True. And take those flying machines. Apparently they work because of Bernoulli's law - the pressure in a fluid is inversely proportional to its speed. Personally I have more confidence in Newton - what goes up must come down. That's why I have a fear of flying.Most people don't know how their phones /cars/fridge/mortgages actually work, doesn't stop them using them.
On rule No.1, I don't think you've broken it - as I'm not aware of you being in an argument but a discussion - unless you've decided otherwiseI really don't know where to start with this - I forgot rule number one - never get into an argument about Bitcoin with someone who has money invested in Bitcoin.
I haven't seen anyone suggest that you'd have to choose. This is a common misunderstanding.I'm confident that I do actually know how our current monetary system works, and why, and while its not perfect, I'm happy to stick with it for the time being.
He seems to have addressed the point you made but you've moved on to another. If gold can exist as a monetary asset, so can bitcoin - whilst also being digital and having the ability to be transacted easily. It's going to do just fine in the real utility stakes.You're right, most people don't take the time to investigate how their fridge works, but it actually provides them real utility and won't swallow all their wealth
I agree with most of this. Bitcoin to me is confirmed - because it has been battle tested and it has been setup with a narrow focus. The rest is much more difficult and it's far too early to see how it pans out. I'd imagine a handful of projects will eventually achieve real world use/utility. As regards centralisation, I agree - albeit that there is no such thing as perfect decentralisation. That said, it also depends on use case - some use cases may need a higher level of decentralisation than others.I don't hold Bitcoin, but my training and profession means I do understand a lot of the implementation details (Merkel trees, one-way functions, hash puzzles, Nakamoto consensus/proof of work, etc.).
I'm sceptical about industry adoption of 'crypto', even in the fintech domain - apart from pure crypto plays, most seem to involve centralized gatekeepers stamping out blocks or tokenizing assets. If you trust those centralized players, why do you need blockchain? And if you don't trust anyone, bootstrapping real trust is hard; there have been a lot of initial coin offerings where the founders vanished with the loot.
Which bubble would that be? The one in 2011 or 2013 or 2017 or 2021?I do wonder when the bubble bursts and people lose tens and hundreds of thousands of Euros, how long will it take before the moaning starts?.
Says the guy who is not open to being wrong - and won't acknowledge that there's a conceivable chance that bitcoin continues to expand, grow and mature.Anybody who would have an inkling of how bitcoin works wouldn't touch it with a barge pole, except for a cult few who actually worship at how it works.
And in that simple statement, you quite eloquently summarise why Bitcoin is ultimately a glorified chancers paradise. I can't help but think of the guy down the pub boasting how he won a grand in the bookies today, but never says anything when he's lost €200 a day for the past weekWhich bubble would that be? The one in 2011 or 2013 or 2017 or 2021?
All it shows is that there are hype cycles when it comes to tech, that this coming of age for bitcoin has been entirely retail driven up until very recently. Are there speculators, sure... but they're not all acting like speculators. Furthermore your point doesn't prove bitcoin's offering to lack substance.And in that simple statement, you quite eloquently summarise why Bitcoin is ultimately a glorified chancers paradise. I can't help but think of the guy down the pub boasting how he won a grand in the bookies today, but never says anything when he's lost €200 a day for the past week
All it shows is that there are hype cycles when it comes to tech, that this coming of age for bitcoin has been entirely retail driven up until very recently. Are there speculators, sure... but they're not all acting like speculators. Furthermore your point doesn't prove bitcoin's offering to lack substance.
All it shows is that there are hype cycles when it comes to tech, that this coming of age for bitcoin has been entirely retail driven up until very recently. Are there speculators, sure... but they're not all acting like speculators. Furthermore your point doesn't prove bitcoin's offering to lack substance.
Glad you admit it's tech and not finance. I don't need to prove bitcoin is lacking substance, the onus should be on the promotors to prove that it has some substance and I've yet to meet one who has even half vaguely articulated a semi decent arguement on "substance".All it shows is that there are hype cycles when it comes to tech, that this coming of age for bitcoin has been entirely retail driven up until very recently. Are there speculators, sure... but they're not all acting like speculators. Furthermore your point doesn't prove bitcoin's offering to lack substance.
An admission? You'll have to explain the distinction in context as I'm not sure where you're going with that. Bitcoin at its core is software - and software can be used as a tool. And that tool in this instance can be used as (or fulfil the role of ) digital money/gold and a store of value. In the same way as gold is a metal and yet it can be used as money, store of value, etc.Glad you admit it's tech and not finance.
What 'promotors'? There are folks that see value in it and see a use case for it. However, they are not its 'promotors'. There is no Bitcoin, Inc. - no HQ, no CEO. There was no pre-mine. It's open to anyone to use as they see fit. As Satoshi put it:The onus should be on the promotors to prove that it has some substance and I've yet to meet one who has even half vaguely articulated a semi decent arguement on "substance".
Interestingly, I saw the 19 millionth bitcoin was recently mined so only 2m to go. I wonder what happens with the 21 millionth is mined?. Will another 5 million suddenly be "discovered"?. Will people move to other coins?
That's incredibly unfortunate for you Duke - I like the term myself."Miners" (I hate the term)
We've already seen what happens when miners as a stakeholder group act in their own interests rather than that of the network as a whole. The ultimate say goes to network users in any hardfork scenario. The hard cap is sacrosanct to network users - lifting it would be akin to a group of people all agreeing to cut off their left hands....so, yes it's possible but highly unlikely.Now there must grow a temptation for the miners to go back to the good old days by increasing the amount of coin released each minute.
I am not sure how consensus works but it would definitely be in the miners' interests to change the rules.
Okay, I'll take your word for it. If miners do not have a majority say in the consensus, then the consensus will not agree to give them preferential treatment.We've already seen what happens when miners as a stakeholder group act in their own interests rather than that of the network as a whole. The ultimate say goes to network users in any hardfork scenario. The hard cap is sacrosant to network users - lifting it would be akin to a group of people all agreeing to cut off their left hands....so, yes it's possible but highly unlikely.
The beauty about a public discussion board is that if there is any question on this, someone or other will chime in. Well, so long as they're not censored from doing so at least.Okay, I'll take your word for it. If miners do not have a majority say in the consensus, then the consensus will not agree to give them preferential treatment.
So you could spin up the long over due and long awaited Marmalade Coin tomorrow as a competitor to bitcoin. You could hold 20% of tokens back for the 'community' in a nod towards the power of network effect. You'd be starting from ground zero with just the 'charisma' of the Duke as the only thing to pimp the token. If you put tokens in the hands of all AAM members, you might stand some chance of building a community - and getting some form of network effect going. That's where airdrops come into this. Bitcoin never employed that tactic and it couldn't be utilised from this point onwards either as there are no such coins available. Furthermore, I can't see that such a move would achieve anything for the network at this point - if anything it would damage it - as the hard cap is now a cornerstone of what bitcoin brings to the table.On a related point, what is this "air drop" thing that cropped up recently?
Investopedia said:
- The effects a switch to CBDC would have on a financial system's stability are unknown. For example, there may not be enough central bank liquidity to facilitate withdrawals during a financial crisis.
I'm not sure if I have a proper understanding of this as it relates to a FedCoin or CBDC and the Fed itself. Surely if we're talking about the Fed itself, it can just magic up more USD CBDC. Maybe they're referring to banks with Fed account access? The traditional banking system works on the basis of leverage. There's settlement risk as TradFi is accustomed to settlement time of 1 day or greater. Digital currency settles more or less immediately. If leverage is a key practice in TradFi and settlement time gets cut down, there could be risk in that respect. Perhaps that's what Investopedia is referring to??al Bank not have enough liquidity to facilitate withdrawals? In fact what does withdrawing your CBDC mean? I mean withdrawing your €50 euro note is meaningless and all CBDC is are digital €50 notes.
It doesn't even require any magic. If I go to a Central Bank counter and hand in my €50 note saying I want to withdraw it. They would say "no problem, and give me my €50 back"Surely if we're talking about the Fed itself, it can just magic up more USD CBDC.
But that is just no different from the current situation where a commercial bank must provide Fiat currency on demand, which it may run out of.Maybe they're referring to banks with Fed account access?
I think they may simply have it wrong, not the first time. But maybe some other contributor can make sense of the point.Perhaps that's what Investopedia is referring to??
My understanding is that the difference would be that TradFi banks are more likely to get caught with their trousers down as settlement time is considerably faster than what they're used of - and with a system that depends on leverage, that's a recipe for disaster.But that is just no different from the current situation where a commercial bank must provide Fiat currency on demand, which it may run out of.
Okay, maybe, so they are not referring to the CB having a liquidity problem, which is impossible. Let's leave it at that.My understanding is that the difference would be that TradFi banks are more likely to get caught with their trousers down as settlement time is considerably faster than what they're used of - and with a system that depends on leverage, that's a recipe for disaster.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?