Crypto Currency Thread
Discussion
coyft said:
If it's not payment attached to a SC or in retail, where do you see the value?
You mentioned micro payments, is that where you see the value? I'd be grateful if you could expand.
If you mean SC then I'm not sure I do see much value with the current approach. I'm not convinced that truly immutable code is actually a good thing and most of the IT industry has tried it and decided to go the other way with agile approaches of deliver fast and fix on the fly. OpenZepplin aims to solve that by linking to libraries which can be updated, perhaps with a vote from a committee, which is interesting but danger of centralisation. These vote style mechanisms can just be gamed by a few motivated geeks.You mentioned micro payments, is that where you see the value? I'd be grateful if you could expand.
Micro payments are an interesting possibility, across international boundaries in particular, if you want to pay someone abroad with FIAT then it may involve minimum charges and high transfer fees. The case for micro-payments themselves is sound, could be a model where I visit a website and rather than watching adverts, I pay them a tiny amount (e.g. 1p) for each page load. Doesn't medium.com already have some kind of crypto tipping method for people writing good articles?
coyft said:
Can you give me some of your thoughts as to what it might be used for in the future? Apart from a store of value.
In order of decreasing (but always non-zero) probability and years & decades long time frames, after store of value comes individual sovereignty (the ability for an individual to look after their own wealth without state intermediation). After that happens, international settlements on an institutional level. After that, a global unit of account. That final one could be 50 years or more away or may never happen, of course.I see store of value as having a high probability of success, with the others decreasingly likely but all perfectly possible. Even if you disagree with the economic direction these lead the world into, there is no escaping the possibility that it's an inevitable path. Since such possibilities exist and I am perfectly willing to watch them play out long term, I see Bitcoin as a worthwhile very long term investment.
Bbc1 right now, rip off Britain. Article is all about Bitcoin.
First fraud was a guy who'd seen his Bitcoin go to £43k value. He was tempted into Bitcoin gold, and used a link from the official Bitcoin site he was using to go to a 3rd party wallet provider btg wallet or similar to transfer across to.
3rd party turned out to be scammers and he shared his unique number with them, he's now looking glum on BBC tv and is 43k out of pocket. He can't get a penny back
2nd story is another scam company who ripped another guy off who was promised 40% return in 48hrs or so.
Speculative punters with no knowledge and no legal way of recovering their monies no as it's totally insecure and unregulated as it appears.
First fraud was a guy who'd seen his Bitcoin go to £43k value. He was tempted into Bitcoin gold, and used a link from the official Bitcoin site he was using to go to a 3rd party wallet provider btg wallet or similar to transfer across to.
3rd party turned out to be scammers and he shared his unique number with them, he's now looking glum on BBC tv and is 43k out of pocket. He can't get a penny back
2nd story is another scam company who ripped another guy off who was promised 40% return in 48hrs or so.
Speculative punters with no knowledge and no legal way of recovering their monies no as it's totally insecure and unregulated as it appears.
Edited by 200Plus Club on Friday 15th June 10:00
Interesting Bitcoin article up on Bloomberg today:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-15...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-15...
Behemoth said:
In order of decreasing (but always non-zero) probability and years & decades long time frames, after store of value comes individual sovereignty (the ability for an individual to look after their own wealth without state intermediation). After that happens, international settlements on an institutional level. After that, a global unit of account. That final one could be 50 years or more away or may never happen, of course.
I see store of value as having a high probability of success, with the others decreasingly likely but all perfectly possible. Even if you disagree with the economic direction these lead the world into, there is no escaping the possibility that it's an inevitable path. Since such possibilities exist and I am perfectly willing to watch them play out long term, I see Bitcoin as a worthwhile very long term investment.
Can I propose some counter arguments then to the above;I see store of value as having a high probability of success, with the others decreasingly likely but all perfectly possible. Even if you disagree with the economic direction these lead the world into, there is no escaping the possibility that it's an inevitable path. Since such possibilities exist and I am perfectly willing to watch them play out long term, I see Bitcoin as a worthwhile very long term investment.
Individual sovereignty is not a good thing. As the stories above about fraudsters show, the individual is not the best person to be in total control of their own finances. Equally there was a link I posted on the previous page whereby hackers had stolen millions of dollars of bitcoin. The very reason banks came into being was to protect personal assets from such eventualities, and the government 'insures' all bank accounts to £85k, precisely to provide assurance that money is safe. I struggle to understand why you think that these things are not only unnecessary, but also unwanted? No matter what currency you use, or how you store value, the government will always have an interest in your money. Even if just to collect taxes, and storing value in bitcoin doesnt change this.
You're right, your suggestions are entirely possible. But possible and likely are very very different things.
Condi said:
Can I propose some counter arguments then to the above;
Individual sovereignty is not a good thing. As the stories above about fraudsters show, the individual is not the best person to be in total control of their own finances. Equally there was a link I posted on the previous page whereby hackers had stolen millions of dollars of bitcoin. The very reason banks came into being was to protect personal assets from such eventualities, and the government 'insures' all bank accounts to £85k, precisely to provide assurance that money is safe. I struggle to understand why you think that these things are not only unnecessary, but also unwanted? No matter what currency you use, or how you store value, the government will always have an interest in your money. Even if just to collect taxes, and storing value in bitcoin doesnt change this.
You're right, your suggestions are entirely possible. But possible and likely are very very different things.
LOL. Bankers are some of the biggest fraudsters out there and to say that they are better custodians of people's financial affairs (assuming one is of sound mind and reasonable intelligence) is either astonishingly naive , completely uninformed or downright dishonest.Individual sovereignty is not a good thing. As the stories above about fraudsters show, the individual is not the best person to be in total control of their own finances. Equally there was a link I posted on the previous page whereby hackers had stolen millions of dollars of bitcoin. The very reason banks came into being was to protect personal assets from such eventualities, and the government 'insures' all bank accounts to £85k, precisely to provide assurance that money is safe. I struggle to understand why you think that these things are not only unnecessary, but also unwanted? No matter what currency you use, or how you store value, the government will always have an interest in your money. Even if just to collect taxes, and storing value in bitcoin doesnt change this.
You're right, your suggestions are entirely possible. But possible and likely are very very different things.
For some examples, go and read some of Matt Taibi's reporting on the Great Financial Crisis of 2008, what HSBC was doing with drug cartels or just look at what RBS was getting up to with their small business unit if you want something closer to home,.
Condi said:
Individual sovereignty is not a good thing. As the stories above about fraudsters show, the individual is not the best person to be in total control of their own finances. Equally there was a link I posted on the previous page whereby hackers had stolen millions of dollars of bitcoin.
I agree that many can't handle their own wealth and would rather ask others to help do it for them.However, history shows that forms of money in the control of a third party (whether elected government or despotic ruler) have always inflated because the issuing party can't help debasing it in order to fund a war or be rid of debt.
This means that whether you think it's a good thing or not, individuals will naturally migrate to forms of money which are resilient to this & I see little to stop that happening.
If and when this plays out, there will be plenty of third party services (banks, effectively) keeping such digital wealth on behalf of their customers for a fee. However, because this is centralised, it is censorable (ie confiscatable) by the authority under which the bank sits. Many individuals may be quite happy to take this risk, but the underlying digital asset can and will remain uncensorable for those that desire it.
coyft said:
You're confusing assets with money. Money is merely the medium of exchange.
Money is rather more than a medium of exchange & tends to emerge by adopting aspects to differing degrees. I'm not confusing anything. The general path is store of value -> medium of exchange -> unit of account. dimots said:
I’m just trying to illuminate a simple example. Obviously the true micropayment grail is thing to thing electricity micro payments. Payments so small they cannot be managed by human systems. Bitcoin can handle that. Imagine the possibilities if you can.
If I can?What a patronising reply.
How will you handle the huge transaction costs on such tiny payments?
coyft said:
I should have said money is less effective when it can be used as a long term store of value. Why would you spend it today, if you can buy more of the same tomorrow?
Very good point. You think carefully about your purchases. You buy only what you need. You don't get into unmanageable debt. You invest in things that deliver value far into the future. It's crap for shopaholics & credit card companies.The political implications are profound, but I believe disagreement of the principles won't be enough to stop it happening because it'll be like a steam roller over the existing economic status quo.
I think you're talking about such a different reality, that while bitcoin/ crypto currencies might (might) be appropriate for that reality, it is so far away from how we use money and what we want from it, that it bears no relevance for the average person.
For bitcoin to be widely accepted and retain its inflated value, people (ie the masses) need to see some way of using it which is beneficial to them, and if it bears no resemblance to how they use cash, they're not going to see the benefit.
For bitcoin to be widely accepted and retain its inflated value, people (ie the masses) need to see some way of using it which is beneficial to them, and if it bears no resemblance to how they use cash, they're not going to see the benefit.
Lucas Ayde said:
LOL. Bankers are some of the biggest fraudsters out there and to say that they are better custodians of people's financial affairs (assuming one is of sound mind and reasonable intelligence) is either astonishingly naive , completely uninformed or downright dishonest.
For some examples, go and read some of Matt Taibi's reporting on the Great Financial Crisis of 2008, what HSBC was doing with drug cartels or just look at what RBS was getting up to with their small business unit if you want something closer to home,.
You're confusing matters. I am well aware of what banks get up to, but fail to see how that is relevant to how they look after your money? For some examples, go and read some of Matt Taibi's reporting on the Great Financial Crisis of 2008, what HSBC was doing with drug cartels or just look at what RBS was getting up to with their small business unit if you want something closer to home,.
A banks primary function is to safely store money, something they do very well. Other functions such as how they treat small businesses isnt really that important to me (or most people) as long as your money is stolen, hacked, or 'vanishes' in some way; all things which are entirely possible with bitcoin, and happen regularly.
Condi said:
Other functions such as how they treat small businesses isnt really that important to me (or most people) as long as your money is stolen, hacked, or 'vanishes' in some way; all things which are entirely possible with bitcoin, and happen regularly.
I respect the fact you are only looking out for yourself, but please, banks treating small businesses badly is an extremely serious issue.Bitcoin you hold with a private key never vanishes or gets hacked. It is third party entities that get hacked or vanish. These are akin to very poor banks.
Behemoth said:
[
I respect the fact you are only looking out for yourself, but please, banks treating small businesses badly is an extremely serious issue.
Bitcoin you hold with a private key never vanishes or gets hacked. It is third party entities that get hacked or vanish. These are akin to very poor banks.
It is a serious issue, but is in no way related to a banks ability to safely and securely store your money, backed by the government, and so the point is totally moot. I respect the fact you are only looking out for yourself, but please, banks treating small businesses badly is an extremely serious issue.
Bitcoin you hold with a private key never vanishes or gets hacked. It is third party entities that get hacked or vanish. These are akin to very poor banks.
And while the 3rd parties are akin to poor banks, in order to spend the money it needs to be attached to the internet? Anything connected to the internet can be hacked, and in order to buy and sell bitcoin you need to use an exchange which is also liable to be hacked. A 2 second google search suggests that Mt Gox had $460m worth of Bitcoins stolen, while NiceHash had $64m stolen in Dec. Tell me, if that is the risk of using Bitcoin, why would anyone use it in preference to a physical bank, which is backed by HM Treasury.
Behemoth said:
Condi said:
Other functions such as how they treat small businesses isnt really that important to me (or most people) as long as your money is stolen, hacked, or 'vanishes' in some way; all things which are entirely possible with bitcoin, and happen regularly.
I respect the fact you are only looking out for yourself, but please, banks treating small businesses badly is an extremely serious issue.Bitcoin you hold with a private key never vanishes or gets hacked. It is third party entities that get hacked or vanish. These are akin to very poor banks.
Condi said:
It is a serious issue, but is in no way related to a banks ability to safely and securely store your money, backed by the government, and so the point is totally moot.
And while the 3rd parties are akin to poor banks, in order to spend the money it needs to be attached to the internet? Anything connected to the internet can be hacked, and in order to buy and sell bitcoin you need to use an exchange which is also liable to be hacked. A 2 second google search suggests that Mt Gox had $460m worth of Bitcoins stolen, while NiceHash had $64m stolen in Dec. Tell me, if that is the risk of using Bitcoin, why would anyone use it in preference to a physical bank, which is backed by HM Treasury.
Again, all these are third parties. A core aspect of the Bitcoin protocol is that it is peer to peer. In the 9 years that the Bitcoin blockchain has been running, it has not been hacked. And yes, it is on the internet.And while the 3rd parties are akin to poor banks, in order to spend the money it needs to be attached to the internet? Anything connected to the internet can be hacked, and in order to buy and sell bitcoin you need to use an exchange which is also liable to be hacked. A 2 second google search suggests that Mt Gox had $460m worth of Bitcoins stolen, while NiceHash had $64m stolen in Dec. Tell me, if that is the risk of using Bitcoin, why would anyone use it in preference to a physical bank, which is backed by HM Treasury.
98elise said:
What if you forget the key?
You're screwed & it's lost, as hapless Newport laptop boy found out to his cost. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-a...Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff