin limit, as that's one of the reason they purchased it.

    There is as near 0 support as possible in any large group for changing the 21 million limit. There is likely greater support for cutting ones own balls off for fun.

    But in insanity land let's say they tried. In order to change the 21 million limit you'd have to convince the vast majority of the network to download the new software that changed one of the fundamental aspects about bitcoin they liked. Nearly impossible. It'd be like asking me if I'd like my money to be worth less tomorrow and if so download this new software. Who would do that? No one that had any bitcoin would, and if you aren't an economic actor in bitcoin, then you matter not one bit.

    They can go to other coins, but for what? you can break a bitcoin down to like 8 decimal points, there is plenty of room for people as far as currency units go. Going to the movies would cost like 0.002 bitcoins, not a problem, you can pay or buy portions of a bitcoin.

    If they go to another coin that inflates at a high rate, well, that'd be dumb as their coin would become worth less over time.
    The point is that it's artificial scarcity. Besides that, strange things happen in math when you introduce irrational numbers into equations. Such as divide by 0, or infinite divisibility.

    Not saying that has happened in btc, yet, but there are lots of common misconceptions about math. People say math doesn't lie, yeah it does. People also say there would be no rational reason for the artificial limit of 21 million to be changed, yeah there is.

    Also another misconception I hear a lot of, that somehow there is this vast I guess democratic network of network users to download the new software. You just need 51% of the miners to do it. And really not even 51% of the people, just 51% that control the hash power.

    What would be the equivalent of Jekyll Island in bitcoin? My guess is somewhere in Asia.

    Overheard the Janitor at my 40 story office building talking to one of the window washers on the way down the elevator at lunch the other day. Talking about how he bought in at coinbase a couple weeks back and that he has quadrupled his investment.

    I asked him if he understood that coinbase trades at a higher premium and he looked at me cross-eyed. I doubt that anyone getting into bitcoin for the first time at this stage understands the nuance of the money vs store of value vs digital gold debate, much less the functionality of a block chain or no counter party risk ledger.

    I like the possibility, but the biggest flaw of bitcoin imo is that it's software. It's virtual. Has no tangible value.

    Even tally sticks could be used to whack someone over the head trying to steal them. Even sea shells or other such trinkets could be used to decorate a home or to woo a potential mate. What can you do with numbers that don't represent anything tangible at all? You can plug them into the world's biggest calculator and have the worlds most inefficient heater. That's what.

    The blockchain has some potential to become useful, but not if it's read/write functionality are concentrated into the hands of a few.

    Just the fact that you can have a literal unlimited versions of this technology all with slightly different operating code should give anyone serious about investing in a particular pull request pause.

    One thing that anyone serious about investing in technology should have no problem understanding is that there will always be a better version of the technology.

    Saying that people won't change to a new version because the like the old version and they are so invested in it is a technological anti-pattern. Especially in software. The minute you believe that you software is "done" is the minute you fall behind and someone else replaces it. It's the minute your value falls away.

    There is huge incentive to continue to change the Bitcoin software to benefit those who care about it and use it the most. Which would be the miners btw, and the one thing that the miners need the most to continue to operate is something to mine. The arbitrary and artificial number of 21,000,000 will be reached. Miners will cease to be miners at that point and their profits will fall through the floor.

    The only way they will make enough money to support their vast operation is to collect fees off transactions. So btc mining will eventually not be as difficult, because btc mining won't be a hype driven cash cow forever. Eventually the processing of transactions will have to happen the way it was initially envisioned, in that anyone on the peer network can participate in proving the ledger. Eventually it will become more like a lottery ticket and less like whoever throws the most power at it wins.

    Long before that happens, the miners will have figured out the only way to perpetuate their resources will be to switch to a different technology. Or change the fundamentals of the one they are comfortable with.

    Crypto-"currency" is a dead end. Technology is not going to change human nature. Human nature will assimilate the technology, manipulate it and continue on unabated.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by newbitech View Post
    I like the possibility, but the biggest flaw of bitcoin imo is that it's software. It's virtual. Has no tangible value.

    Even tally sticks could be used to whack someone over the head trying to steal them. Even sea shells or other such trinkets could be used to decorate a home or to woo a potential mate. What can you do with numbers that don't represent anything tangible at all? You can plug them into the world's biggest calculator and have the worlds most inefficient heater. That's what.

    The blockchain has some potential to become useful, but not if it's read/write functionality are concentrated into the hands of a few.
    I agree. I've been researching the blockchain technology and I think it's useful but it's NOT Bitcoin. Bitcoin USES the blockchain, but it's NOT the blockchain. To me Bitcoin was a test run of the blockchain technology and considering the limited number of thefts it's been pretty successful. But a Bitcoin itself is NOTHING. It would be like the first UPS company delivering empty boxes to see if the delivery system worked. The UPS delivery system is great, but that doesn't mean the empty boxes are worth something just because they can be delivered quickly.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by newbitech View Post
    The point is that it's artificial scarcity. Besides that, strange things happen in math when you introduce irrational numbers into equations. Such as divide by 0, or infinite divisibility.

    A math error such as that would be a flaw,therefore easy to demostrate a need to correct in the community,
    bitcoin had flaws in the past which were corrected, and the new software containing the correction was adopted quickly across the board


    Not saying that has happened in btc, yet, but there are lots of common misconceptions about math. People say math doesn't lie, yeah it does. People also say there would be no rational reason for the artificial limit of 21 million to be changed, yeah there is.

    You just say the 21 million change would have a reason but don't give one

    Also another misconception I hear a lot of, that somehow there is this vast I guess democratic network of network users to download the new software. You just need 51% of the miners to do it. And really not even 51% of the people, just 51% that control the hash power.
    Not true, if the economic actors don't following the forked chain, it is not going to be considered bitcoin. Say 51% of the miners(or whatever percentage you like) decided to change the 21 million limit tomorrow, the old network with 49% would not recognize the new incompatible blocks, the 49% hashrate side could continue forever, and if the change the miners pushed was unpopular most of the activity and transaction fees would happen on the 49% chain. The 51% chain would exist, but since it did a highly unpopular and hostile action against the userbase, it's doubtful it would maintain that status for long,
    as mining would become unprofitable on that chain with so much excessive hashrate compared to economic activity


    What would be the equivalent of Jekyll Island in bitcoin? My guess is somewhere in Asia.
    See above

    Overheard the Janitor at my 40 story office building talking to one of the window washers on the way down the elevator at lunch the other day. Talking about how he bought in at coinbase a couple weeks back and that he has quadrupled his investment.
    Yeah, probably a 100 dollars worth, he's likely to learn more about it now though, and be less ignorant of the system as time passes, it's possible to know nothing about bitcoin, and move to knowing all the basics in days

    I asked him if he understood that coinbase trades at a higher premium and he looked at me cross-eyed. I doubt that anyone getting into bitcoin for the first time at this stage understands the nuance of the money vs store of value vs digital gold debate, much less the functionality of a block chain or no counter party risk ledger.

    I like the possibility, but the biggest flaw of bitcoin imo is that it's software. It's virtual. Has no tangible value.
    Software as a whole is worth more than all the Gold in the world combined, and society is far more reliant upon software for its survival than gold.
    If all the gold in the world disappeared it would be a hiccup, if all the software disappeared it would billions dead in a year. Most of your "gold" value is from speculators and hoarders not from any productive use of it. Gold would be worth a small fraction of it's present cost if it only relied on practical use. So, okay, 10%(my guess) of gold's price is based on productive use outside of transacting potential or ornamentation. Wow. Plus, if you want to look a small step into the future, likely 50 years or less, Gold will be destroyed once the first asteroid is mined. Long term gold has 0 future. Fact. Sure, bitcoin might not have a long term future either, but gold is dead man walking 100%.


    Even tally sticks could be used to whack someone over the head trying to steal them. Even sea shells or other such trinkets could be used to decorate a home or to woo a potential mate. What can you do with numbers that don't represent anything tangible at all? You can plug them into the world's biggest calculator and have the worlds most inefficient heater. That's what.

    The blockchain has some potential to become useful, but not if it's read/write functionality are concentrated into the hands of a few.
    Guessing you mean by the miners. Well, here's the thing, Japan next year is going to be producing there own asics as well. So, that's help the problem of competition in asic miner production, which really is Bitmain and bitfury at present with a few small outfits making up the remainder. Let's pretend bitcoin increases it's transaction rate, and ebay, and amazon etc... accept bitcoin, at some point those companies will not look at mining as simply a means to make money, but rather a means to protect the network. I fully intend to buy a bitcoin asic miner eventually, and not look at it at all as a profit center, but a slight loss producer, to help protect the network. That will likely happen with the next gen miners which will be very, very, close to hitting the limit of all present technologies available, after that they'll have to wait right along with intel/AMD etc... for new fabrication advances that only come every few years. In other words instead of a miner going obsolete completely in a year,
    words a new miner will be competitive for a few years.


    Just the fact that you can have a literal unlimited versions of this technology all with slightly different operating code should give anyone serious about investing in a particular pull request pause.

    Yeah, and I can try to pay for gas with a 100 dollar bill I made with a crayon. Copying and modifying the bitcoin codebase to make a new alt coin does not grant you all the infrastructure of bitcoin, nor the userbase. If I can convince enough people to accept my crayon 100 dollar bill, then I might be considered competing with the us dollar, however the mere fact I created a virtual copy of the dollar scheme does not grant me the clout and infrastructure of the us dollar

    One thing that anyone serious about investing in technology should have no problem understanding is that there will always be a better version of the technology.
    True, bitcoin is not guaranteed dominance, it only has the most coders, the longest history, the most testing, and the most effort put into it's proof of work system. But yeah, it could be replaced. There are no serious contenders at present.

    Saying that people won't change to a new version because the like the old version and they are so invested in it is a technological anti-pattern. Especially in software. The minute you believe that you software is "done" is the minute you fall behind and someone else replaces it. It's the minute your value falls away.
    You can improve the bitcoin software as long as the input and output is compatible with the present rule set. There has been plenty of improvements,
    they changed the way code for verifying transactions was done a year or so ago, that more than doubled the speed of that process, just as one example. You don't need a hardfork for that, you need a system wide hardfork to change the basic rules. Such as the block reward calculation.


    There is huge incentive to continue to change the Bitcoin software to benefit those who care about it and use it the most. Which would be the miners btw, and the one thing that the miners need the most to continue to operate is something to mine. The arbitrary and artificial number of 21,000,000 will be reached. Miners will cease to be miners at that point and their profits will fall through the floor.

    The only way they will make enough money to support their vast operation is to collect fees off transactions. So btc mining will eventually not be as difficult, because btc mining won't be a hype driven cash cow forever. Eventually the processing of transactions will have to happen the way it was initially envisioned, in that anyone on the peer network can participate in proving the ledger. Eventually it will become more like a lottery ticket and less like whoever throws the most power at it wins.
    It's actually argued that bitcoin has an excessive amount of hashrate at present, and could lose some and still not be a target for 51% attack.
    Regardless, transaction fees were always intended to replace the blockreward eventually. Not really seeing why you think that is the death of bitcoin. The transaction capcity of bitcoin will eventually be increased, nearly all developers agree with that, it's just when that is the question. Of course the community has to agree to it,
    and most would if the developers were behind it


    Long before that happens, the miners will have figured out the only way to perpetuate their resources will be to switch to a different technology. Or change the fundamentals of the one they are comfortable with.
    Miners can't unilaterally change bitcoin. They can fork off at anytime, but that doesn't mean the whole ecosystem has to follow.

    Crypto-"currency" is a dead end. Technology is not going to change human nature. Human nature will assimilate the technology, manipulate it and continue on unabated.
    Not sure how responding with color will work out. ehhe.
    Last edited by RonPaulIsGreat; 12-13-2017 at 11:45 AM.

  26. #23
    It worked good. I'll respond later.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    It would be like the first UPS company delivering empty boxes to see if the delivery system worked. The UPS delivery system is great, but that doesn't mean the empty boxes are worth something just because they can be delivered quickly.
    Ya see you're still missing it.. The boxes aren't what people value from UPS, it is the delivery of valuable boxes that is valuable.

    If UPS has all of the trucks and the logistics ready to deliver packages, and they are all ready to go, all they need is for people to give them boxes and addresses to deliver those boxes to, then why isn't UPS the best one to do that? You think another company that doesn't have the trucks and all of the logistics would have a better chance at competing when UPS is already setup to operate?
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Ya see you're still missing it.. The boxes aren't what people value from UPS, it is the delivery of valuable boxes that is valuable.

    If UPS has all of the trucks and the logistics ready to deliver packages, and they are all ready to go, all they need is for people to give them boxes and addresses to deliver those boxes to, then why isn't UPS the best one to do that? You think another company that doesn't have the trucks and all of the logistics would have a better chance at competing when UPS is already setup to operate?
    No grasshopper, YOU are missing it. The UPS delivery system is the blockchain, the empty packages are the bitcoins in my analogy. The greatest delivery system in the world doesn't give those empty boxes value.

    Now if someone comes up with a blockchain based system that can transact in gold ...

  30. #26
    The point is that it's artificial scarcity. Besides that, strange things happen in math when you introduce irrational numbers into equations. Such as divide by 0, or infinite divisibility.

    A math error such as that would be a flaw,therefore easy to demostrate a need to correct in the community,
    bitcoin had flaws in the past which were corrected, and the new software containing the correction was adopted quickly across the board

    My comment about math was pointing out that math is not the immutable truth. This is a claim that I have heard in regards to bitcoin, which my comment below mentions. "Math doesn't lie". This is just not true. The system of math and numbers that humans have interpreted is not a flawless interpretation. There are proofs that .99999... = 1 and proofs that 1 = 2 etc. Computer systems are finite systems. Number systems are not. We create symbols to represent irrational numbers. Computers use symbols to calculate. Not to belabor the point too much, but even theoretical physics is not trust worthy thanks to our inability to even understand what we call irrational numbers much less codify them in a way that generates reliable and repeatable outcomes. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle with its mathematical proofs is a perfect example of this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7UNvDN_EZo

    Not saying that has happened in btc, yet, but there are lots of common misconceptions about math. People say math doesn't lie, yeah it does. People also say there would be no rational reason for the artificial limit of 21 million to be changed, yeah there is.

    You just say the 21 million change would have a reason but don't give on

    Read on then

    Also another misconception I hear a lot of, that somehow there is this vast I guess democratic network of network users to download the new software. You just need 51% of the miners to do it. And really not even 51% of the people, just 51% that control the hash power.
    Not true, if the economic actors don't following the forked chain, it is not going to be considered bitcoin. Say 51% of the miners(or whatever percentage you like) decided to change the 21 million limit tomorrow, the old network with 49% would not recognize the new incompatible blocks, the 49% hashrate side could continue forever, and if the change the miners pushed was unpopular most of the activity and transaction fees would happen on the 49% chain. The 51% chain would exist, but since it did a highly unpopular and hostile action against the userbase, it's doubtful it would maintain that status for long,
    as mining would become unprofitable on that chain with so much excessive hashrate compared to economic activity

    The point here was about the misconception that bitcoin is some kind of democratic network. It's not. The only actors that matter in this network are the actors with read/write access to the ledger. The only economic transactions that miners need to stay in business is the transaction of converting fiat to bitcoin. No miner is currently operating by paying their electric bills in bitcoin. Sure it doesn't make sense for miners to want to increase the limit and thus instantly dilute the people who believe the arbitrary number assigned to the ledger is finite(it's not). But my point again is that people who might use the network for anything other than converting fiat to bitcoin and bitcoin to fiat really have no say in what happens to the ledger. They are only able to decide to continue to use the ledger or not. This is exactly why the number doesn't even have to change in the one instance. Miners can simply divert their hash power to another instance leaving the current instance unsolvable. The people using the network will either have to agree to pay what ever fees the network demands, or solve the ledger for themselves, or convert to a different ledger. The only likely way that the network does not grind to a halt once the miners are unable to collect enough fees (or "discover" new rewards) is if the cost of mining is less than the fees. This is the incentive for miners with multi-million dollar operations to dilute. It's the same incentive the Federal Reserve has to dilute. The mining "debt" in this system is growing at an unsustainable rate.
    As a side note to the excess hashrate comment, the network doesn't need any hash rate to function properly. It's all excessive. The excessive hash rate is a symptom of another arbitrary number baked into bitcoin that miners could manipulate with the same diluting outcome. That would be the difficulty function. However instead of diluting people willing to trade fiat for a ledger entry with some random number assigned to it, they would be diluting the mining pools ability to take stake in that conversion. IOW, they would allow more miners to enter the competition. This is something that miners would all agree would be harmful to the "users". Dilution via increase the arbitrary supply number will simply be a way of convincing the converting users ie. the buyers of their hash rate work that increasing the incentive is necessary to keep the miners in business (since they can't buy hash rate with bitcoin). They will need to do this as a last ditch effort to keep the transactions flowing and to hold down the cost of getting your transaction confirmed.


    What would be the equivalent of Jekyll Island in bitcoin? My guess is somewhere in Asia.
    See above

    as below

    Overheard the Janitor at my 40 story office building talking to one of the window washers on the way down the elevator at lunch the other day. Talking about how he bought in at coinbase a couple weeks back and that he has quadrupled his investment.
    Yeah, probably a 100 dollars worth, he's likely to learn more about it now though, and be less ignorant of the system as time passes, it's possible to know nothing about bitcoin, and move to knowing all the basics in days

    he will learn a lot when he goes to sell it and his browser returns a 404. The fact that this still happens today, 5 years after Mt. Gox lets me know that there is a tremendous amount of malinvestment occurring in the space. That's too bad, but not surprised that an alpha product would demonstrate such lack of use case story boarding. Perhaps bitcoin applications are a victim of their own success, or perhaps its just a matter of banking off a MVP with absolutely no incentive to improve. hell users a paying a 2k premium for a transaction into an arbitrary number, doesn't get any better than that right?

    I asked him if he understood that coinbase trades at a higher premium and he looked at me cross-eyed. I doubt that anyone getting into bitcoin for the first time at this stage understands the nuance of the money vs store of value vs digital gold debate, much less the functionality of a block chain or no counter party risk ledger.

    I like the possibility, but the biggest flaw of bitcoin imo is that it's software. It's virtual. Has no tangible value.
    Software as a whole is worth more than all the Gold in the world combined, and society is far more reliant upon software for its survival than gold.
    If all the gold in the world disappeared it would be a hiccup, if all the software disappeared it would billions dead in a year. Most of your "gold" value is from speculators and hoarders not from any productive use of it. Gold would be worth a small fraction of it's present cost if it only relied on practical use. So, okay, 10%(my guess) of gold's price is based on productive use outside of transacting potential or ornamentation. Wow. Plus, if you want to look a small step into the future, likely 50 years or less, Gold will be destroyed once the first asteroid is mined. Long term gold has 0 future. Fact. Sure, bitcoin might not have a long term future either, but gold is dead man walking 100%.

    not sure where you are going with that, I have no problem with software being sold for money. the problem perhaps is more akin to buying and selling random domain names. There is an infinite amount of domain names, but obviously some are more valuable than others. At then end of the day, all a domain name is, is a pointer to an IP address. We run out of address long before we run out of points. With bitcoin the exact opposite is true. There is literally no difference at all in what distinguishes one bitcoin from another. Hell no difference in what distinguishes .01 bitcoin from .001 bitcoin. They are both pointers to a transaction on the ledger. What is valuable is the transaction. There is an infinite amount of transactions with a finite amount of pointers(unless you are willing to add more zeros after the decimal place, and incidentally this is where the divide by 0 and/or infinite divisibility problem crop up). As far as Gold is concerned, it's any tangible thing that I am talking about. Tally sticks, a house, silver, gold, food, ammo, etc.. Software get's it's value by replacing manual and tangible labor with automation. We can't write down all the transactions that happen everyday with human labor(we could but it would be expensive). So a software product does those repetitive tasks for us at a discount. Other software like games are just entertainment options. In my mind, this is the category of software that bitcoin falls in to. Entertainment. Like a casino for instance. Or some in game currency. You can't really spend the tokens outside the casino. The one really cool thing that the block chain does though is make it very hard if not impossible to regulate. I'm cool with that, but understand the risks of playing that game.

    Even tally sticks could be used to whack someone over the head trying to steal them. Even sea shells or other such trinkets could be used to decorate a home or to woo a potential mate. What can you do with numbers that don't represent anything tangible at all? You can plug them into the world's biggest calculator and have the worlds most inefficient heater. That's what.

    The blockchain has some potential to become useful, but not if it's read/write functionality are concentrated into the hands of a few.
    Guessing you mean by the miners. Well, here's the thing, Japan next year is going to be producing there own asics as well. So, that's help the problem of competition in asic miner production, which really is Bitmain and bitfury at present with a few small outfits making up the remainder. Let's pretend bitcoin increases it's transaction rate, and ebay, and amazon etc... accept bitcoin, at some point those companies will not look at mining as simply a means to make money, but rather a means to protect the network. I fully intend to buy a bitcoin asic miner eventually, and not look at it at all as a profit center, but a slight loss producer, to help protect the network. That will likely happen with the next gen miners which will be very, very, close to hitting the limit of all present technologies available, after that they'll have to wait right along with intel/AMD etc... for new fabrication advances that only come every few years. In other words instead of a miner going obsolete completely in a year,
    words a new miner will be competitive for a few years.

    so you are saying there is going to be an arms race as to who can build the largest asic farm to "secure" the network. Why would it just stop at securing the network, why wouldn't it continue on to control the network? and really corps are going to do this at a loss? Maybe I am misunderstanding you. I will look for more clarification on this. I just don't see how anyone will want to enter that race just to make sure that no one else can take over control of the ability to read/write. Sure mining tech will get better, but it will never be free to mine bitcoin especially when the rewards disappear and the system relies totally on transactions fees. I also don't see anyone willing to accept bitcoin to purchase these machines or provide electricity or facilities or all the other ancillary needs of a bitcoin number crunching operation. Do you? I could be wrong, but it doesn't even make sense for the power company or the chip providers to take bitcoin as payment. Does it?


    Just the fact that you can have a literal unlimited versions of this technology all with slightly different operating code should give anyone serious about investing in a particular pull request pause.

    Yeah, and I can try to pay for gas with a 100 dollar bill I made with a crayon. Copying and modifying the bitcoin codebase to make a new alt coin does not grant you all the infrastructure of bitcoin, nor the userbase. If I can convince enough people to accept my crayon 100 dollar bill, then I might be considered competing with the us dollar, however the mere fact I created a virtual copy of the dollar scheme does not grant me the clout and infrastructure of the us dollar

    I think you missed my point slightly. it's not the point that it can be counterfeited. it can't. It's the point that it's open source. the open source model is not to invest in version 2.0.0, the point is to get wide distribution and then SUPPORT the product with things like custom integrations, installation help, training etc.. that is where the real opportunity to invest in technology is IMO. Unless you can dev or read source code to fully grok what is happening with open source, I feel like you cannot be a serious investor (meaning putting any sizeable portion of your retirement funds) into an alpha phase software product.

    One thing that anyone serious about investing in technology should have no problem understanding is that there will always be a better version of the technology.
    True, bitcoin is not guaranteed dominance, it only has the most coders, the longest history, the most testing, and the most effort put into it's proof of work system. But yeah, it could be replaced. There are no serious contenders at present.

    That sounds a lot like complacency being accepted as best of class software. most coders? so what, many times small software shops run circles around the big boys. longest history? again so what, technology and software is all about what have you done for me lately. see myspace.com vs facebook.com most effort? again what ever happened to work smarter not harder, that's not just a software mantra, but technology and general life mantra. Serious contenders? I would guess they are out there already, and most likely unless you or I are the ones bringing it, we won't know until it's too late and our investment gets railroaded.

    Saying that people won't change to a new version because the like the old version and they are so invested in it is a technological anti-pattern. Especially in software. The minute you believe that you software is "done" is the minute you fall behind and someone else replaces it. It's the minute your value falls away.
    You can improve the bitcoin software as long as the input and output is compatible with the present rule set. There has been plenty of improvements,
    they changed the way code for verifying transactions was done a year or so ago, that more than doubled the speed of that process, just as one example. You don't need a hardfork for that, you need a system wide hardfork to change the basic rules. Such as the block reward calculation.

    my point was, people will drop bitcoin like a rock as soon as the next big thing comes along. It's why you have 1000 teams trying to build the next best thing. the fact that bitcoin is locked in to some present rule set and cannot just change with the wind since so many are so invested in it makes it a dying technology. all the people making money off of it can do to keep it rolling is adapt. the people with the most interest in adapting are the people who invested in the hard assets to make this thing work. the people who dropped a couple thou as speculation really don't have much interest at all in seeing the tech adapt. sure some do, like you who would run a rig at a loss just to keep it running. but make no mistake, the price of a "bitcoin" and the money dumped into this tech aren't interested in running it at a loss. they will get their money out the minute it looks like they will lose it. and miners, with the most at risk, will do what they need to do to squeeze out those last bit of gains before it's time to move on to a mine that hasn't been sucked dry.


    There is huge incentive to continue to change the Bitcoin software to benefit those who care about it and use it the most. Which would be the miners btw, and the one thing that the miners need the most to continue to operate is something to mine. The arbitrary and artificial number of 21,000,000 will be reached. Miners will cease to be miners at that point and their profits will fall through the floor.

    The only way they will make enough money to support their vast operation is to collect fees off transactions. So btc mining will eventually not be as difficult, because btc mining won't be a hype driven cash cow forever. Eventually the processing of transactions will have to happen the way it was initially envisioned, in that anyone on the peer network can participate in proving the ledger. Eventually it will become more like a lottery ticket and less like whoever throws the most power at it wins.
    It's actually argued that bitcoin has an excessive amount of hashrate at present, and could lose some and still not be a target for 51% attack.
    Regardless, transaction fees were always intended to replace the blockreward eventually. Not really seeing why you think that is the death of bitcoin. The transaction capcity of bitcoin will eventually be increased, nearly all developers agree with that, it's just when that is the question. Of course the community has to agree to it,
    and most would if the developers were behind it

    i would argue that there wasn't much thought at all put into the hardware side of things. this system was clearly designed to run with as many independent operators as possible. because of that, the 21,000,000 limit and rewards calc were grossly underestimated, as was the decay time. This experiment was never meant to survive the demand of exchanging trillions of fiat spurring a hardware arms race that would effectively wipe out core fundamental of the network. the 51% "attack" is only possible because of lack of foresight into the rapid acceleration of fiat for bitcoin exchange. In fact I would argue that system was designed with the thought of a much slower phase of growth in terms of fiat conversion and a much more even distribution of the tokens. Greed and lust for fiat was sorely underestimated in bitcoins design even tho it sought to attack that system.

    I think any system that is going to replace the current system of fiat is not going to be one that puts such high interest in fiat in the first place. I would expect more organic growth and not this money lust fueled crazed that we've witnessed over the last 5 years. Bitcoin futures? yeah I'll pass.


    Long before that happens, the miners will have figured out the only way to perpetuate their resources will be to switch to a different technology. Or change the fundamentals of the one they are comfortable with.
    Miners can't unilaterally change bitcoin. They can fork off at anytime, but that doesn't mean the whole ecosystem has to follow.

    When for profit miners stop profiting, all for profit miners will stop profiting at the same time. They will all be in the same boat, as they are now. The competition for those rewards will soon after become a collaboration to squeeze what last little profit they can before declaring the next best and newest blockchain will get their hashrate(already paid for itself 10x's over). people will rush to move their "investment" to wherever the miners will say the money is being made. When they can't convert back into fiat because of the fiat rules, they will find the new services that will instantly swap ledgers for them. That's when the faith and confidence in the entire stack will erode. Sure some will survive, but the conversion between fiat and crypto will be over, until a more stable environment emerges. An environment that is more inline with the principles of the original bitcoin, and not the actual implementation of the same.

    Crypto-"currency" is a dead end. Technology is not going to change human nature. Human nature will assimilate the technology, manipulate it and continue on unabated.

  31. #27
    I'll reply in the next couple of days.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Yes, quite the shame when people dont really understand what gives money its actual value. Its called WORK, not MONEY MANIPULATION or ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY, as seems to be the case with Bitcoin...
    Scarcity is the only thing that gives money value.


    No one gives a damn if you work hard shoveling coal all day. You're only going to get paid $5 a hour.


    Why do people choose gold over say granite? Simple. Because granite rocks are much easier to come by. Gold is a more scarce commodity.


    As for Bitcoin, when gives it value is people want a scarce commodity that can be exchanged easily online. Bitcoin meets that demand perfectly.
    “Maybe I forgot to mention something to you: I don’t believe in queens. You think freedom is something you can give and take on a whim. But to your people, freedom is as essential as air. And without it, there is no life. There is only darkness.” -Zaheer

    "A man chooses. A slave obeys."-Andrew Ryan

    "There are three things the parasite hates: free markets, free will, and free men."-Andrew Ryan

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Scarcity is the only thing that gives money value.


    No one gives a damn if you work hard shoveling coal all day. You're only going to get paid $5 a hour.


    Why do people choose gold over say granite? Simple. Because granite rocks are much easier to come by. Gold is a more scarce commodity.


    As for Bitcoin, when gives it value is people want a scarce commodity that can be exchanged easily online. Bitcoin meets that demand perfectly.
    Scarcity alone does not give something value. It's a combination of scarcity and usefulness. A bitcoin is scarce but has no use so it has no actual value. Copper is useful but common so it has some value. Gold is useful and scarce so it has a lot of value.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    A bitcoin is scarce but has no use so it has no actual value.
    The actual value of a bitcoin is currently $16,893

    The platform is valuable because it allows people to trade or transfer that value.

    There is no other platform that can replace bitcoin as easily and cheaply with all of the same benefits, so thus bitcoin itself has a lot value.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-07-2017, 09:47 PM
  2. Europeans Seem To Prefer Gold To Silver
    By Smaulgld in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-03-2015, 01:14 AM
  3. Even Bitcoin’s Fans Prefer to Keep Cash
    By Zippyjuan in forum Bitcoin / Cryptocurrencies
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-27-2014, 01:10 AM
  4. Replies: 80
    Last Post: 06-22-2012, 12:51 AM
  5. Why I prefer silver to gold (article)
    By Original_Intent in forum Personal Prosperity
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 04-02-2009, 03:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •