Bitcoin et al

[Behemoth]

NickCQ said:

You can do all of that with 7 transactions per second? Visa does 24,000.

Yes it will, and more. Lightning Network will do this for Bitcoin. Side chain solutions like this will make it immensely scaleable. Sidechains will allow all manner of micro and nanopayments that go far far beyond what Visa can possibly cope with.

btw Visa is expensive. Visa also requires you to be banked in some way. The remittance market includes the many that are and will remain unbanked and unserviced. There is huge demand for secure, private, permissionless and (very) low cost worldwide transfer of funds.

[WindyCommon]

Behemoth said:

WindyCommon said:

Are you saying that I’ll need to have access to BTC in order to settle (basic, simple and widespread) transactions? Why won’t I be able to use GBP?

Of course not. Remittances are a worldwide and currently expensive and time consuming process. Bitcoin will make them easy, cheap, immediate and permissionless.

Thank you. If access to BTC isn’t needed though, can you outline how BTC derives value from improved remittance processes?

[Yipper]

bloomen said:

Yipper said:

Bitcoin has gone beyond "bubble" and is now into "mania" territory.

Have a browse on the Bitcointalk forums in late 2013. That was mania. Talk of bank loans, new paradigms, this time it's different.

Outside of certain alt forums that have already had their arses handed to them, there is no sign of that anywhere.

The difference between 2013 and 2017 is that the establishment is now starting to talk Bitcoin down in unison, from Warren Buffet to the Saudi Royal Family, while more and countries are restricting or banning Bitcoin, from China to Vietnam just yesterday. The negative signs are now mounting.

Various Fibonacci charts etc. point to Bitcoin continuing to rise in the near-term for 2017. But the mid-term in 2018 and beyond has big question-marks.

Every bubble and mania always says "it is different this time".

It never is.

[Behemoth]

Yipper said:

The difference between 2013 and 2017 is that the establishment is now starting to talk Bitcoin down in unison, from Warren Buffet to the Saudi Royal Family, while more and countries are restricting or banning Bitcoin, from China to Vietnam just yesterday. The negative signs are now mounting.

Yes, vested interests hate it. Who knew? They won't be able to stop it.

[Behemoth]

WindyCommon said:

If access to BTC isn’t needed though, can you outline how BTC derives value from improved remittance processes?

Sorry, I don't get you. I'm sure you didn't mean a non sequitur.

[WindyCommon]

Behemoth said:

WindyCommon said:

If access to BTC isn’t needed though, can you outline how BTC derives value from improved remittance processes?

Sorry, I don't get you. I'm sure you didn't mean a non sequitur.

The potential non sequitur here is the link you have drawn between improved remittance processes and the value of BTC.

I agree that the blockchain idea expressed in Bitcoin has the potential to revolutionise how payments are made. I am asking you to explain how this will affect the value of BTC. Specifically if - as per your earlier posts - it wont be necessary for individuals to hold BTC to realise the benefits of the improved payments processes.

[Behemoth]

WindyCommon said:

The potential non sequitur here is the link you have drawn between improved remittance processes and the value of BTC.

I agree that the blockchain idea expressed in Bitcoin has the potential to revolutionise how payments are made. I am asking you to explain how this will affect the value of BTC. Specifically if - as per your earlier posts - it wont be necessary for individuals to hold BTC to realise the benefits of the improved payments processes.

Ah, ok. Your premise is that other blockchain implementations will take the fore? I think the chances of this happening are remote. Bitcoin is far ahead with momentum and most importantly, open decentralised consensus. That's the fundamental security mechanism in place. It's the raison d'etre for Bitcoin. Any private chain reintroduces the counterparty risk Bitcoin solves. Any copycat chain isn't anywhere near as developed as Bitcoin, on a number of levels. Any chain variation seeking to furrow other niches doesn't have Bitcoin's purity of purpose and sheer simplicity. The open decentralised consensus security mechanism is the essence of Bitcoin's value. It allows permissionless value transfer. It's a hugely valuable asset.

[WindyCommon]

Behemoth said:

Ah, ok. Your premise is that other blockchain implementations will take the fore? I think the chances of this happening are remote. Bitcoin is far ahead with momentum and most importantly, open decentralised consensus. That's the fundamental security mechanism in place. It's the raison d'etre for Bitcoin. Any private chain reintroduces the counterparty risk Bitcoin solves. Any copycat chain isn't anywhere near as developed as Bitcoin, on a number of levels. Any chain variation seeking to furrow other niches doesn't have Bitcoin's purity of purpose and sheer simplicity. The open decentralised consensus security mechanism is the essence of Bitcoin's value. It allows permissionless value transfer. It's a hugely valuable asset.

I agree that Bitcoin has built a network / first-mover advantage, and that this has huge potential value. Normally such an advantage would be monetised through levying of access fees by its owner. In other words there could be a charge (USD0.01 or whatever) per transaction.

What has not been explained is the link between the potential returns from the built infrastructure and the value of the 21 million BTC’s. If the BTC’s were analogous to shares they would have value as a result of their call on the earnings from access or other fees. But they appear to confer no such rights to their owners.

Could we see the Bitcoin blockchain used widely for remittances, but the Bitcoins themselves having little (or no) value? If not, why...?

[768]

Yipper said:

The difference between 2013 and 2017 is that the establishment is now starting to talk Bitcoin down in unison, from Warren Buffet to the Saudi Royal Family, while more and countries are restricting or banning Bitcoin, from China to Vietnam just yesterday. The negative signs are now mounting.

Ha!

[Behemoth]

WindyCommon said:

Could we see the Bitcoin blockchain used widely for remittances, but the Bitcoins themselves having little (or no) value? If not, why...?

No, because the blockchain is secured by miners that have the financial incentive to do so.

[WindyCommon]

Behemoth said:

WindyCommon said:

Could we see the Bitcoin blockchain used widely for remittances, but the Bitcoins themselves having little (or no) value? If not, why...?

No, because the blockchain is secured by miners that have the financial incentive to do so.

That’s an interesting description. I had seen miners only as economic agents motivated by capturing the premium between the price of a BTC and the energy costs of creating it. I find it hard to see that they are responsible - even by accident - for “securing” anything. If the premium disappears they will stop..!

Could you please have a go at explaining the link between the the volume of BTC transactions and the price of a BTC please? You have proposed consistently that increased transactional usage will underpin a higher BTC value without once getting close to explaining the mechanism for this.

[HannsG]

Anyone heard of an outfit called USI TECH?

Apparently you invest, and make 1% approx return on investment daily. Also referrals increase your dividend payout.

Guy at work is raving about it and he was at some big corporate shindig over the weekend. Thousands in attendance apparently.

[anonymous-user]

HannsG said:

Anyone heard of an outfit called USI TECH?

Apparently you invest, and make 1% approx return on investment daily. Also referrals increase your dividend payout.

Guy at work is raving about it and he was at some big corporate shindig over the weekend. Thousands in attendance apparently.

Have never heard of them but it sounds classically dodgy.

[dbs2000]

HannsG said:

Anyone heard of an outfit called USI TECH?

Apparently you invest, and make 1% approx return on investment daily. Also referrals increase your dividend payout.

Guy at work is raving about it and he was at some big corporate shindig over the weekend. Thousands in attendance apparently.

It sounds like a scam, a mate asked me to check it out and that was my conclusion, they claim to have contracts with exchanges and those exhanges have said "never heard of them"

Regarding bitcoin mania... I don't think we're even in a bubble yet. The market cap is only $165bn, while that is a lot of money, compared to the dot com bubble, that was approx 1.7 trillion lost (IIRC). Dotcom grew because everyone started getting internet access, Crypto coins are still a pain in butt for the average Joe.

Edited by dbs2000 on Tuesday 31st October 08:39

[WindyCommon]

[Behemoth]

WindyCommon said:

That’s an interesting description. I had seen miners only as economic agents motivated by capturing the premium between the price of a BTC and the energy costs of creating it. I find it hard to see that they are responsible - even by accident - for “securing” anything. If the premium disappears they will stop..!

Could you please have a go at explaining the link between the the volume of BTC transactions and the price of a BTC please? You have proposed consistently that increased transactional usage will underpin a higher BTC value without once getting close to explaining the mechanism for this.

The premium won't disappear because that's precisely the economic model in play. Mining means hashing transactions into blocks, this currently gets reward in bitcoin but transaction fees will gradually take over as the reward. Miners will compete for transaction rewards. More transactions means more reward to compete for. Higher demand leads to increase in price when supply is constant.

If you don't understand why miners are responsible for securing anything then you have a rather major gap in your comprehension of Bitcoin. The primary purpose of mining is to deliver secure immutable consensus. You need to read up on it. A simple search gives plenty of resources to explain it this. Or read the white paper that Nakomoto wrote.

[4130chris]

exchanges - anyone managed to register with GDax? Seems impossible to get their camera function working - to confirm ID and get trading (avoiding fees of Coinbase)

[sc0tt]

OK so I am all verified on coinbase. I had to do a manual verification with their support which was pretty effective and have just done a successful withdrawal for £5 so I am happy with their service. Feel happy with that and am now going to buy some more on the next dip.

[WindyCommon]

Behemoth said:

Mining means hashing transactions into blocks, this currently gets reward in bitcoin but transaction fees will gradually take over as the reward. Miners will compete for transaction rewards. More transactions means more reward to compete for.

Thank you. I agree that transaction fees are the likely route to monetisation. It will be interesting to see if/how/when a transition away from these being paid in BTC is made.

However, these fees/rewards will accrue to the miners and not to the holders of BTC.

So my question, on the link between BTC transaction volumes and the price of a BTC, remains unanswered.

[Behemoth]

WindyCommon said:

Thank you. I agree that transaction fees are the likely route to monetisation. It will be interesting to see if/how/when a transition away from these being paid in BTC is made.

However, these fees/rewards will accrue to the miners and not to the holders of BTC.

So my question, on the link between BTC transaction volumes and the price of a BTC, remains unanswered.

Why would miners be paid in a currency other than BTC? The tx fees are in BTC. They already exist. Why would any fees accrue to holders? If transaction volumes increase, the use of the currency is increasing and so the price of BTC relative to other currencies will increase. This is because supply is limited and demand is up. Bitcoin is inherently deflationary. Please do some reading.