Major fall in BTC price (16th Jan)

I used the term Venn overlap. For example in Norn Iron there is a big overlap between those who play the flute in Orange bands and the unionist community. Doesn't mean all or even many unionists play the flute in Orange bands.

Similarly the constituency in Ireland who would like to see Irish become the main language is even larger than I thought since it includes normally sensible folk like your good self. I suspect that the great majority of these hardly spare bitcoin a thought, as you say.

On the other hand if B/S is typical, it seems that those who want bitcoin to stick it to the establishment probably also want English to be put in its place. However one sighting does not make a statistical proof.
 
Last edited:

I am heading for the sun in the next few days I am flying from Belfast staying over night before I fly out I better keep my mouth shut
actually I am spending my bitcoin windfall flight paid in sterling,

According to some posters I will have to spend some time working on my English,
 
Last edited:
I can say for myself that Duke's assertion does not apply to me, but there are some interesting parallels between cryptocurrencies and languages in some ways, as both are examples of networks and will tend towards a long tail distribution. From a purely functional point of view, the optimal situation for the world would be to have a single global language, certainly for business purposes. I suppose you can consider that the additional languages add some cultural value, perhaps a song, poem, play or movie in French has some quality that it could not have in English, but beyond that and preserving history for sentimental reasons what do we gain by having more than one in comparison to the hassle, friction and expense that it creates?

Languages are also a roots movement. While the OED may be an authority that adds new words to the language, ultimately the origin of those words and the extent to which they become common in use is emergent behavior from the population. We have even have forks in language with English forking to US English.

I think languages, like cryptocurrencies, should be left to live or die by their merit. If Irish cannot survive without forcing people to learn it against their will or forcing the tax payer to subsidise its use then the language is more of a burden than a benefit to society.

I have no problem with people choosing to use Irish, no problem with the choice of schooling through Irish, but I would prefer that people were not forced to learn Irish throughout their whole schooling and I would prefer that I am not forced to pay towards the effort of the government to artificially prop up the language.

I hope you can see that in this regard, the Irish language situation is completely at odds with the idea of cryptocurrency.

(I suspect I have set a site-wide record with amount of people that will take issue with this post)

Brendan Burgess said:
It would be a very interesting piece of research to interview the Bitcoin fanatics and try to see if there is a typical profile.
Click to expand...
There are definitely some stereotypes of bitcoiners, but not just one typical profile. For example the zerohedge extreme libertarian is one type and the silicon value tech nerd is another, but these two may have often have little in common with each other otherwise.
 

Very true,

Look at card payments for an example. They have taken time to become a "normal" method of payment, may or may not be linked to your current account or a credit position, exist alongside FIAT etc.

Two important considerations here for me, whether we apply them to cards or cryptos:

  • Is there a benefit to the consumer by using them (cards or cryptos) ?
  • What's the impact on financial institutions, if either are used by consumers ?

.
 
Last edited:
Duke of Marmalade said:
Similarly there is band who would like to see bitcoin usurp the euro as our main currency. The English language serves us very well as does the euro. Also IMHO the fanatics are bound to be disappointed on both counts.
Click to expand...
You seem to be fixated on the idea that it's either FIAT or crypto - but never a combination of both. That's a mistake.
However, as regards the Euro serving us well, have you been around the last few years? How did it serve us (and Greece, Spain, Portugal, Cyprus, Italy, etc.) when we needed to devalue? Furthermore, do you believe that the debasement of your wealth serves you well? That the euro in your pocket right now is losing value. That a shed load of euro have been printed off like magic beans.

If you are a migrant (in Ireland or elsewhere - and lets face it, there are 10's of millions of them) and you want to send money home, does the use of the euro (or other FIAT currency) through existing remittance services serve you well?
If you want to transfer a sum of money internationally (outside of europe), do International Wire Transfers serve you well? ..where a perfectly good transfer can be turned around by the receiving bank, where ridiculous fees have been charged for years, where it takes an inordinate amount of time to effect the transfer, where there is no one unified system (each country seems to use different terminology).
If you are one of the 2 billion plus unbanked in the World, if crypto gives you the opportunity to address this in some way, how could this be anything other than a good thing?


This is not just about whether YOU can find a use case for bitcoin or not. It goes beyond Ireland and the euro. You were fixated before with this nonsense about only qualifying bitcoin use by users who used it instead of FIAT 100% of the time. However, I'll indulge you with an example. A friend of mine worked in Ukraine during the recent 'war'. He got his pay converted to Bitcoin due to the instability of the Hryvnia - and did so despite BTC being banned in Ukraine during that time - the ban made no difference.
 
Last edited:
MrEarl said:
perhaps an appropriate time to mention Bankera .
Click to expand...
Bankera is a progressive idea for sure - and it's clear that those behind it are thinking in terms of a future where both FIAT & Crypto co-exist. (As an investment, I was unable to figure out if it would make for a good investment or not....but then I'm hopeless at coming to a conclusion that I have confidence in with any ICO. It doesn't help that so many of them are vapourware).
 
Hi,

For me, what Bankera are planning makes perfect sense. Offering a "one stop shop" is convenient for the consumer and most likely, also cost effective for them.

However, it's a very ambitious plan and will require regulatory buy in (perhaps the single biggest challenge for them !). I can see it being a problem for the regulators, just like their legitimate concerns for wanting to see retail and investment banks kept separate etc.

I see Bankera as a highly speculative bet, but because it makes sense to me, I'm participating in the ICO, at a modest level. The fact that there's already been over 88,000 contributors to the ICO, cannot be ignored. Then again, neither can the size of the fund they are aiming to raise, and the likely substantial cash burn that come with a project like this.
 
Last edited:
tecate one of the questions that we never got properly answered was "how do you put a value on bitcoin?" Why $10,000? Why not $1? Why not $1M? Fella tells me the price is the price is the price which I didn't find particularly helpful. The nearest I got to an answer was Investopedia which tried to relate the price of bitcoin to its ultimate adoption percentage of World monetary transactions. To get a value near present levels its use as a day to day transactional currency would need to be enormous, way beyond the narrow requirements like that of your Ukrainian friend.

I remember once the Earl of Marmalade was doing some medical thing in Cameroon and he ran out of Cameroon Francs. The Duke had to wire him about €400 worth through Western Union. I think the charge was €20. I was reasonably impressed with the service and the costs. But of course on the face of it bitcoin has the potential to transform this narrow market but it will rely on people believing the fiction that the entry on the blockchain is worth something. I could have texted the Earl saying I the Duke owe you €400. He could then possibly have tried to use this text to get credit in the local Cameroon hostelry, but I doubt it would have worked. But in the end of the day my text is actually worth more than an entry on a blockchain. Satoshi herself was well aware of this fatal flaw - how do you give the entry value? Unless of course the blockchain gets backing from a trusted source but then that defeats the whole purpose of the cult (hope I got that right).

As to Greece et al and the euro can you even stop to imagine what havoc the hugely deflationary bitcoin would have wrought.
 
You seem to be switching back to a different aspect of crypto than what we were discussing but no matter. As you well know - and it has been discussed ad nauseam (and continues to be discussed) - it remains to be seen where Bitcoin (as well as other crypto's) pricing will end up. We are going through a period of price discovery for a technology that is still being developed and where there is no precedent for pricing of same. Once again, you don't seem to be taking into consideration that you are making judgements on a technology that is as yet not fully developed/matured. I have an open mind (and I'm open to the possibility that Brendan may be right on the money) as regards where that pricing will end up - that's the answer to your question. Nobody will be able to provide you with an answer on this that you will be satisfied with (aside from the one you wish to believe)....you'll just have to wait and see how it all pans out.

Duke of Marmalade said:
...way beyond the narrow requirements like that of your Ukrainian friend.
Click to expand...
Eh, my 'Ukrainian friend' was one of 45 million in the same position. Not saying that they all took that option, of course at this early stage they didn't but they would have all had the same requirements...I'd hardly call 45 million 'narrow'. And then of course, there's Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Suriname and Argentina - accounting for another 92 million people. Hardly 'narrow' requirements.

Yeah, I don't think that you were accounting for money made on fx by WU ;-) . The example you gave accounts for 5% - add to that the 4% in FX fees. Furthermore, the example I gave - immigrants sending money back home would involve bigger transfers (or repeat transfers amounting to a greater capital sum) ..WU fees start to mount with that. 230 million people send $500 billion in remittances each year.

Duke of Marmalade said:
But of course on the face of it bitcoin has the potential to transform this narrow market but it will rely on people believing the fiction that the entry on the blockchain is worth something.
Click to expand...
You really think $500 billion constitutes a 'narrow market'...interesting. As regards your fiction ref. the validity of the blockchain and of cryptocurrency, we've been over that - I'll leave that to fester with yourself as I have no time for it.

Duke of Marmalade said:
I could have texted the Earl saying I the Duke owe you €400. He could then possibly have tried to use this text to get credit in the local Cameroon hostelry, but I doubt it would have worked.
Click to expand...
You're spouting nonsense yet again. I already gave you the working example the other day but you choose to filter out anything that doesn't support your narrative.
The Philippines is one of the most significant countries in terms of inward remittances - given the migrational nature of it's population, with some 2 million of them working overseas. Rebit.ph is a bitcoin remittance startup that provides exactly this service. They currently employ 50 people....so you need not worry about it not working - it works - proven beyond doubt.

Duke of Marmalade said:
Satoshi herself was well aware of this fatal flaw - how do you give the entry value? Unless of course the blockchain gets backing from a trusted source but then that defeats the whole purpose.
Click to expand...
Well you've made a big fat claim here so back it up. Where in the white paper does Satoshi point to the crypto he/she designed having a 'fatal' flaw in terms of maintaining a value?


Duke of Marmalade said:
As to Greece et al and the euro can you even stop to imagine what havoc the hugely deflationary bitcoin would have wrought.
Click to expand...
A couple of things;
- You continue to view this as an all or nothing game. It's not. Cryptocurrency will exist alongside FIAT currency.
- There's no form of acceptance that the Euro project is flawed. It was and is in Ireland's case and it most certainly was in Greece's. I'm not saying that we bail out of it - it's such a mess that it's probably best to leave things be. However, if you were voting for Euro adoption tomorrow, would you vote for it?....because I wouldn't.
- Who pays the price for FIAT based monetary policy in situations like what Greece and Ireland found themselves in? Those policies (Q.E. etc.) don't come without a cost.
- Did Greece benefit from cheap German Euro being thrown at it? Did Ireland?
- In 2008/9, when things were rosy in Germany and in the crapper in Ireland, did the ECB account for Ireland (and the rest of the PIGS) or Germany in the policy decisions it made back then?
 
Last edited:
Whats obvious since the economic crisis (for those who were aware of it) is that my currency, the euro, operates in a monopolistic manner and is in the control of a select group of people who have determined that they know how to manage the currency.
They are charged with controling inflation by setting interest rates. They have instead since embarked on a program to control interest rates by setting inflation. The policies have failed, the currency has failed, but hey! Its all good!

Now along comes a concept with the ridiculous notion of developing a trustless peer to peer transacting mechanism and instead of perhaps exploring the possibilities of the system and what it all could mean, some have dismissed it out of hand. Fair enough, thats their perogative.
Im dont proclaim to understand everything that is emerging at this time, but it is clear to me that fundamental change in the way we transact with each other is occuring. If others cannot see that now, they will in time.
 

Well said TBS, I totally agree with your comments. I just made a detailed post on one of the other forum topics specifically mentioning the frustration I have with people just 'dismissing' BTC/Blockchain/Cryptos entirely without even mentioning the technology behind them and how it's a disruptive new industry that is being born!
 
tecate said:
Well you've made a big fat claim here so back it up. Where in the white paper does Satoshi point to the crypto he/she designed having a 'fatal' flaw in terms of maintaining a value?
Click to expand...
I find the bits in bold very telling. Spot the desperation, the frustration - if only it had any value at all for whatever reason. She knows that from Mises theorem it has to have some intrinsic value. But she is not going to throw it all away having so nearly come up with a perfect solution. So, but you can spot the skepticism, she accepts her friend's circular argument that if people see its usefulness for exchange it would get a value. I suggest that as a further thought experiment imagine that bitcoin actually had intrinsic value. Then its price would never vary from its intrinsic value. Its precisely because it has no intrinsic value that its price is all over the place - nobody has any rational reason for giving it a price.

I accept the case you make that there is a substantial demand for what bitcoin claims to deliver. But in the end of the day it delivers nothing but a Permanent, immutable, Transparent, Borderless, Neutral, Programmable, entry on a blockchain and as Satoshi worried - where is the value in that?
 
Last edited:
Duke of Marmalade said:
But in the end of the day it delivers nothing but a verifiable entry on a blockchain
Click to expand...
But it is much more than that!
Permanent, immutable.
Transparent.
Borderless.
Neutral.
Programmable.

Bitcoin delivers all that and more.

It is not cheap yet, neither really fast. But its a work in progress.
Maybe the current price levels have factored in the chances of it being really fast and really cheap in the medium term, opening up many use-cases.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
desperation
Click to expand...

No.

Duke of Marmalade said:
frustration
Click to expand...

Yes.

And it's from frustration that ideas for solutions for great ideas are generated. Those are coming thick and fast, it's possible it still all falls flat on its face, or it's possible that solutions to the problems are found.
Even the notion of all this energy and all these ideas being directed into the crypto space has value by itself. As has been outlined to you on multiple occasions, Bitcoin is not the finished product. But then again neither is Bransons four hour flight from New York to Sydney, neither is Tesla's driverless car, nor is Mars One colony to planet Mars.
But for some reason, people see value in these concepts. I get Bransons and Tesla's idea, but there is no certainty either will come to fruition or have commercial viability.
I don't get Mars One at all, for all sorts of reasons, still doesn't stop people investing and placing value on it.

Your perspective is too narrow in my opinion. You have seen a concept and you want a book value on it, because, well, you know no other way to value to it.

We could put AAM up for discussion and ask to price the value of it? My guess is you and Brendan and Gekko would price it higher than the price I would value for it?
Perhaps, as a side, one of you could tell us the value of AAM and show how you calculated it that.
Then, put it to the market at auction, see how the market price, and the book price fare?

Duke of Marmalade said:
throw it all away having so nearly come up with a perfect solution
Click to expand...

Are these your words or Satoshi's? Because if they are yours, then perhaps you can figure out the time, energy and investment that is now in the crypto space?
 
Last edited:
Duke of Marmalade said:
I find the bits in bold very telling. Spot the desperation, the frustration - if only it had any value at all for whatever reason.
Click to expand...
Are we applying bold in an attempt to accentuate your own narrative perhaps? As regards the desperation and frustration, that's not my reading of it. In fact, without flat out asking Satoshi, nobody can interpret that. Are you a professional mind reader?
Duke of Marmalade said:
She knows that from Mises theorem it has to have some intrinsic value.
Click to expand...
I'd suggest you read it again. You are reading what you want to see - not what is actually there. Yes, Satoshi ruminates over intrinsic value. However, what you're not honest about is that Satoshi also ruminates over the fact that people could affix a value to it. Maybe you should consider the fallacy of intrinsic value also - just to be thorough. By the way, that concept (of intrinsic value) does NOT include paper money. Contrary to what you've stated previously, paper money is backed by jack. If it is not so, why then is it that every year (or couple of years), we have a FIAT currency that unravels? If it had intrinsic value, then that couldn't possibly happen.

Duke of Marmalade said:
But she is not going to throw it all away having so nearly come up with a perfect solution.
Click to expand...
That your Dukeness is once again a complete fiction. You are reading into something you couldn't possibly be able to determine - again to suit your world view.

Duke of Marmalade said:
So, but you can spot the skepticism, she accepts her friend's circular argument that if people see its usefulness for exchange it would get a value.
Click to expand...
Again, your Dukeness - I can't spot any 'skepticism'. All I see is an open discussion. The idea that Satoshi is skeptical you have introduced yourself (as always, to support your narrative). Openminded and inclusive of all factors, yes. There is no information contained in that text which indicates that Satoshi is skeptical.

Satoshi indicates that it would be much easier for BTC to be adopted if it had a more compelling intrinsic value. That's the 'automatic bootstrap' alluded to. However, the rumination continues that Satoshi sees that whilst it's more difficult, if it sits alongside something that doesn't have intrinsic value, then it stands a chance at adoption.
As regards its price being all over the place, this circumstance has not happened in human history. We are going through a phase of price discovery. I always tell you - and I'll keep telling you as it's fundamentally important and perhaps one day it will sink in - that you are disparaging in your assessment of Bitcoin as you will only consider it's status right now. You will not accept that it is in a state of ongoing development, you will not accept that the infrastructure surrounding it continues to be built out. Furthermore, you will not accept that the network effects have not been fully felt yet.
With that, bitcoin has been more volatile in the past than it is today. The affixing of value and trading of same is a cornerstone of civilisation and goes back to the very beginning of civilisation. If you take a breath and back up for a minute, perhaps you might see the bigger picture. Bitcoin (and crypto generally) is young, embryonic and as yet, not fully matured. With time, price discovery will settle and the volatility will dissipate.

You were going so well with that statement until you prejudiced it with a falsehood right at the end. Satoshi didn't 'worry'...Satoshi ruminated over intrinsic value and came to the conclusion that with limited supply, bitcoin stands a chance of adoption when stood next to paper money which has no intrinsic value itself - only sentiment. You can't say for a second that Satoshi 'worried' - where does the word 'worry' appear in the text? I've said Satoshi 'ruminated' as it's as clear as day that this was a thought provoking discussion that was underway.
 
Last edited:
tecate said:
Are we applying bold in an attempt to accentuate your own narrative perhaps?
Click to expand...
Don't be silly. I am using bold to draw attention to the bits I was going to address, a standard approach used by yourself.
Wiki said:
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving";[1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.
Click to expand...
Certainly if someone accused me of making a circular argument I would take it as a put down. Satoshi resigns herself to accepting that the only way to achieve that Holy Grail of "value" is to use a circular argument. (BTW the bold was in the original Wiki and was not inserted to promote my Worldview.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register