Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

@awemany

"And while their leader was busy preventing scaling in Bitcoin they adapt the Bitpay scheme.."

Yeah, that's infuriating. Charlie Lee had no problem putting Litecoin ahead of Bitcoin.

 

[VeritasSapere]

@satoshis_sockpuppet In regards to a PoW fork on a PoS blockchain. It is obviously not necessary, since the point of a PoW fork is that the stakeholders rebel against the miners that no longer represent their interests. In a PoS cryptocurrency this separation of interests does not exist, since the stake holders already have direct voting power over the protocol. If these stakeholders disagreed with each other a split would always still be possible. I do not necessarily think that PoS is better, but it is different, I would like to see the experiment play out and if it is not viable a spectacular failure would be instructive, though if these PoS currencies do continue to exist we might have to at least acknowledge their viability and I am sure there will be people out there that prefer PoS for ideological reasons.

@Zarathustra Agreed, it does not inflate the total supply but it can reduce the value of that particular asset, I suppose we where arguing semantics there for a bit.

 

[cypherdoc]

@VeritasSapere

As our resident ethereum expert, can you review for us how the ether premine went and what is the algo for the yearly inflation? Is it set in stone?
[doublepost=1466371656][/doublepost]Lol,

 

[lunar]

Satoshi Gave us this ​

Blockstream and Core want to give us this​

Multiple implementations and free market blockisize will give us this.​

​

 

[cypherdoc]

@VeritasSapere

Don't feel bad; even @balaji sounds confused

[doublepost=1466372120][/doublepost]

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

About ethereum ... The funny Thing is that in crypto You Need to invest go understand and when You Are invested You loose You neutrality ... When ethereum was findet i thought "na, ten million Euro for plain transactions fees for smart contracts that are not coded yet - thats insane." When i tried ethereum, i thought "ok, what was the reason bitcoin is still no. 1? Tradition? Fear? Lazyness?"

For me Money is not about saving, but about using. I like that bitcoin is inflation resistant, but since Money is absolutely irrelevant for the capital, its not that important. More important is what bitcoin, the technology enables.

And ethereum is on full speed exploring it. Lets build crazy smart contracts, lets bring Token on The blockchain ... This is the idea of ethereum. It dwarfs all that ugly Second layer solutions like colored coins etc ...

Eth may fail miserable and let People loose Money. But i like it ... And sorry for typo
[doublepost=1466373778][/doublepost]@Norway yea, i'm far in the north, where its never dark in june ... Last year i catched a wonderfull halibut, this year i have bad luck ... I like it how halibuts dont scale. If You increase the size, the weight quadripples ... So 1 m halibut, 10 Kilogramm, 1,30 meter, 30 Kilogramm, 2 meter, 200 Kilogramm ... It doesnt scale, nature made a terrible error
[doublepost=1466374144,1466373501][/doublepost]And yeah, i hate People that didnt had any opinion ethereum and cone out know with "i told You so, turing completeness on a blockchain insane" ... Even if i'd agree, i'd refuse to support that People and get on The side for ethereum ... I like winning, but i hate cheering the winners and booing the loses

 

[cypherdoc]

Meanwhile, Bitcoin grinding higher

 

[Peter R]

So guys, this thought just occured to me whilst arguing on reddit (and I said as much there):

Why the heck don't we wait with SegWit until Litecoin has implemented and tested it?

After all, the Litecoin dev was very keen on keeping Bitcoin blocksize small (while he's replacing Litecoin's with a dynamic, open limit...).

So he should want to be the guinea pig to test this ...

I think we should argue that SegWit gets a couple of months of testing (at least) on Litecoin before it gets implemented for Bitcoin.

EDIT: Just made a reddit submission: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4oujk3/segwit_should_be_tested_on_litecoin_first/

Great idea! I love it for two reasons:

1. It is actually a good idea in the case that SegWit becomes part of Bitcoin. There are certain attacks that we can only test against once real money is at stake (as we've seen with The DAO). TestNet is not sufficient.

2. It proves whether the market even wants SegWit at all. SegWit is supposed to have a bunch of benefits (beside the questionable increase in transactions per second). But if no other coin with real money at stake wants to add SegWit, then perhaps the purported benefits don't outweigh the cost and complexity.

 

[pekatete]

@Zarathustra I have never been very convinced by this argument. They are separate currencies, they do not inflate each other, in the same way that the Zimbabwe dollar has not inflated the US dollar and the Euro for instance[

Not sure whether this has been rebutted further down as I am still catching up, however, the analogy does not fit as the Zimbabwe dollar is not issued by the Fed reserve (neither the US dollar issued by the ZCB).

EDIT: On the other hand, cryptos are global.

 

[VeritasSapere]

@cypherdoc I would not describe myself as an Ethereum expert, but I can lay out the facts here clearly for everyone to see. First of all this is the issuance model for Ethereum:

Every year, in perpetuity, 18,000,000 ETH will be issued though the mining process. Taking into account both creation of new ETH and loss of existing ETH, in the first year, this represents a monetary inflation rate of 22.4%. In the second year the rate drops to 18.1%. By the tenth year, the rate is 7.0%. In year 38, it hits 1.9%. And in the 64th year, the level of 1.0% is reached. At approximately the same time, the expected rate of annual loss and destruction of ETH will balance the rate of issuance. Under this dynamic, a quasi-steady state is reached and the amount of extant ETH no longer grows. If the demand for ETH is still growing at that point due to an expanding economy, prices will be in a deflationary regime.

It is interesting to point out that this was written in 2014, before Ethereum was even launched and also before the crowdsale. Therefore the issuance rate of Ethereum has always been made very clear. I would certainly have much less confidence in any cryptocurrency that would not make this very clear. In the case of Ethereum at least this has been set in stone so to speak from the beginning.

https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/04/10/the-issuance-model-in-ethereum/

Secondly, the premine and the crowdsale.

The premine itself consisted of seventy million ether which was distributed towards the crowdsale participants. Then there was the twelve million which went directly towards the Ethereum foundation for development. Accounting for a total premine of seventy million Ether. The twelve million Ether that went towards the foundation would account for less then five percent of the total supply after a decade. This second part that went towards the foundation could be considered controversial and arguably unnecessary, there have been several clones of Ethereum with the fundamental premise that the initial distribution of Ethereum was unfair.

I think it is justifiable enough, though it certainly is not the ideal launch in my eyes, though the way I often see it in these cases is that much of it ends up being redistributed on the market anyway and once that happens it can take on more of a life of its own. Ideal launches are surprisingly rare, even Bitcoin is not beyond reproach with the amount of Bitcoins that are held by Satoshi. Though Bitcoin still remains my favorite launch of all time, with all of its mystery, intrigue, mythology and beauty.
[doublepost=1466376448,1466375637][/doublepost]

Not sure whether this has been rebutted further down as I am still catching up, however, the analogy does not fit as the Zimbabwe dollar is not issued by the Fed reserve (neither the US dollar issued by the ZCB).

I think my analogy still holds up, since Ethereum and Bitcoin in this example are issued by different and separate decentralized protocols, which can be considered the equivalent of the Federal reserve or the Zimbabwe central bank in this analogy.

 

[pekatete]

I think my analogy still holds up, since Ethereum and Bitcoin in this example are issued by different and separate decentralized protocols

It only holds with the caveat that cryptos' adoption is universal and total, which, despite the much lauded network effect of (only) bitcoin, is far from true.

EDIT: aka US Dollar adoption is total in the US (so are other currencies in their domains)

 

[VeritasSapere]

@pekatete I would agree that crypto adoption is not total, since total currency adoption can only happen when enforced through the state, cryptocurrencies are free and therefore should reflect that. It was not an assumption I was working off. I think this was resolved in my discussion with @Zarathustra before, which predominately just came down to semantics.

Where I can agree that alternative cryptocurrencies can take value away from Bitcoin through competition while offering more freedom of choice to cater for the diversity of people in the world. I do not however think that this is the same as calling it inflation.

I would think that adoption of the US dollars across the world both as the petrodollar and as a currency around the world must have an effect on its value. Therefore these fiat currencies do compete with each other and on the Forex market as well. At the same time it would still not be accurate to say that the US dollar is inflating the monetary supply of the Euro, for instance.

 

[cypherdoc]

still looking sick:

[doublepost=1466400376,1466399402][/doublepost]

 

[freetrader]

US Dollar adoption is total in the US (so are other currencies in their domains)

If this guy has kept it up he might ruin the USD totality stat ;-)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2016/01/07/this-man-has-been-living-on-bitcoin-for-3-years/
Funny how he's wearing a Litecoin tee in that photo

Compared to that, I think this guy's claim is a little overblown (although it's almost time for the 3-year update on that one):
http://coinjournal.net/antonopoulos-you-can-say-bitcoin-is-not-money-but-ive-been-living-off-it-for-two-years/

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

For me Money is not about saving, but about using.

Why can't we have both?

@Norway yea, i'm far in the north, where its never dark in june ... Last year i catched a wonderfull halibut, this year i have bad luck ... I like it how halibuts dont scale. If You increase the size, the weight quadripples ... So 1 m halibut, 10 Kilogramm, 1,30 meter, 30 Kilogramm, 2 meter, 200 Kilogramm ... It doesnt scale, nature made a terrible error

Hehe. Nature doesn't scale! If Peter Todd ever finds out that volume scales with n^3 we are doomed!
Good luck anyway, these Norwegian halibuts look impressing.

I like winning, but i hate cheering the winners and booing the loses

I was annoyed by Buterium fans overtaking every post on /r/btc so I enjoy it a bit. Apart from my Bitcoin maximalism. That doesn't change my respect for intelligent people in the Ethereum space.

 

[awemany]

2. It proves whether the market even wants SegWit at all. SegWit is supposed to have a bunch of benefits (beside the questionable increase in transactions per second). But if no other coin with real money at stake wants to add SegWit, then perhaps the purported benefits don't outweigh the cost and complexity.

Yes, nicely said. One other thing that I feel is potentially bad about SegWit is the bundling - why does it need to be a package of everything at once?

If the result of SegWit on Litecoin beta testing is that certain parts of it can be dropped or should be simplified, I'd consider that a win for Bitcoin. And even though the reader here might see some snark in my posts, I do honestly think that testing this beast on LTC first is the prudent thing to do.

 

[Tsontar]

Why can't we have both?

The weaker but more utilitarian currency has a much better chance of being "money." The stronger but less useful currency becomes "hoard."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham's_law

 

[sickpig]

I do honestly think that testing this beast [SegWit] on LTC first is the prudent thing to do.

But why LTC devs should accept such a thing? Which kind of power Core devs have on LTC dev?

 

[Dusty]

The weaker but more utilitarian currency has a much better chance of being "money." The stronger but less useful currency becomes "hoard."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham's_law

Gresham's Law applies when a legal tender is in effect. Since there no cryptocoin is legal tender (yet), in fact the its opposite should become true.

EDIT: Spelling

 

[Dusty]

It seems like this DOA affair will require a lot of popcorn:
http://pastebin.com/9MRVDC9h

Ladies and gentleman;

We come to you with great pleasure to now offer 2000% or 20x return contracts. You have to notify us before hand of the amount of tokens you wish to be multiplied and we will send you back a customized bytecode with a SIMPLE guide on how to successfully execute the contract and get your 2000% return from the DAO.

We accept payment in bitcoins or DAO tokens or ether;

Price Breakdown:
1) DAO token balance to multiply = 1,000 or less = 1BTC or 5,000 DAO or 50ETH
Potential Gain for Buyer - 200ETH

2) DAO token balance to multiply = 5,000 or less = 4BTC or 20k DAO, or 200 ETH
Potential Gain - 1000ETH

3) DAO token balance to multiply = 10,000 or less = 6BTC or 30k DAO, or 300ETH
Potential Gain for Buyer - 2000ETH

4) Anything above 10,000 will be considered by our team, and likely contain a decent premium or we may just likely reject it outright, this is aimed moreso at spreading the wealth to the smaller users, although it allows whales to do it as well, but in smaller increments.

**Send us an e-mail if you wish to complete this transaction; goldyloxx@sigaint.org**

**SERIOUS OFFER:

TL;DR

WE ARE SELLING CUSTOMIZED RECURSIVE CALL CONTRACTS OF THE DAO THAT WILL ALLOW YOU TO MULTIPLY YOUR FUNDS BY 20X.

DISCLOSURE: WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF OUR OWN CONTRACTS DEPLOYED WAITING TO COMPLETE A FULL HEIST OF THE DAO, WE NEED OTHER USERS TO PARTICIPATE SO IT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE HARD FORK TO REDISTRIBUTE FUNDS BACK