Businesses are cults, CEO's are cult leaders, I want there to be many BCH cults. The only problem is when they get aggressive and territorial. CSW is playing a role, and it's needed. Until someone else fills his role then he needs to be there.
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
@Tom Zander
>I have seen zero evidence to support the idea that enabling op_group and others take even one iota away from the simplicity and the predictability of BCH as a money.
>I don't even see any evidence of that in the Euro/Dollar etc. Your ability to buy stock/bonds with Euros does not take anything away from the simplicity of me to be able to pay my beer with it.
no, there is no evidence. neither do you have any evidence that enabling OPGROUP will help BCH as money or that it might not hurt it as well. there's rarely ANY evidence for ANY of our positions here in this thread, including yours that OPGROUP should be added. most of us here are continuously pontificating, including me. however, i do believe that many of us here do a pretty good job reasoning about these unknowns into the future and thus discussion, for or against, should be encouraged. like we did with the blocksize issue based on reasonable assumptions around economics, technology, and game theory, around which i took a major lead. i see no reason why you would want me to stop me from arguing against what i consider a distracting direction for BCH development. this is a hot topic after-all and i'm not the only one arguing to slow down. this argument has also come from other devs.
>I am focusing on that. Many many others are to. What is your point?
my point is that it doesn't hurt to discuss what might be the optimal direction to take BCH. and yes, what devs might or should focus on. take it as advice. this isn't just a tech experiment. many businesses, users, and investors are equally involved. we just got done going thru this push to increasing complexity in the core code via new script and new OPCODES that destroyed fungibility and hampered onchain growth. we certainly don't want to go thru that again.
>I immesely dislike the implied thought that you somehow think you can tell some people what problems deserve their attention.
why would you think i am telling you what to do? do you think i am naive enough to think that you won't still go off and do what you want to do based on what i say? am i not allowed to express my opinion? you can focus on those non-monetary solutions if you want; i'm just telling you how i think the market will react to you. and that is that it will ignore your work, as the drive towards a simple optimized, streamlined digital money will be it's first priority. feel free to ignore me if you want. i don't care.
>I hope that is not what you are trying to do. Especially in the context where there are literally thousands of people (I'm being conservative) working on Bitcoin Cash related solutions. The vast majority of them on BCH as money.
here's the thing. i hear all the time about how these devs are "just trying to make it better money" when in reality, they just want to introduce the next ICO or altcoin. just b/c you are a dev in the Bitcoin space doesn't make you virtuous. i've seen this implication put forth in the BTC space for years; as if devs have some inside track on freedom, honesty, and liberty. imo, there are thousands of these mediocre to bad devs floating around out there who are just trying to make a buck. open source is not about allowing the kitchen sink to be written into the code. it's about allowing permissionless innovation into the code of good ideas, not bad ideas.
>And you feel that the 3 people working on something else should stop doing that...
i see it more as advice. like i said above, they/you can work on those ideas all you want. i don't care. but i'm afraid you might be wasting your time. take it or leave it.
>I'm afraid you will lose this fight, this is not how open source works.
i can live with that if it happens. but remember that over the last 9y, thousands of permissionless dev innovations have been laid by the wayside. when i had my newsletter years ago, i had to make a hard decision where to tell my subs to invest; the coin, merchants, exchanges, mining, whatever. i had no hesitation in recommending the coin, as it was clear to me what the market wanted; a new, revolutionary, apolitical sound money. and that advice has clearly stood the test of time and become the market winner hands down. now you can ignore all that feedback and go off and innovate around betting on ICO's. but i think you'll waste your time.
>I have seen zero evidence to support the idea that enabling op_group and others take even one iota away from the simplicity and the predictability of BCH as a money.
>I don't even see any evidence of that in the Euro/Dollar etc. Your ability to buy stock/bonds with Euros does not take anything away from the simplicity of me to be able to pay my beer with it.
no, there is no evidence. neither do you have any evidence that enabling OPGROUP will help BCH as money or that it might not hurt it as well. there's rarely ANY evidence for ANY of our positions here in this thread, including yours that OPGROUP should be added. most of us here are continuously pontificating, including me. however, i do believe that many of us here do a pretty good job reasoning about these unknowns into the future and thus discussion, for or against, should be encouraged. like we did with the blocksize issue based on reasonable assumptions around economics, technology, and game theory, around which i took a major lead. i see no reason why you would want me to stop me from arguing against what i consider a distracting direction for BCH development. this is a hot topic after-all and i'm not the only one arguing to slow down. this argument has also come from other devs.
>I am focusing on that. Many many others are to. What is your point?
my point is that it doesn't hurt to discuss what might be the optimal direction to take BCH. and yes, what devs might or should focus on. take it as advice. this isn't just a tech experiment. many businesses, users, and investors are equally involved. we just got done going thru this push to increasing complexity in the core code via new script and new OPCODES that destroyed fungibility and hampered onchain growth. we certainly don't want to go thru that again.
>I immesely dislike the implied thought that you somehow think you can tell some people what problems deserve their attention.
why would you think i am telling you what to do? do you think i am naive enough to think that you won't still go off and do what you want to do based on what i say? am i not allowed to express my opinion? you can focus on those non-monetary solutions if you want; i'm just telling you how i think the market will react to you. and that is that it will ignore your work, as the drive towards a simple optimized, streamlined digital money will be it's first priority. feel free to ignore me if you want. i don't care.
>I hope that is not what you are trying to do. Especially in the context where there are literally thousands of people (I'm being conservative) working on Bitcoin Cash related solutions. The vast majority of them on BCH as money.
here's the thing. i hear all the time about how these devs are "just trying to make it better money" when in reality, they just want to introduce the next ICO or altcoin. just b/c you are a dev in the Bitcoin space doesn't make you virtuous. i've seen this implication put forth in the BTC space for years; as if devs have some inside track on freedom, honesty, and liberty. imo, there are thousands of these mediocre to bad devs floating around out there who are just trying to make a buck. open source is not about allowing the kitchen sink to be written into the code. it's about allowing permissionless innovation into the code of good ideas, not bad ideas.
>And you feel that the 3 people working on something else should stop doing that...
i see it more as advice. like i said above, they/you can work on those ideas all you want. i don't care. but i'm afraid you might be wasting your time. take it or leave it.
>I'm afraid you will lose this fight, this is not how open source works.
i can live with that if it happens. but remember that over the last 9y, thousands of permissionless dev innovations have been laid by the wayside. when i had my newsletter years ago, i had to make a hard decision where to tell my subs to invest; the coin, merchants, exchanges, mining, whatever. i had no hesitation in recommending the coin, as it was clear to me what the market wanted; a new, revolutionary, apolitical sound money. and that advice has clearly stood the test of time and become the market winner hands down. now you can ignore all that feedback and go off and innovate around betting on ICO's. but i think you'll waste your time.
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
With all this arguing over what tokens enable, I'll just say that we better reconcile ourselves with the fact that they are going to happen soon, even if layered / off-chain through XCP which the fork will enable with its increased data carrier size, and new op codes unlocking patented forms of tokenization, and the supposed existing ways of doing them that don't require changes (hinted at by Joannes Vermorel from a comment by someone else that I read on Reddit).
@awemany: Due to the above, I don't think this is somehow going to fly under the regulatory radar, or be considered entirely separately from BCH when BCH is the petri dish in which the tokens live, for want of a better term. I think we will be seeing a multi-faceted regulatory response simply due to this being Bitcoin - permissionless, borderless, better than existing systems in many ways that matter to us. And threatening to countless existing intermediaries all over the world. I don't think we should be basing development decisions based on minimizing the strength of that response. It appears futile to me, and not likely to diminish the response.
If there be suppression by regulators, other jurisdictions will try to reap the rewards. This is observable in practice, perhaps by the U.S. example of New York vs New Hampshire, but also on national level e.g. Japan vs. slower movers. Let's leave that fight to the markets, or rather, fight it locally.
Of course I think we should be highly sensitive to protocol changes that potentially lead to suboptimal design / architectural implications, e.g. scaling drawbacks in the future. We should only change the protocol after extensive analysis of the implications. So I'm in favor of careful and deliberate movement instead of hasty adoption of new ideas.
---
@wrstuv31 : "Businesses are cults, CEO's are cult leaders"
I disagree, even though there are certainly cult-like corporations, and some cults are businesses (looking at you, Scientology). But your statement is generalizing this, and there are significant differences between generally successful business and what most people associate with cults (brainwashing, necessarily charismatic leadership, coercion on thought and behavior).
CEO-worship strikes me as a rather new (and foreign to many) development in business, probably related to the insane wage gaps that have developed between executives and employees further down in the hierarchy. If there even is a strict hierarchy.
@awemany: Due to the above, I don't think this is somehow going to fly under the regulatory radar, or be considered entirely separately from BCH when BCH is the petri dish in which the tokens live, for want of a better term. I think we will be seeing a multi-faceted regulatory response simply due to this being Bitcoin - permissionless, borderless, better than existing systems in many ways that matter to us. And threatening to countless existing intermediaries all over the world. I don't think we should be basing development decisions based on minimizing the strength of that response. It appears futile to me, and not likely to diminish the response.
If there be suppression by regulators, other jurisdictions will try to reap the rewards. This is observable in practice, perhaps by the U.S. example of New York vs New Hampshire, but also on national level e.g. Japan vs. slower movers. Let's leave that fight to the markets, or rather, fight it locally.
Of course I think we should be highly sensitive to protocol changes that potentially lead to suboptimal design / architectural implications, e.g. scaling drawbacks in the future. We should only change the protocol after extensive analysis of the implications. So I'm in favor of careful and deliberate movement instead of hasty adoption of new ideas.
---
@wrstuv31 : "Businesses are cults, CEO's are cult leaders"
I disagree, even though there are certainly cult-like corporations, and some cults are businesses (looking at you, Scientology). But your statement is generalizing this, and there are significant differences between generally successful business and what most people associate with cults (brainwashing, necessarily charismatic leadership, coercion on thought and behavior).
CEO-worship strikes me as a rather new (and foreign to many) development in business, probably related to the insane wage gaps that have developed between executives and employees further down in the hierarchy. If there even is a strict hierarchy.
Last edited:
We don't disagree here at all. I share this vision. BCH should be the base unit of account / reserve asset. The base asset is a "dumb" token as you state.
The FED offers quite a bit more than being a dumb token and this is why has the marketplace built this infrastructure around the dollar.
Take insurance as an example, and most entities would not buy insurance from a firm that could simply walk away with assets (i.e. by physically walking away with gold deposits or making a BCH transaction), and instead will only buy insurance where the FED protects ledger entries and ensures funds exist to back a payout if needed. This is one of a million scenarios where the FED's "smart contracts" are superior to BCH transactions and these scenarios drive most of the dollar's value. Not payments.
The BCH adoption trend seems to largely consist of early Bitcoin adopters who followed BTC and are frustrated by core's incompetence. All of us here fit perfectly in that so I think it is easy to see this as being larger than it actually is.
If you step outside of this for 99% of people BCH looks the same as any other alt coin. I believe in the BCH chain, but it is not a given the same way we viewed the BTC chain in '13.
I'm not entirely sure if we are arguing or if we are in agreement...
My argument is simple payments is not enough, but the changes coming with conditional transactions and similar functionality open up many new use cases and services and that this will drive more value to the BCH chain than payments will.
Your list above plus the May changes I think get us 90% of the way there. From my experimentation with the new OP codes there are a couple minor things that could be added to reduce the involvement of an Oracle, but then I think we are pretty good. I've come out against OP_GROUP as too burdensome on the network and stated we need less disruptive solutions for colored coins to be an option.
funkenstein_the_dwarf
New Member
hoaxChain
New Member
Seriously @awemany?
You are wrong here. Nobel Laureate Prof Sir Craig Satoshi Wright is a huge asset to BCH. CWS has a enormous reputation and a high degree of integrity, therefore his strong association with BCH is a massive positive for the integrity of the coin. Without CWS BCH would be a total laughing stock of a coin.
In addition to this BCH benefits from CWS’s supreme intellect. Did you even see his genius comments on zero confirmation at the conference? CWS is a guy who knows what he is talking about and BCH will benefit from his guidance on technical issues.
Remember the deep scientific debate CWS had with Peter R on block times. This was a crucial scientific debate, when CWS called Peter a “dickhead” and a “duplicitous shit” when CWS was proven right, that really benefited technical development. It would be a huge shame to lose that kind of thing.
funkenstein_the_dwarf
New Member
hoaxChain I lolled. OK so Peter R and CWS are maybe the only two people in the world we can say with confidence are not Satoshi.
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
The actual is the only possible, but nobody knows the actual in advance. There are statistical methods to calculate the future, based on similar situations in the past. But as we all know, complex processes (weather) can just be calculated for the next several days.
"For Diodorus, if a future event is not going to happen, then it was true in the past that it would not happen. Since every past truth is necessary (proposition 1), it was necessary that in the past it would not happen. Since the impossible cannot follow from the possible (proposition 2), it must have always been impossible for the event to occur. Therefore if something will not be true, it will never be possible for it to be true, and thus proposition 3 is shown to be false."
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
Whether some people believe that Elon Musk doesn't have high integritiy and knowledge doesn't have much influence on the fact, that Elon Musk has the most influence in the transition to electric mobility.
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
Bitcoin Cash is a polytheistic cult with many idols: Peter Rizun, CSW, Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, Calvin Ayre, Amaury Séchet, Rick Falkvinge, Emin Gün Sirer, Ryan X. Charles and many more. They come and go.
Last edited:
@freetrader: Excellent points and I was going to write about what you did about cult vs. business leaders. Oh well.
@hoaxChain : "Nobel Laureate". I like it, at least you try to be funny for a change. How's the champaign, though? Still bubbly or did it become stale by now?
@hoaxChain : "Nobel Laureate". I like it, at least you try to be funny for a change. How's the champaign, though? Still bubbly or did it become stale by now?
Christoph Bergmann
Active Member
Not the old game of quoting and arguing. This can go forever ...
I just want to add two things: I have no special interest in adding token to Bitcoin Cash. The technology is here and there are incentives to use it. It will not go away. I agree that Bitcoin Cash should focus on being money, not a allround-tool, and I tend to think that going the allrounder-way will have bad effects on the moinetary function and will be a lost case, as Ethereum already serves this role.
However, if you want to have token - or think they are unevitable - it should be done right, in a way that it is working fine and doesn't suck away, but adds valuue to the main token. I'm a bit frustrated that so many smart people seem to not understand that this must be done in compatibility with consensus. This is an obvious lession of the history of token on BTC and ETH ...
This said, I have a hard time to understand your position against token and ICOs in general. Bitcoin is a technical tool to enable people to globally, decentrally, autonomously receive, store and spend a hard money. This is not short of being a revolution, and it definitely is the most thrilling incarnation of blockchain technology. But if it is used to do the same with shares, securities or any other asset, enable people to globally, decentrally, autonomously receive, store and spend it, this is also huge.
Sure it is full of scammers, which is why I completely stopped to even read the ICO advertising requests, and do rarely report about it. But this doesn't change a bit that ICOs are incredible powerful, dwarfing a decade of crowdfunding in just some months, attacking the very core business of banks, and if you ever partizipated in one, you understand, why: You publish the address of a smart contract, and every human or machine on earth can become a fundraiser by sending some Ether to this address, nobody can stop the smart contract to issue the Ether after being paid, and you can store the asset like you store Bitcoin.
@Christoph Bergmann : I rather tend to see it like cypherdoc. But to maybe move the discussion forward, what exactly is the value in having "on chain" tokens in your opinion?
EDIT: Having a deja-vu here and likely also inadvertently plagiarizing a scheme that absolutely must have been discussed before, what about this scheme to support tokens on BCH that does not need any on-chain changes?:
Token Issuer I creates pub/priv pair for his token issuance and creates a signed message of about the following form:
So, in essence, tokens are their own little chains of signatures that prove transfer of ownership. By convention, the owner is the last signer in the chain and the output at the given address must be unspent.
I do not see a problem supporting such a scheme on SPV wallets and keeping the transfer docs separate but still accessible from a "token-enabled" SPV wallet.
Combining and splitting of tokens should be doable by making the chain-signed docs a DAG where you can provide multiple outputs/inputs, just like Bitcoin itself.
Thoughts?
EDIT: Having a deja-vu here and likely also inadvertently plagiarizing a scheme that absolutely must have been discussed before, what about this scheme to support tokens on BCH that does not need any on-chain changes?:
Token Issuer I creates pub/priv pair for his token issuance and creates a signed message of about the following form:
When the receiver of a token who is the receiver of any amount of Bitcoins on point P1 wants to forward it, he takes the above message and adds his own signature and a line of the sort of:
And so forth. All in some TBD machine-readable form, of course.
So, in essence, tokens are their own little chains of signatures that prove transfer of ownership. By convention, the owner is the last signer in the chain and the output at the given address must be unspent.
I do not see a problem supporting such a scheme on SPV wallets and keeping the transfer docs separate but still accessible from a "token-enabled" SPV wallet.
Combining and splitting of tokens should be doable by making the chain-signed docs a DAG where you can provide multiple outputs/inputs, just like Bitcoin itself.
Thoughts?
Last edited:
Christoph Bergmann
Active Member
@awemany
Let me try to describe the value of onchain / consensus token:
1. The end game scenario is to have all kind of digitalizable assets (estate, securities, shares ...) on a blockchain. This would be a huge disruption of financials and could enable the "google of altcoins" (binance, bittrex) to eat every single stock exchange of the world (similar like Netflix / Amazon eated Video-Shops)
2. This costs a lot of onchain resources without a direct benefit for the native token of a chain (ETH, BCH). This is why many - including me - mistrust(ed) the pontetial of Ethereum. It spends blockchain-resources for token, just to distract economic activity from Ether. Sounds like a recipe for desaster.
3. However, any smart contract for these tokens - like the typical ICO-issuance, but also insurances, options, dividends - does only make sense if you use a natively computable (consens-compatible) token on the chain, ideally the most liquid and accepted - Ether or Bitcoin Cash. When I realized this I had to change my opinion about Ethereum.
4.This qualifies the native token on a blockchain to serve as a perfect "cash on exchanges" - the medium of exchange you use to buy or sell all kind of assets. I don't know how much this is, but I guess it is much more than the amount in circulation of money for payments. It could add trillions to the marketcap.
If you use an external protocol (counterparty), you risk to lose these benefit to another chain's token (counterparty-token), because only this token is consens-compatible with the base of the smart contracts. It could have some parasiticing effect - letting the blockchain pay the resources, but taking the benefit. Using Colored Coins seems better, but does not help so much, as it still does not provide the same security as the blockchain-consensus and makes the token less compatible to everything, to smart contracts (like something derived by the new OP_Codes), and to wallets. I think both is far inferior to how Ethereum handles token, which is confirmed by the history of token on ETH and BTC.
This said, I don't want to argue for OP_Group specifally. I think Bitcoin Cash can be great without consensus-compatible token-functionality, you can do a lot of nice smart contract applications without it (for example, Supply Chaining). There is no need to hurry, and if OP_Group is not considered as secure / risk-controllable, it should not be implemented. Also there might be a lot of solutions to process token in consensus without OP_Group, CSW hinted that the op_codes which will be reactivated will provide enough functionality.
I'm not sure if I understood your model corretly. It should be work to some degree, like 0conf, but it seems to rely on convention of participants to apply with the rules. This convention is not enforced by miners, and you need to rely on non-mining-nodes or other chains to protect against double-spending, sybil-attacks or an arbitrary increase of the amounts of token. I don't think this is adequate for a global financial system of autonomous, direct and decentralized transfers of assets (maybe it would be possible to "freeze" assets by forcing the important economic nodes to accept a double-spend). Also I think it will cause a lot of smart contracting problems, as the contract execution again is not enforced by miners.
Let me try to describe the value of onchain / consensus token:
1. The end game scenario is to have all kind of digitalizable assets (estate, securities, shares ...) on a blockchain. This would be a huge disruption of financials and could enable the "google of altcoins" (binance, bittrex) to eat every single stock exchange of the world (similar like Netflix / Amazon eated Video-Shops)
2. This costs a lot of onchain resources without a direct benefit for the native token of a chain (ETH, BCH). This is why many - including me - mistrust(ed) the pontetial of Ethereum. It spends blockchain-resources for token, just to distract economic activity from Ether. Sounds like a recipe for desaster.
3. However, any smart contract for these tokens - like the typical ICO-issuance, but also insurances, options, dividends - does only make sense if you use a natively computable (consens-compatible) token on the chain, ideally the most liquid and accepted - Ether or Bitcoin Cash. When I realized this I had to change my opinion about Ethereum.
4.This qualifies the native token on a blockchain to serve as a perfect "cash on exchanges" - the medium of exchange you use to buy or sell all kind of assets. I don't know how much this is, but I guess it is much more than the amount in circulation of money for payments. It could add trillions to the marketcap.
If you use an external protocol (counterparty), you risk to lose these benefit to another chain's token (counterparty-token), because only this token is consens-compatible with the base of the smart contracts. It could have some parasiticing effect - letting the blockchain pay the resources, but taking the benefit. Using Colored Coins seems better, but does not help so much, as it still does not provide the same security as the blockchain-consensus and makes the token less compatible to everything, to smart contracts (like something derived by the new OP_Codes), and to wallets. I think both is far inferior to how Ethereum handles token, which is confirmed by the history of token on ETH and BTC.
This said, I don't want to argue for OP_Group specifally. I think Bitcoin Cash can be great without consensus-compatible token-functionality, you can do a lot of nice smart contract applications without it (for example, Supply Chaining). There is no need to hurry, and if OP_Group is not considered as secure / risk-controllable, it should not be implemented. Also there might be a lot of solutions to process token in consensus without OP_Group, CSW hinted that the op_codes which will be reactivated will provide enough functionality.
I'm not sure if I understood your model corretly. It should be work to some degree, like 0conf, but it seems to rely on convention of participants to apply with the rules. This convention is not enforced by miners, and you need to rely on non-mining-nodes or other chains to protect against double-spending, sybil-attacks or an arbitrary increase of the amounts of token. I don't think this is adequate for a global financial system of autonomous, direct and decentralized transfers of assets (maybe it would be possible to "freeze" assets by forcing the important economic nodes to accept a double-spend). Also I think it will cause a lot of smart contracting problems, as the contract execution again is not enforced by miners.
Last edited:
@Christoph Bergmann thanks for the input!
And I think my model above would allow for arbitrary token transfer and allow to test against double spending, sybil-ing or arbitrary inflation. You know what? Let me code a prototype so that I can show how I think it could work.
Here I would counter with: All blockchains are merely conventions! They are conventions allowing to test for certain conditions, however.
And I think my model above would allow for arbitrary token transfer and allow to test against double spending, sybil-ing or arbitrary inflation. You know what? Let me code a prototype so that I can show how I think it could work.
i'm sure you know what i'm really talking about. in fact, i'd like to further reframe this discussion to a more extreme state; that of BCH as an entirely stripped down dumb protocol without any additional OPCODE facility and even without p2sh as being the "ideal" p2p ecash. maybe that's the direction we should be heading in? i'd like to hear opinions as to why this won't work from a macroeconomic position. i haven't heard any compelling arguments yet. please don't quote the WP or Satoshi having already endorsed OPCODES; i can take this theoretical position precisely b/c most of the arguments here are from ppl in favor of expanding/adding new OPCODES beyond the WP to facilitate tokens and altcoins. i just wanna know why ppl think it can't work. to me, it more precisely mirrors the function of the dollar system today.
as well, do you remember how Satoshi specifically wanted to push BitDNS out of the blockchain and off to a sidechain? he didn't want to pollute the protocol with all that embedded data. this eventually became Namecoin. in this sense, there is inconsistency with what CSW wants to do with OPCODES and with what the original Satoshi actually did. so i agree with @awemany that caution is warranted.
i don't see this in their charter at all: https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_12594.htm
the only time i'm aware of where this did play out in US history is with AIG during 2009. this was clearly a one off do or die situation and is actually why we're here; to prevent this type of interconnectivity bailout system ever again. any monetary system should be letting the bad actors go BK, of which AIG was a huge one. they were the center pin around which the CDS/derivative system is built. the way i see it is that is precisely why all these altcoin/metacoin devs want to bolt their competing currency coins onto the BCH miners so they can enjoy the PoW security they provide; esp thru OPGROUP which is changing tx format to verify/validate everything they do. my problem with this model is that those altcoins/tokens (i'm going to start calling them what they are, altcoins not metacoins) compete for investment and will hamper the BCH price appreciation, imo. and long term Mooning of the BCH price is critical for worldwide adoption.
do you know how these ICO's get funded? hedge funds primarily. what they get is a big infusion of capital in return for a premine, ie, a big chunk of pre-allocated altcoins/tokens at a discounted price. probably along the lines of 50%. the goal? everyone involved is looking to drive the price of the token or coin. pure speculation. nothing wrong with speculation but i think this takes it too far if you're going to insinuate this model directly into the BCH protocol. who's liable here in case of another DAO? Andrew? Bitmain? the altcoin devs, who btw, aren't going to have their code reviewed by the BU team i can assure you (given the shitload volume of these things that will result)?
i don't see the mechanism. can you give me an example besides AIG? in fact, the Fed specifically tries to distance themselves verbally from any business outside that of managing the dollar, as they want to appear neutral. what enforces insurance and contracts across the US is the legal system. i don't see any direct ties btwn that and the Fed. BCH is a dart targeted at the heart of central banks in general. nothing more.
you may be right.
it's too early to make this jump. we're only 7m in.
actually, for the purposes of the moment and in the spirit of compromise, we're in complete agreement given that i think May's ABC hard fork should be ok for now. that is, re-enable existing OPCODES and increase blocksize to 32MB. but for arguments sake, i still haven't heard a convincing argument from you or anyone else why BCH couldn't function simply as a totally stripped down dumb token coin AND protocol (no altcoins OR tokens). to me, that is the most pure form of digital cash to replace the dollar.
Last edited:
Use your own argument in 2012: gold vs Bitcoin: people will use and value the currency with greater utility. Its also the BCH vs BTC argument: store of value + transfer > store of value.
WRT your third world argument, read De Soto The Mystery of Capital if you haven't already. In it he argues that a lot more is needed beyond sound money. A way to leverage existing assets is critical. Tokens lets you do that. A way to bypass corrupt and byzantine bureaucracy is extremely important. Tokens lets you do that.
I tend to fall in the cypherdoc camp. I see all of this as a gigantic distraction from building and adopting BCH as peer to peer cash.
I find it particularly distressing that just as soon as we get free of Core and Co. telling us that "Bitcoin as peer to peer cash won't work, but hey, we can use it for this other thing" we get our own BCH devs telling us that "Bitcoin Cash as peer to peer cash isn't enough, but hey, we can use it for this other thing"
That said, it is true that one popular use case of blockchains has turned out to require tokenization, and that's ICOs.
Now, what I want is to see is prices of real goods and services in BCH. What tokenization does is hopefully prices other tokens in BCH. Well ok. I guess that's a parallel adoption path. But afaic it's a hopelessly myopic first world problem getting solved at the cost of not doing other things.
Hopefully we'll quit bikeshedding tokens by May and can get back to working on "peer to peer cash" in June.
I find it particularly distressing that just as soon as we get free of Core and Co. telling us that "Bitcoin as peer to peer cash won't work, but hey, we can use it for this other thing" we get our own BCH devs telling us that "Bitcoin Cash as peer to peer cash isn't enough, but hey, we can use it for this other thing"
That said, it is true that one popular use case of blockchains has turned out to require tokenization, and that's ICOs.
Now, what I want is to see is prices of real goods and services in BCH. What tokenization does is hopefully prices other tokens in BCH. Well ok. I guess that's a parallel adoption path. But afaic it's a hopelessly myopic first world problem getting solved at the cost of not doing other things.
Hopefully we'll quit bikeshedding tokens by May and can get back to working on "peer to peer cash" in June.