Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

remile

New Member
Jul 13, 2016
8
49
Its not fair to compare systems of measurement with currencies.
It's the only way to think of currencies. A currency is a tool for facilitating monetary behavior, and monetary behavior is about measuring delayed reciprocal altruism. Multiple currencies are as pointless and disruptive as multiple measurement standards (yard, meter, fathom, rod, cubit, etc).

As far as friction is concerned, "on-chain" exchanges like shapeshift could not be any frictionless. If Bitpay were to nativly support shapeshift.io, the only added friction is to select which currency you wish to pay with from a dropdown. Heck, a really well written wallet could automatically choose the currency to pay with based on the balances that wallet currently holds. Absolutely zero added friction.
Out of curiosity, did you get passing grades in grade school math?

In any case you've neglected the reality of spreads when it comes to currency exchange. Nobody works for free so there's always a positive cost associated with a conversion. No matter how low this spread can be made, it will always be a positive real number. All positive real numbers (review grade school arithmetic here if necessary) are greater than zero so no amount of shiny UI design will ever make currency conversion "frictionless".

As for the idea of holding a balance in every possible currency that you might want to pay someone in one day - if you think this is a good plan please diversify your savings accordingly. The advancement of the species benefits from the transmission vectors for retarded ideas losing as many financial resources as possible.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
[doublepost=1468501842,1468501064][/doublepost]Gold:BTC < 2
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
Greg bullshitting again. I guess he'd rather have us believe he's running Liquid federated hub for free.

It's the only way to think of currencies. A currency is a tool for facilitating monetary behavior, and monetary behavior is about measuring delayed reciprocal altruism. Multiple currencies are as pointless and disruptive as multiple measurement standards (yard, meter, fathom, rod, cubit, etc).

Out of curiosity, did you get passing grades in grade school math?

In any case you've neglected the reality of spreads when it comes to currency exchange. Nobody works for free so there's always a positive cost associated with a conversion. No matter how low this spread can be made, it will always be a positive real number. All positive real numbers (review grade school arithmetic here if necessary) are greater than zero so no amount of shiny UI design will ever make currency conversion "frictionless".

As for the idea of holding a balance in every possible currency that you might want to pay someone in one day - if you think this is a good plan please diversify your savings accordingly. The advancement of the species benefits from the transmission vectors for retarded ideas losing as many financial resources as possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway and cliff

awemany

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
1,387
5,054
The Hacker News thread linked to by this Reddit post is a delight to read, if you enjoy handwaving and argumentative vaping and some friendly fire. My fav' exchange so far:

So, I'm going to look at my crystal ball and guess that Blockstream will not call their Lightning hub a hub. Perhaps rather a switch? I'll make some more suggestions: "transaction amplificator", "p2p-hyperconductor", "fintech fluxbox". I'm definitely getting ready for some entertaining semantic spoofing.
I have no reason yet to assume Joseph Poon is anywhere near e.g. Greg's level of shenanigans. That said, it is kind of funny that he's arguing along the lines of the network hub/switch distinction. Last I looked, that wasn't really a complaint about forced LN as a solution to scaling.

He might actually believe that there are people out there (and there are probably some) who think that saying 'payment hub' will evoke the good old 'network hub' (i.e. gossip model of network propagation) in people's minds.

However, I'd expect most people to say hub meaning 'meeting place for clearing LN transactions'.

And I have yet to see a good argument that the current form of LN will not end up with such a hub- and spokes topology.

Not that bad if we get multiple of those hubs and spokes. Helping Bitcoin to scale? Sure thing. Solution to crippling effects of 1MB blocks? Nope.
And even JP himself said that LN is independent of the main chain size debate.

And I think that's where we are now: Just at a 'size of the main chain debate', instead of the huge field of 'scaling debate'.

I think and hope that most can see that 2MB is a good compromise of 'still looking for better ways to do it (for the more small-block inclined), dev decentralization, and fending off altcoins and avoiding to turn more users away'.
 

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
I think and hope that most can see that 2MB is a good compromise of 'still looking for better ways to do it (for the more small-block inclined), dev decentralization, and fending off altcoins and avoiding to turn more users away'.
It's only a good compromise if it helps decentralizes control of development and shows up how inflexible the small block proponents are. We need to be more creative or we'll be stuck with 2MB blocks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu and Norway

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410
"It's just additional paper that reduces the value of the existing money." -- @Zarathustra

You're right.

There's a key aspect to the devaluation process you just described, though. It's not instantaneous.

It takes a little bit of time before such process deploy its full effect, so the first ones who access the new printed money could use them before the loss of value (dilution) take place.
I agree too. And I think what's happening today, is that the new fiat never hits the real market. It's not going into investments in new biz, factories, new jobs etc. So it doesn't create any demand, because people can't afford it.

The theory doesn't work. There is no "trickle down" effect. Because all the money goes to sidebets on the mega casino called derivatives.

I wonder how it will play out when the debt bubble bursts.

Fiat usually (always?) ends in hyper inflation. Does this mean that my mortgages goes to zero?

 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
It cannot be printed. You need credit to create it. Power (energy/force/knowledge) = credit. You cannot print credit.
Whenever someone tries to print paper out of thin air (without credit), the paper doesn't represent additional money. It's just additional paper that reduces the value of the existing money.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-489#post-17874
i've been very clear that, as usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

how many times have i said that Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Argentina cannot print w/o causing wild inflation the likes of which we've seen repeatedly over decades? and how many times have i said that it's b/c they don't have functioning bond markets like here in the US? and is there any question that the US and many other well developed nations have indeed printed money out of thin air repeatedly and seemingly gotten away with it up til now b/c they have functioning bond mkts? why do you think our monetary base has expanded from $800B in 2007 to $4.8T now, or about 6x? and the reason they've printed (keyboard 0 entries) is to prop up the huge debt markets that were imploding. i've also said that it looks like all money is debt b/c of the relative huge proportion of it compared to the monetary base. we get away with it b/c of world reserve currency status and military power. it's also tied to petrodollar power. i often wonder how much of it is related to perceptions of how much gold we have in Fort Knox and buried under the Fed Reserve and banks (perhaps nothing?).

but the fact remains that central banks do print to keep the reverse pyramid balanced and prevent toppling over.
 
Last edited:

Erdogan

Active Member
Aug 30, 2015
476
855
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
I have no reason yet to assume Joseph Poon is anywhere near e.g. Greg's level of shenanigans.
Neither do I. That would take quite some doing. The centralization aspect of the terminology is not lost on him, as his reaction to Maxwell's rebuke shows.
However, my opinion for the record is that he has exhibited strong signs of intellectual dishonesty over the course of the Lightning debate. I base this on the arguments I have seen him make in discussions such as the linked one. Intellectual honesty IMO requires saying "I don't know" when you don't know, and admitting that certain problems are unsolved instead of papering them over using marketing-speak.
For someone who is supposedly outside of Blockstream's influence, I don't see a good reason for him to behave like this, yet he does.

Most of us here remember how the hub topology/centralization concerns were initially raised. This was quickly countered by arguments from most LN proponents, including JP, that LN would actually be P2P, decentralized and what have you.

In a momentary flash of candor, JP now describes what believe will happen, hubs, even possibly run by Blockstream. He is immediately admonished by Greg.

I went to http://lightning.network and read again the plain-English blurbs they have on there. Doesn't mention hubs, doesn't mention P2P either. Instead
  • "Decentralized"
  • "Two participants create a ledger entry"
  • "By creating a network of these two-party ledger entries, it is possible to find a path across the network similar to routing packets on the internet."
It just doesn't sit right with me that the lead visionaries basically deny the unsolved aspects and hype their system based on speculative economic properties and downplayed risks.

Quite frankly, LN as an idea sounds great, I would be all in favor if it could work out without endangering Bitcoin. But what I see presented in front of me as a vision of the future right now screams SCAM in more ways than many an altcoin. I'm not talking about the technical aspects, I'm talking about how it is being sold to those who currently use Bitcoin and would continue to do so.
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
i've been very critical of Joseph Poon and still am. i agree with @freetrader that he appears to be intellectually dishonest with his constant hype of LN. his economic thinking is definitely off when it comes to blocksize and centralization. and i've listened to him many times on podcasts and his video presentations at scaling conferences. he sounds like the typical finance guy selling snake oil like what @DanielKrawisz describes.
[doublepost=1468522707,1468521746][/doublepost]LN is not a production platform. it's just a theory. it's ridiculous how kore dev lets a theory get in the way of Bitcoin scaling which should/needs to be done now.

nullc still pumping bitcoinidiocy as his favorite go to metric despite me pointing out it's obvious fallacies:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12092416
 

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
i've been very clear that, as usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

how many times have i said that Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Argentina cannot print w/o causing wild inflation the likes of which we've seen repeatedly over decades? and how many times have i said that it's b/c they don't have functioning bond markets like here in the US? and is there any question that the US and many other well developed nations have indeed printed money out of thin air repeatedly and seemingly gotten away with it up til now b/c they have functioning bond mkts? why do you think our monetary base has expanded from $800B in 2007 to $4.8T now, or about 6x? and the reason they've printed (keyboard 0 entries) is to prop up the huge debt markets that were imploding. i've also said that it looks like all money is debt b/c of the relative huge proportion of it compared to the monetary base. we get away with it b/c of world reserve currency status and military power. it's also tied to petrodollar power. i often wonder how much of it is related to perceptions of how much gold we have in Fort Knox and buried under the Fed Reserve and banks (perhaps nothing?).

but the fact remains that central banks do print to keep the reverse pyramid balanced and prevent toppling over.
"why do you think our monetary base has expanded from $800B in 2007 to $4.8T now, or about 6x?"

Yes, and why do you think total money (=debt) has expanded to 60 trillions?
Because it is backed by credit (trust), which is backed by power, force, knowledge!

"and is there any question that the US and many other well developed nations have indeed printed money out of thin air repeatedly"

No question! It's not printed out of thin air. It's printed out of credit (trust)!

"and the reason they've printed (keyboard 0 entries) is to prop up the huge debt markets that were imploding."

Yes, they can! Because of credit.
Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Russia and alikes cannot. No credit (trust), no money.
It's the credit, stupid.
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
>It's the credit, stupid.

no, it's both credit and the monetary base which it's built off of.
[doublepost=1468524699][/doublepost]we know this b/c in the US you have to accept dollars to extinguish all debt.
 

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
"It's just additional paper that reduces the value of the existing money." -- @Zarathustra

You're right.

There's a key aspect to the devaluation process you just described, though. It's not instantaneous.

It takes a little bit of time before such process deploy its full effect, so the first ones who access the new printed money could use them before the loss of value (dilution) take place.
Yes! Markets are not perfect. The future is not priced in. Otherwise the markets would have priced in all the collapses of the civilizations and the markets before it happened. But they never did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Richy_T