Crypto Currency Thread
Discussion
coyft said:
Traditional payment processing charges are at least 0.30p per transaction. As that cost reduces new opportunities and markets become viable.
It really is worth finding out what it is that comprises that cost and whether any of them can be negated. That’s the bit that every article and so far, everyone getting excited has missed. dimots said:
How about a channel that funds tv programmes through micropayments triggered by the act of viewing them rather than by subscriptions or adverts?
What about a fridge that can source power from an always-on market of clean alternative energy or cheap dirty energy sources?
How about a phone/laptop/EV that can wirelessly charge through any public WiFi network and pay for that with an anonymous and permissionless micro transaction?
What about a supermarket that didn’t require you to go to a till (see Amazon Go), and does not require you to have an account with Amazon to pay? Ask yourself should every customer have to identify themselves? Is that what you want or do you want to be as anonymous as when you use cash? Which is impossible at a till-free supermarket!
What about a forum that allowed you to send tips and payments for helpful/funny/charitable content instantly in the form of a comment? Oh sorry...that one is already happening
All things that can already be done but just not in a way that’s suitable for a secret agent then. What about a fridge that can source power from an always-on market of clean alternative energy or cheap dirty energy sources?
How about a phone/laptop/EV that can wirelessly charge through any public WiFi network and pay for that with an anonymous and permissionless micro transaction?
What about a supermarket that didn’t require you to go to a till (see Amazon Go), and does not require you to have an account with Amazon to pay? Ask yourself should every customer have to identify themselves? Is that what you want or do you want to be as anonymous as when you use cash? Which is impossible at a till-free supermarket!
What about a forum that allowed you to send tips and payments for helpful/funny/charitable content instantly in the form of a comment? Oh sorry...that one is already happening
What about uses that don’t already have a solution or aren’t reliant on everyone needing to be Brook Bond?
How do you envisage an entity like Amazon bypassing global regulation to facilitate secret agents? What are the regulations that we need to remove to enable this and how will it impact global trade?
DonkeyApple said:
It really is worth finding out what it is that comprises that cost and whether any of them can be negated. That’s the bit that every article and so far, everyone getting excited has missed.
Interchange fees would be removed entirely. Lightning network has negligible transaction cost and potentially millions (3.5 million I think) of transactions per second. DonkeyApple said:
How do you envisage an entity like Amazon bypassing global regulation to facilitate secret agents? What are the regulations that we need to remove to enable this and how will it impact global trade?
What do you mean? This makes no sense at all. Is using cash at tills 'bypassing global regulation to facilitate secret agents' as well? Or is it a defensible right to be allowed to make a digital transaction for a pint of milk without handing over personal details to the merchant?
And this is the issue. Before you can start dismantling and replacing the current system you really do need to understand the basics of what it is, why it is and where the costs originate from.
There is a very significant undercurrent if the cryptosphere which is basically iFreeman of the Land 2.0. It’s really quite important to remove fringe, political extremism from important matters when looking to see how they can be used to move humanity forward.
Now, the reason why you don’t seem to ever understand some aspects of this is because you haven’t yet taken the time to establish how the Incumbent system works, which you really do need to if you are to seek to replace it.
There is so much human history as well that is not being appreciated. Why do you think it is good for society to be able to trace money? Why is it good to legally define ownership? Have you not noticed the extreme stability that has come from moving humanity precisely in the opposite direction from what you are proposing?
And then there is the tiny matter of who this benefits and why they want this? And the fact that these rules of law were created to specifically protect us all from these extremist loons.
2018 for me will be the year that numerous idiotic crypto ideas were put on my desk from property minibonds, micro payments to the most recent one, a salary system for multinationals. The only people who were behind any of these who knew exactly what they were doing we’re the scam merchants, the true believers all had one thing in common which was zero education and comprehension as to what money actually was, what regulation was or any knowledge of the history of mankind.
The end use for the cryptosphere will not be originating from these uneducated fantasists and Freemen and their crusty army of agitators and lonely believers. It was just emanate from the sane corner of the world.
There is a very significant undercurrent if the cryptosphere which is basically iFreeman of the Land 2.0. It’s really quite important to remove fringe, political extremism from important matters when looking to see how they can be used to move humanity forward.
Now, the reason why you don’t seem to ever understand some aspects of this is because you haven’t yet taken the time to establish how the Incumbent system works, which you really do need to if you are to seek to replace it.
There is so much human history as well that is not being appreciated. Why do you think it is good for society to be able to trace money? Why is it good to legally define ownership? Have you not noticed the extreme stability that has come from moving humanity precisely in the opposite direction from what you are proposing?
And then there is the tiny matter of who this benefits and why they want this? And the fact that these rules of law were created to specifically protect us all from these extremist loons.
2018 for me will be the year that numerous idiotic crypto ideas were put on my desk from property minibonds, micro payments to the most recent one, a salary system for multinationals. The only people who were behind any of these who knew exactly what they were doing we’re the scam merchants, the true believers all had one thing in common which was zero education and comprehension as to what money actually was, what regulation was or any knowledge of the history of mankind.
The end use for the cryptosphere will not be originating from these uneducated fantasists and Freemen and their crusty army of agitators and lonely believers. It was just emanate from the sane corner of the world.
I can’t help but read the above with an intensely nasal drone. Mostly nonsense and you are focusing on the wrong things. Quite the reverse applies to your own understanding. You haven’t taken any time to even use bitcoin, your only experience of it seems to be through financial products created to exploit ‘investors’.
dimots said:
I can’t help but read the above with an intensely nasal drone. Mostly nonsense and you are focusing on the wrong things. Quite the reverse applies to your own understanding. You haven’t taken any time to even use bitcoin, your only experience of it seems to be through financial products created to exploit ‘investors’.
I’ve not used bitcoin? 
OK. This is another all too common issue with the ‘believer’ and that’s that they always have the ‘if you’re not with us, you must be against us’ mentality.
The simple reality is that it is not nonsense nor is it focussing in the wrong things, it is merely highlighting salient details which are inconvenient to those seeking a New World Order and their acolytes. It’s the people who truly believe in something who have the narrowed minds and intolerance to wider views, not those who question the use, merit or benefit.
Why don’t you explain why you want to see a removal of money regulation and what you think that will achieve? Can you cite any time in the history of mankind that moving backwards in finance has produced stability and security?
This would be a genuinely interesting discussion to have around crypto if the ultimate goal is to disable regulation and control. We could start with the drawing of parallels with other extremist movements maybe?
DonkeyApple said:
dimots said:
I can’t help but read the above with an intensely nasal drone. Mostly nonsense and you are focusing on the wrong things. Quite the reverse applies to your own understanding. You haven’t taken any time to even use bitcoin, your only experience of it seems to be through financial products created to exploit ‘investors’.
I’ve not used bitcoin? OK. This is another all too common issue with the ‘believer’ and that’s that they always have the ‘if you’re not with us, you must be against us’ mentality.
The simple reality is that it is not nonsense nor is it focussing in the wrong things, it is merely highlighting salient details which are inconvenient to those seeking a New World Order and their acolytes. It’s the people who truly believe in something who have the narrowed minds and intolerance to wider views, not those who question the use, merit or benefit.
Why don’t you explain why you want to see a removal of money regulation and what you think that will achieve? Can you cite any time in the history of mankind that moving backwards in finance has produced stability and security?
This would be a genuinely interesting discussion to have around crypto if the ultimate goal is to disable regulation and control. We could start with the drawing of parallels with other extremist movements maybe?
I suppose whether you're an advocate of Crypto depends on whether you see the unlinking of national currencies from the gold standard and then allowing ever larger debt cycles on the back of fractional reserve banking as progress or not? That system certainly hasn't done a great deal for "stability and security" over the last 48 years.
DonkeyApple said:
Why don’t you explain why you want to see a removal of money regulation and what you think that will achieve? Can you cite any time in the history of mankind that moving backwards in finance has produced stability and security?
Maybe one way to answer your question is to point to a time in history when politically motivated devaluation of a currency has led to a decline in equality, and increase in conflict, and ultimately the end of empire.We could choose pre-Nero Roman Empire (Nero clipped 10% off the aureus), or Byzantium from the devaluation of the nomisma (which subsequently led to the prevalence of the Arab dinar along the Silk Route). Or most significantly, we can point to the removal of the gold standard in the 20th century, the bloodiest century in history, during which governments no longer merely exhausted their own treasure chest to wage war, but the entire wealth of populations by transferring people's wealth to the state through devaluation.
In 5000 years of economic history, the cycle of decline follows a familiar pattern: a significant devaluation event allows a ruler or government to spend beyond its natural means, the govt continues to devalue the currency to finance spending (a free lunch), inequality rises in society (because the rulers and financiers closest to the money supply are able to spend it before it devalues), tensions and internal conflicts rise, trade barriers and physical barriers are erected, external conflicts rise, and eventually when the currency has been devalued beyond all original recognition, the end of empire. By the 5th century, Roman currency had only 0.02% silver content remaining. By the end of the 20th century, the US dollar had devalued 96% in real terms, and $4 trillion of QE in recent years has accelerated that decline.
If anything, there is a powerful historical argument that govt control of money results in instability. In contrast, centuries of a gold standard has resulted in healthy trade and political stability (Rome, Byzantium, pre-Renaissance Arabia/Persia, 19th century). With that stability you create space for increased investment in for example education, healthcare, the environment.
Harris_I said:
DonkeyApple said:
Why don’t you explain why you want to see a removal of money regulation and what you think that will achieve? Can you cite any time in the history of mankind that moving backwards in finance has produced stability and security?
Maybe one way to answer your question is to point to a time in history when politically motivated devaluation of a currency has led to a decline in equality, and increase in conflict, and ultimately the end of empire.We could choose pre-Nero Roman Empire (Nero clipped 10% off the aureus), or Byzantium from the devaluation of the nomisma (which subsequently led to the prevalence of the Arab dinar along the Silk Route). Or most significantly, we can point to the removal of the gold standard in the 20th century, the bloodiest century in history, during which governments no longer merely exhausted their own treasure chest to wage war, but the entire wealth of populations by transferring people's wealth to the state through devaluation.
In 5000 years of economic history, the cycle of decline follows a familiar pattern: a significant devaluation event allows a ruler or government to spend beyond its natural means, the govt continues to devalue the currency to finance spending (a free lunch), inequality rises in society (because the rulers and financiers closest to the money supply are able to spend it before it devalues), tensions and internal conflicts rise, trade barriers and physical barriers are erected, external conflicts rise, and eventually when the currency has been devalued beyond all original recognition, the end of empire. By the 5th century, Roman currency had only 0.02% silver content remaining. By the end of the 20th century, the US dollar had devalued 96% in real terms, and $4 trillion of QE in recent years has accelerated that decline.
If anything, there is a powerful historical argument that govt control of money results in instability. In contrast, centuries of a gold standard has resulted in healthy trade and political stability (Rome, Byzantium, pre-Renaissance Arabia/Persia, 19th century). With that stability you create space for increased investment in for example education, healthcare, the environment.
I was holding back from commenting on this thread because commenting on PH threads about anything other than cars rarely ends well. Come to think of it, commenting on cars rarely ends well. But anyway, a common theme seems to be crypto bashing on the basis that it's an asset bubble and that completely misses the point.
So to paraphrase what I said earlier, there's an assumption that government has the people's best interests at heart. History doesn't always suggest that to me, especially that of the 20th century. But unfortunately the economics curriculum has had vast swathes of history wiped from it, and instead we are taught that printing and spending is the solution to prosperity. Economic theory has become religious dogma, and economists its priests.
So when a sound monetary system is proposed - one that is robust, finite, has high stock but low growth, and decentralised (as gold once was) - the strongest opponents will be the ones who stand to lose the most: governments (or central banks) and the private sector bankers. Sound money is world changing: it can improve trade flows, cross-border relationships, reduce conflicts, and shift our behaviour away from short time preference to deferred gratification, which in turn improves investment in the future (esp to mitigate climate change).
Is BTC the successor to gold? It's an extraordinary concept, beautifully executed. Unfortunately people either see it as a failed asset bubble or a technically pointless payment system, which is a great shame.
So to paraphrase what I said earlier, there's an assumption that government has the people's best interests at heart. History doesn't always suggest that to me, especially that of the 20th century. But unfortunately the economics curriculum has had vast swathes of history wiped from it, and instead we are taught that printing and spending is the solution to prosperity. Economic theory has become religious dogma, and economists its priests.
So when a sound monetary system is proposed - one that is robust, finite, has high stock but low growth, and decentralised (as gold once was) - the strongest opponents will be the ones who stand to lose the most: governments (or central banks) and the private sector bankers. Sound money is world changing: it can improve trade flows, cross-border relationships, reduce conflicts, and shift our behaviour away from short time preference to deferred gratification, which in turn improves investment in the future (esp to mitigate climate change).
Is BTC the successor to gold? It's an extraordinary concept, beautifully executed. Unfortunately people either see it as a failed asset bubble or a technically pointless payment system, which is a great shame.
Harris_I said:
I was holding back from commenting on this thread because commenting on PH threads about anything other than cars rarely ends well. Come to think of it, commenting on cars rarely ends well. But anyway, a common theme seems to be crypto bashing on the basis that it's an asset bubble and that completely misses the point.
I would say most on here are pretty open - just be because you don't agree with something doesn't mean you aren't open. For example the de-regulation thing. The huge bubble (and this one is not the first one either in it) within a year approximately is a nice example of a lack of regulation and how it lets the herd/ manipulators cause a lot of damage. But apparently we should only be worried about the banks tracking us instead?Or take the security - it's unhackable. Yet that ignores losing/damaging the key (lose it, equipment failure, fire risk, theft etc). Or issues with wallets etc. And if it's gone, it's gone. Unlike the bank covering quite a few of the possible type of losses you might have with cash in a bank.
It's stuff like this that people have an issue with the fanboys like dimots who just massively ignores some majors issues for a few select benefits.
They are not issues with bitcoin that’s why. How does a bank cover the losses it incurs through hacks and theft exactly?
How would a non profit, open source, digital money offer the same protection?
You can build all the bulls
t on top of bitcoin if you really want it. I will sell you a bitcoin and keep it for you so you can never lose it. I’ll charge you to access it, I’ll charge you to store it, I’ll charge you to spend it, and I’ll charge you every time you contact me. Deal?
How would a non profit, open source, digital money offer the same protection?
You can build all the bulls
t on top of bitcoin if you really want it. I will sell you a bitcoin and keep it for you so you can never lose it. I’ll charge you to access it, I’ll charge you to store it, I’ll charge you to spend it, and I’ll charge you every time you contact me. Deal?Harris_I said:
Is BTC the successor to gold? It's an extraordinary concept, beautifully executed. Unfortunately people either see it as a failed asset bubble or a technically pointless payment system, which is a great shame.
Humans are prone to massively overestimate the short term effects and prospects of something and epically underestimate the long term equivalents. This area is an absolutely prime candidate for that.
Most of the people who are involved now will ultimately be regarded as irrelevant obsessives in the future, though they certainly had their role to play at the time.
Condi said:
But the bank pays me to keep my money with them, offers me 85k of protection against the bank going bust, protects me from fraud, and doesnt charge me to move it or spend it.
Seems like a better deal than what you're proposing.
They do all that at no cost? I feel so naive. I had no idea they were so charitable. You have shattered my reality.Seems like a better deal than what you're proposing.
dimots said:
Condi said:
But the bank pays me to keep my money with them, offers me 85k of protection against the bank going bust, protects me from fraud, and doesnt charge me to move it or spend it.
Seems like a better deal than what you're proposing.
They do all that at no cost? I feel so naive. I had no idea they were so charitable. You have shattered my reality.Seems like a better deal than what you're proposing.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff