Chat Forum
It is currently Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:25 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1370 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 ... 35  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 7:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 11149
Down $1000 after South Korea cracks down
http://fortune.com/2017/12/28/bitcoin-f ... e-closure/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 8:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8380
Bowens wrote:
Down $1000 after South Korea cracks down
http://fortune.com/2017/12/28/bitcoin-f ... e-closure/


More bullshit. They simply said they're going to enforce the existing rules i.e. KYC and CGT.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2582
I spent Christmas discussing Crypto with my brother in law who works in finance IT, and he got me to read this crypto-skeptical piece: https://hackernoon.com/ten-years-in-nob ... e98c180100

I think it's decent analysis, although it conflates crypto in general with Bitcoin at key points, which is a mistake, or perhaps disingenuous. That said, it highlights, in a backhanded way, the key issue with crypto vs institutional financial control, which is the idea of centralization vs decentralization. It's true that centralized institutions could do what distributed blockchains offer to do in an as yet unknown future, but decentralization is as much a political project as anything else. Bitcoin got where it is not because it is a better medium of exchange than existing ones - it is patently not - but because true believers wanted to take power away from centralized institutions. Even then, there is clearly centralization of power going on in the crypto space, but newer projects explicitly aim to address that, because they are political projects. So crypto is as much as anything an experiment in democracy. It may yet fail, and the forces of centralization and decentralization are increasingly coming into conflict, but I suspect decentralization will win. Regardless, as a liberal, I want it to win, and will continue to express my desire for more democracy through crypto. I want Bitcoin to be euthanized in a managed way so that better projects can allow crypto to reach that potential.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22812
Location: SOB>Todd
Crypto = Democracy? :|


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2582
Yes, distributed banking is closer to democracy than centralized banking. I'd be the first to admit that it's open to the same corrupting forces as centralized banking (Bitcoin is a case in point), but if you actually read what some of the third generation engineers are trying to achieve, they are trying to implement a form of democracy, complete with constitutions and voting rights. The aim to establish greater democracy is clearly stated in OmiseGo and Eos whitepapers, for instance, and some are very quick to shit on price speculators, since they see themselves, first and foremost, as trying to change the world. Nocoiners, of course, will be excluded from this, but they're not really human.


Last edited by pontifex on Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22812
Location: SOB>Todd
I better start buy Crypto currency, FAST.

Thanks man!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2582
Another high quality contribution, full of actual content. Thanks.

Now, would you care to tell us why encouraging decentralization of financial control is not an instance of democratization? I mean, there are arguments to be made, but you might need more than smileys. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:16 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 5007
pontifex wrote:
Yes, distributed banking is closer to democracy than centralized banking. I'd be the first to admit that it's open to the same corrupting forces as centralized banking (Bitcoin is a case in point), but if you actually read what some of the third generation engineers are trying to achieve, they are trying to implement a form of democracy, complete with constitutions and voting rights. The aim to establish greater democracy is clearly stated in OmiseGo and Eos whitepapers, for instance, and some are very quick to shit on price speculators, since they see themselves, first and foremost, as trying to change the world. Nocoiners, of course, will be excluded from this, but they're not really human.


It's an interesting question. I'm not sure if anyone has done a formal comparison of centralised and decentralised financial systems to facilitate a proper comparison. What is behind your preference? I assume it's bit more sophisticated than simply wanting to stick to to the man.

A couple of things occur to me: :yawn:

1. At a high level, and not having thought about this too hard, I imagine that classical view would be that centralised systems offer greater efficiency and greater vulnerability to shock. Is that fair?

2. One strength of a centralised system is an increased ability to regulate and therefore protect vulnerable participants. Would a decentralised system be able to compensate for that?

3. As you allude to above the contest between centralisation and decentralisation is actually often just a cover for recentralisation with new actors in charge. This is in fact the new basis for silicon valley disruption as envisaged by people like Peter Thiel. Why should cryptos be any different?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2582
Santa wrote:
pontifex wrote:
Yes, distributed banking is closer to democracy than centralized banking. I'd be the first to admit that it's open to the same corrupting forces as centralized banking (Bitcoin is a case in point), but if you actually read what some of the third generation engineers are trying to achieve, they are trying to implement a form of democracy, complete with constitutions and voting rights. The aim to establish greater democracy is clearly stated in OmiseGo and Eos whitepapers, for instance, and some are very quick to shit on price speculators, since they see themselves, first and foremost, as trying to change the world. Nocoiners, of course, will be excluded from this, but they're not really human.


It's an interesting question. I'm not sure if anyone has done a formal comparison of centralised and decentralised financial systems to facilitate a proper comparison. What is behind your preference? I assume it's bit more sophisticated than simply wanting to stick to to the man.

Hmmm. Possibly not. I would say sticking it to the man is how Bitcoin got to $15k. Certainly, it's how it got to $1k.

Santa wrote:
A couple of things occur to me: :yawn:

1. At a high level, and not having thought about this too hard, I imagine that classical view would be that centralised systems offer greater efficiency and greater vulnerability to shock. Is that fair?

Yep. That's the argument of the article I posted. Paypal, for instance, offers buyer protection at a price. I have not seen a whitepaper that offers similar protections to buyers, which would mean that buyer protection will be placed entirely onto trust in the seller (for cryptos that aim to offer purchasing goods as their key feature, which most of generation 3 do not).

Santa wrote:
2. One strength of a centralised system is an increased ability to regulate and therefore protect vulnerable participants. Would a decentralised system be able to compensate for that?

I suspect it can be done. The Request Network seems to be trying to do that, but I don't have time to read every whitepaper. At this stage, insurance is a limitation, as far as I'm aware. It need not be indefinitely. What can be done centrally can be coded into formal digital contracts. The question, according to the article I posted, is how digital contracts will interface with human interpretation (natural language etc.). That will be solved at some point, whether by an existing project or one yet to be founded, I don't know.


Last edited by pontifex on Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:29 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 5007
pontifex wrote:
Santa wrote:
pontifex wrote:
Yes, distributed banking is closer to democracy than centralized banking. I'd be the first to admit that it's open to the same corrupting forces as centralized banking (Bitcoin is a case in point), but if you actually read what some of the third generation engineers are trying to achieve, they are trying to implement a form of democracy, complete with constitutions and voting rights. The aim to establish greater democracy is clearly stated in OmiseGo and Eos whitepapers, for instance, and some are very quick to shit on price speculators, since they see themselves, first and foremost, as trying to change the world. Nocoiners, of course, will be excluded from this, but they're not really human.


It's an interesting question. I'm not sure if anyone has done a formal comparison of centralised and decentralised financial systems to facilitate a proper comparison. What is behind your preference? I assume it's bit more sophisticated than simply wanting to stick to to the man.

Hmmm. Possibly not. I would say sticking it to the man is how Bitcoin got to $15k. Certainly, it's how it got to $1k.

Santa wrote:
A couple of things occur to me: :yawn:

1. At a high level, and not having thought about this too hard, I imagine that classical view would be that centralised systems offer greater efficiency and greater vulnerability to shock. Is that fair?

Yep. That's the argument of the article I posted. Paypal, for instance, offers buyer protection at a price. I have not seen a whitepaper that offers similar protections to buyers, which would mean that buyer protection will be placed entirely onto trust in the seller (for cryptos that aim to offer purchasing goods as their key feature, which most of generation 3 do not).

Santa wrote:
2. One strength of a centralised system is an increased ability to regulate and therefore protect vulnerable participants. Would a decentralised system be able to compensate for that?

I suspect it can be done. The Request Network seems to be trying to do that, but I don't have time to read every whitepaper. At this stage, insurance is a limitation, as far as I'm aware. It need not be indefinitely. What can be done centrally can be coded into formal digital contracts.


Thanks. I edited in a third question above if you have the time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:34 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 5007
pontifex wrote:
Santa wrote:
pontifex wrote:
Yes, distributed banking is closer to democracy than centralized banking. I'd be the first to admit that it's open to the same corrupting forces as centralized banking (Bitcoin is a case in point), but if you actually read what some of the third generation engineers are trying to achieve, they are trying to implement a form of democracy, complete with constitutions and voting rights. The aim to establish greater democracy is clearly stated in OmiseGo and Eos whitepapers, for instance, and some are very quick to shit on price speculators, since they see themselves, first and foremost, as trying to change the world. Nocoiners, of course, will be excluded from this, but they're not really human.


It's an interesting question. I'm not sure if anyone has done a formal comparison of centralised and decentralised financial systems to facilitate a proper comparison. What is behind your preference? I assume it's bit more sophisticated than simply wanting to stick to to the man.

Hmmm. Possibly not. I would say sticking it to the man is how Bitcoin got to $15k. Certainly, it's how it got to $1k.

Santa wrote:
A couple of things occur to me: :yawn:

1. At a high level, and not having thought about this too hard, I imagine that classical view would be that centralised systems offer greater efficiency and greater vulnerability to shock. Is that fair?

Yep. That's the argument of the article I posted. Paypal, for instance, offers buyer protection at a price. I have not seen a whitepaper that offers similar protections to buyers, which would mean that buyer protection will be placed entirely onto trust in the seller (for cryptos that aim to offer purchasing goods as their key feature, which most of generation 3 do not).

Santa wrote:
2. One strength of a centralised system is an increased ability to regulate and therefore protect vulnerable participants. Would a decentralised system be able to compensate for that?

I suspect it can be done. The Request Network seems to be trying to do that, but I don't have time to read every whitepaper. At this stage, insurance is a limitation, as far as I'm aware. It need not be indefinitely. What can be done centrally can be coded into formal digital contracts. The question, according to the article I posted, is how digital contracts will interface with human interpretation (natural language etc.). That will be solved at some point, whether by an existing project or one yet to be founded, I don't know.


I might have to look into the digital contracts a bit. The question that springs to mind is whether it will involve a massive series of conditional statements that assign liability and sanction, some kind of NLP as you say (still pretty rudimentary) or some combination.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11402
goeagles wrote:
saffer13 wrote:
Ok I read the first two pages....now that Ethereum is already around $700 I missed that boat at the start of the year as well it seems. So what's the next $1 biggie coming? I'll pay a 5% "finders fee" to the person bringing me unlimited wealth. :thumbup:


Caveat: only risk what you're willing to lose. I'd take a look at Factom and RaiBlocks.


RaiBlocks was like $2.75 when this post was made 10 days ago. Now sitting at $13 and it's not even on any major exchanges yet. The tech is really awesome here. Basically instant, zero fees and negligible energy consumption. They claim the network can do 7k transactions per second. That claim will be tested as it scales, but I made a couple test transfers the other day and they were instant and zero fee.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2582
Quote:
3. As you allude to above the contest between centralisation and decentralisation is actually often just a cover for recentralisation with new actors in charge. This is in fact the new basis for silicon valley disruption as envisaged by people like Peter Thiel. Why should cryptos be any different?

The short answer is, I don't know. As someone who's pretty far into crypto, I think it's clear that centralized power in the form of possession of tokens is being abused. Bitcoin is clearly centrally controlled, and it influences the entire market. The miners are centralised, and they have factions which lead to a form of Bitcoin warfare. (The sooner Bitcoin is phased out, the better, but that will be bloody and should be managed). In response to the centralised control of miners, a number of projects have proposed solutions, from making mining require high memory per chip (ASIC resistance - Vertcoin),to getting rid of them completely (Proof of Stake) and coding constitutions which allow token owners to vote in or out block producers (EOS). I don't have all the answers, but Crypto in general is run by libertarians some of whom are committed to the project of democratizing finance. They are thinking about these questions at a level I'm not capable of, and attempting to implement them in code. That's why I said crypto is a political project at heart which has speculators riding on its coattails.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2582
goeagles wrote:
goeagles wrote:
saffer13 wrote:
Ok I read the first two pages....now that Ethereum is already around $700 I missed that boat at the start of the year as well it seems. So what's the next $1 biggie coming? I'll pay a 5% "finders fee" to the person bringing me unlimited wealth. :thumbup:


Caveat: only risk what you're willing to lose. I'd take a look at Factom and RaiBlocks.


RaiBlocks was like $2.75 when this post was made 10 days ago. Now sitting at $13 and it's not even on any major exchanges yet. The tech is really awesome here. Basically instant, zero fees and negligible energy consumption. They claim the network can do 7k transactions per second. That claim will be tested as it scales, but I made a couple test transfers the other day and they were instant and zero fee.

Actually just sent some of my IOTA into Raiblocks. At like $8. It is very fast. Not at all user-friendly at this point. And I still rate IOTA's manufacturing connections - it's all over the media in Germany, which is a serious player in automation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:49 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 5007
goeagles wrote:
goeagles wrote:
saffer13 wrote:
Ok I read the first two pages....now that Ethereum is already around $700 I missed that boat at the start of the year as well it seems. So what's the next $1 biggie coming? I'll pay a 5% "finders fee" to the person bringing me unlimited wealth. :thumbup:


Caveat: only risk what you're willing to lose. I'd take a look at Factom and RaiBlocks.


RaiBlocks was like $2.75 when this post was made 10 days ago. Now sitting at $13 and it's not even on any major exchanges yet. The tech is really awesome here. Basically instant, zero fees and negligible energy consumption. They claim the network can do 7k transactions per second. That claim will be tested as it scales, but I made a couple test transfers the other day and they were instant and zero fee.


Goeagles you often talk about newer currencies with better tech and I just wanted to understand the thinking. Presumably you're not getting any sort of share in the underlying technology whereby if one of these currencies takes off then the base tech will be used in multiple ways and you will therefore benefit from that. So you're just getting an amount of a currency that will become ubiquitous anyway (assuming it takes off) - is that right?

I guess what I'm asking is do you see yourself as investing in tech in any way?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:51 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 5007
pontifex wrote:
Quote:
3. As you allude to above the contest between centralisation and decentralisation is actually often just a cover for recentralisation with new actors in charge. This is in fact the new basis for silicon valley disruption as envisaged by people like Peter Thiel. Why should cryptos be any different?

The short answer is, I don't know. As someone who's pretty far into crypto, I think it's clear that centralized power in the form of possession of tokens is being abused. Bitcoin is clearly centrally controlled, and it influences the entire market. The miners are centralised, and they have factions which lead to a form of Bitcoin warfare. (The sooner Bitcoin is phased out, the better, but that will be bloody and should be managed). In response to the centralised control of miners, a number of projects have proposed solutions, from making mining require high memory per chip (ASIC resistance - Vertcoin),to getting rid of them completely (Proof of Stake) and coding constitutions which allow token owners to vote in or out block producers (EOS). I don't have all the answers, but Crypto in general is run by libertarians some of whom are committed to the project of democratizing finance. They are thinking about these questions at a level I'm not capable of, and attempting to implement them in code. That's why I said crypto is a political project at heart which has speculators riding on its coattails.


Thanks. If I get time I would like to.look more closely. From my current position of ignorance it looks a little naive.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2582
Santa wrote:
goeagles wrote:
goeagles wrote:
saffer13 wrote:
Ok I read the first two pages....now that Ethereum is already around $700 I missed that boat at the start of the year as well it seems. So what's the next $1 biggie coming? I'll pay a 5% "finders fee" to the person bringing me unlimited wealth. :thumbup:


Caveat: only risk what you're willing to lose. I'd take a look at Factom and RaiBlocks.


RaiBlocks was like $2.75 when this post was made 10 days ago. Now sitting at $13 and it's not even on any major exchanges yet. The tech is really awesome here. Basically instant, zero fees and negligible energy consumption. They claim the network can do 7k transactions per second. That claim will be tested as it scales, but I made a couple test transfers the other day and they were instant and zero fee.


Goeagles you often talk about newer currencies with better tech and I just wanted to understand the thinking. Presumably you're not getting any sort of share in the underlying technology whereby if one of these currencies takes off then the base tech will be used in multiple ways and you will therefore benefit from that. So you're just getting an amount of a currency that will become ubiquitous anyway (assuming it takes off) - is that right?

I guess what I'm asking is do you see yourself as investing in tech in any way?

In some cases, you are speculating on the future value of a means of exchange (Raiblocks is one of them). In other cases, you are buying a piece of a distributed network which may or may not do something - EOS, QASH, LISK etc. are examples thereof. In either case, at this point, you are speculating, and there will be 100 new projects tomorrow which have learnt from existing projects' successes and failures. Timing will be everything, and I suspect 2018 will be the year of sorting.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2582
Santa wrote:
pontifex wrote:
Quote:
3. As you allude to above the contest between centralisation and decentralisation is actually often just a cover for recentralisation with new actors in charge. This is in fact the new basis for silicon valley disruption as envisaged by people like Peter Thiel. Why should cryptos be any different?

The short answer is, I don't know. As someone who's pretty far into crypto, I think it's clear that centralized power in the form of possession of tokens is being abused. Bitcoin is clearly centrally controlled, and it influences the entire market. The miners are centralised, and they have factions which lead to a form of Bitcoin warfare. (The sooner Bitcoin is phased out, the better, but that will be bloody and should be managed). In response to the centralised control of miners, a number of projects have proposed solutions, from making mining require high memory per chip (ASIC resistance - Vertcoin),to getting rid of them completely (Proof of Stake) and coding constitutions which allow token owners to vote in or out block producers (EOS). I don't have all the answers, but Crypto in general is run by libertarians some of whom are committed to the project of democratizing finance. They are thinking about these questions at a level I'm not capable of, and attempting to implement them in code. That's why I said crypto is a political project at heart which has speculators riding on its coattails.


Thanks. If I get time I would like to.look more closely. From my current position of ignorance it looks a little naive.

Maybe. All speculation on an unknown future is potentially naive. I make no bones about the fact that I'm gambling. So far, so good, but I do expect a crash at some point. That said, the democratization of speculation - and I think that's at least something that crypto offers - means that the bubble will grow more, even if it contracts along the way. Or else it could mean that a whole lot of people who are stupider than the average investor have gambled into the hands of smart investors. But I don't think the average investor is all that smart - certainly not smarter than I am. Hubris which may bite me on the bum, to be fair.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2582
I happen to suspect that a smart US fed would have taken a sizeable position in Bitcoin in order to crash the market, once it is big enough to hurt lots of people. I also happen to suspect that even that won't stop the decentralization of finance, any more than the collapse of napster (then emule, then something else) defeated piracy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11402
pontifex wrote:
goeagles wrote:
goeagles wrote:
saffer13 wrote:
Ok I read the first two pages....now that Ethereum is already around $700 I missed that boat at the start of the year as well it seems. So what's the next $1 biggie coming? I'll pay a 5% "finders fee" to the person bringing me unlimited wealth. :thumbup:


Caveat: only risk what you're willing to lose. I'd take a look at Factom and RaiBlocks.


RaiBlocks was like $2.75 when this post was made 10 days ago. Now sitting at $13 and it's not even on any major exchanges yet. The tech is really awesome here. Basically instant, zero fees and negligible energy consumption. They claim the network can do 7k transactions per second. That claim will be tested as it scales, but I made a couple test transfers the other day and they were instant and zero fee.

Actually just sent some of my IOTA into Raiblocks. At like $8. It is very fast. Not at all user-friendly at this point. And I still rate IOTA's manufacturing connections - it's all over the media in Germany, which is a serious player in automation.


Yeah, still definitely not particularly user-friendly and needs better wallets and exchanges, but those things will just make it take off even more. There is probably a world where IOTA and XRB can coexist as XRB has made it explicit that they are only interested in being a fast, zero fee currency whereas IOTA could be more focused on the Internet of Things. I also have some concerns about IOTA, between their fake corporate partnership announcement and some security concerns highlighted by MIT recently. If XRB really takes off, I'll probably buy some IOTA as a hedge, though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2582
goeagles wrote:
pontifex wrote:
goeagles wrote:
goeagles wrote:
saffer13 wrote:
Ok I read the first two pages....now that Ethereum is already around $700 I missed that boat at the start of the year as well it seems. So what's the next $1 biggie coming? I'll pay a 5% "finders fee" to the person bringing me unlimited wealth. :thumbup:


Caveat: only risk what you're willing to lose. I'd take a look at Factom and RaiBlocks.


RaiBlocks was like $2.75 when this post was made 10 days ago. Now sitting at $13 and it's not even on any major exchanges yet. The tech is really awesome here. Basically instant, zero fees and negligible energy consumption. They claim the network can do 7k transactions per second. That claim will be tested as it scales, but I made a couple test transfers the other day and they were instant and zero fee.

Actually just sent some of my IOTA into Raiblocks. At like $8. It is very fast. Not at all user-friendly at this point. And I still rate IOTA's manufacturing connections - it's all over the media in Germany, which is a serious player in automation.


Yeah, still definitely not particularly user-friendly and needs better wallets and exchanges, but those things will just make it take off even more. There is probably a world where IOTA and XRB can coexist as XRB has made it explicit that they are only interested in being a fast, zero fee currency whereas IOTA could be more focused on the Internet of Things. I also have some concerns about IOTA, between their fake corporate partnership announcement and some security concerns highlighted by MIT recently. If XRB really takes off, I'll probably buy some IOTA as a hedge, though.

The 'fake' corporate partnership seems to me like no such thing, but the MIT thing, which was a while ago, is a concern. It was addressed, but the solution raised its own questions. Still if IOTA works, it will be one of only a handful of cryptos with real world applications.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 12:39 pm
Posts: 746
pontifex wrote:
goeagles wrote:
RaiBlocks was like $2.75 when this post was made 10 days ago. Now sitting at $13 and it's not even on any major exchanges yet. The tech is really awesome here. Basically instant, zero fees and negligible energy consumption. They claim the network can do 7k transactions per second. That claim will be tested as it scales, but I made a couple test transfers the other day and they were instant and zero fee.

Actually just sent some of my IOTA into Raiblocks. At like $8. It is very fast. Not at all user-friendly at this point. And I still rate IOTA's manufacturing connections - it's all over the media in Germany, which is a serious player in automation.


Sorry, mada a total hash of the quotes.

What do you see as other cryptos with real world applications with real potential other than Ripple, IOTA and XRB?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Posts: 5470
Location: Stockholm
pontifex wrote:
I spent Christmas discussing Crypto with my brother in law who works in finance IT, and he got me to read this crypto-skeptical piece: https://hackernoon.com/ten-years-in-nob ... e98c180100

I think it's decent analysis, although it conflates crypto in general with Bitcoin at key points, which is a mistake, or perhaps disingenuous. That said, it highlights, in a backhanded way, the key issue with crypto vs institutional financial control, which is the idea of centralization vs decentralization. It's true that centralized institutions could do what distributed blockchains offer to do in an as yet unknown future, but decentralization is as much a political project as anything else. Bitcoin got where it is not because it is a better medium of exchange than existing ones - it is patently not - but because true believers wanted to take power away from centralized institutions. Even then, there is clearly centralization of power going on in the crypto space, but newer projects explicitly aim to address that, because they are political projects. So crypto is as much as anything an experiment in democracy. It may yet fail, and the forces of centralization and decentralization are increasingly coming into conflict, but I suspect decentralization will win. Regardless, as a liberal, I want it to win, and will continue to express my desire for more democracy through crypto. I want Bitcoin to be euthanized in a managed way so that better projects can allow crypto to reach that potential.


I basically stopped reading that article after the first sentance. That may sound narrow minded, but "whatever the opposite of futurist is", followed by total nonsense and I'm done. I've read these kind of arguments a lot, so I'm pretty confident I know what he's going to say.

I'm a newb in all this, but I have been looking into it pretty heavily for a week or so now, and it's obvious the two sides can be divided neatly between "the old" and "the new". To me it seems that the old are threatened. They don't want to see their life's work and "expertise in finance" made redundant in a decade. They're scared shitless. They're extremely defensive and talk the most sh!t, either genuine misunderstandings or complete nonsense. "The new" do seem overly optimistic, but they also come across much more genuine and honest and without personal agenda. And when it comes down to "the old way" vs "the new way", the old way always loses.

I did say this before without realizing how true it was, but I'm even more confident now that cryptocurrency, or something very similar to it, will be the future. Banks and financial institutions will eventually get on board just like newspapers and entertainment got on board with the Internet, which at first they were all saying would never work.

I have become far more skeptical that whatever that this is will be BitCoin. I know they're working on solutions, but there's big problems at the moment with the astronomical fees, transaction times and Chinese miners. I've read a lot of hopeful speculation, but nothing that gives me any real confidence that these are problems that will be overcome before it all comes crashing down. Yet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 10:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 6:52 am
Posts: 3817
Location: Spiritual Guardian
XRP keeps plugging away whilst the others are stationary or falling. Now making up 70% of my coins, when 2 weeks ago it was about 20% (without buying hardly any more). Screw BTC; XRP is where it's at right now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 10:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17455
Mog The Almighty wrote:
I basically stopped reading that article after the first sentance. That may sound narrow minded, but "whatever the opposite of futurist is", followed by total nonsense and I'm done. I've read these kind of arguments a lot, so I'm pretty confident I know what he's going to say.



Classic Ika.

This pretty much encapsulates your worldview in general it seems.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 10:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12391
Location: XPAT CUNT
RuggaBugga wrote:
Mog The Almighty wrote:
I basically stopped reading that article after the first sentance. That may sound narrow minded, but "whatever the opposite of futurist is", followed by total nonsense and I'm done. I've read these kind of arguments a lot, so I'm pretty confident I know what he's going to say.



Classic Ika.

This pretty much encapsulates your worldview in general it seems.


Did you read his comment, or just read the first line and write off his post?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Posts: 5470
Location: Stockholm
Zakar wrote:
RuggaBugga wrote:
Mog The Almighty wrote:
I basically stopped reading that article after the first sentance. That may sound narrow minded, but "whatever the opposite of futurist is", followed by total nonsense and I'm done. I've read these kind of arguments a lot, so I'm pretty confident I know what he's going to say.



Classic Ika.

This pretty much encapsulates your worldview in general it seems.


Did you read his comment, or just read the first line and write off his post?


I see what you did there...

Seriously though. Somethings are just not worth continuing to read. If I open up an article and it starts with, "the reason the dinosaurs were faked" by "flatEarther96", I pretty much know it's not worth continuing to read.

For what it's worth, I did go back and keep reading that article in the end. I got half way the second time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Posts: 5470
Location: Stockholm
dam0 wrote:
XRP keeps plugging away whilst the others are stationary or falling. Now making up 70% of my coins, when 2 weeks ago it was about 20% (without buying hardly any more). Screw BTC; XRP is where it's at right now.


As far as speculative short-term investment. Maybe.

As far as the a potential future currency system, I wouldn't want any global currency to succeed that is managed and owned by a company and run by a CEO. Seems to me to be the opposite of everything cool about the others. I hope it tanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 32434
Location: Planet Rock
Zakar wrote:
RuggaBugga wrote:
Mog The Almighty wrote:
I basically stopped reading that article after the first sentance. That may sound narrow minded, but "whatever the opposite of futurist is", followed by total nonsense and I'm done. I've read these kind of arguments a lot, so I'm pretty confident I know what he's going to say.



Classic Ika.

This pretty much encapsulates your worldview in general it seems.


Did you read his comment, or just read the first line and write off his post?

:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22379
I can't wait for Ika to do a fortnight of solid reading and give us a GUT.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 12:39 pm
Posts: 746
dam0 wrote:
XRP keeps plugging away whilst the others are stationary or falling. Now making up 70% of my coins, when 2 weeks ago it was about 20% (without buying hardly any more). Screw BTC; XRP is where it's at right now.



Just touched $2.50au before falling back a little. I'm up 650% in three weeks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Posts: 5470
Location: Stockholm
ya ya. laugh it up.

I read a lot of stuff, particularly from Peter Schiff and Andreas Antonopoulos. There comes a point you can guess pretty much what they're going to say. Especially if they self-label themselves, "whatever the opposite of a futurist is"; and then start their case with the implication that cryptocurency (or atleast BTC) is good for nothing but funding criminal activity. As if nobody has ever used cash for that, as if bankers haven't been the biggest crooks in history, as if the current finanical system hasn't supported rampant financial fraud, and is any of it is even relevant as to whether cyptocurrencies could succeed or not. My guess is that if I got further down he's also starting banging on about how MtGox was wiped - which has absolutely zero to do with BitCoin intrinsicly, as they also lost millions of dollars, and that cryptocurrency has no real value and is not backed by anything, as if a piece of paper that hasn't been backed by gold since the 60s has any real intrinsic value bar the paper it's printed on. Something is worth exactly how much you can sell or trade it for. And that's true whether it's a bit of paper, a shiny metal, a bit of paper backed by a shiny metal, or a digital currency.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 6:52 am
Posts: 3817
Location: Spiritual Guardian
Mog The Almighty wrote:
dam0 wrote:
XRP keeps plugging away whilst the others are stationary or falling. Now making up 70% of my coins, when 2 weeks ago it was about 20% (without buying hardly any more). Screw BTC; XRP is where it's at right now.


As far as speculative short-term investment. Maybe.

As far as the a potential future currency system, I wouldn't want any global currency to succeed that is managed and owned by a company and run by a CEO. Seems to me to be the opposite of everything cool about the others. I hope it tanks.

I'm really only interested in them as an investment. I have no foot in any camp.

My interest in XRP has come partly from my massively gain and partly because I understand it is being looked at seriously by banks as a cheaper and faster replacement for the SWIFT system. Lets see if it pans out, but for now I am enjoying the ride.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12391
Location: XPAT CUNT
Mog The Almighty wrote:
Zakar wrote:
RuggaBugga wrote:
Mog The Almighty wrote:
I basically stopped reading that article after the first sentance. That may sound narrow minded, but "whatever the opposite of futurist is", followed by total nonsense and I'm done. I've read these kind of arguments a lot, so I'm pretty confident I know what he's going to say.



Classic Ika.

This pretty much encapsulates your worldview in general it seems.


Did you read his comment, or just read the first line and write off his post?


I see what you did there...

Seriously though. Somethings are just not worth continuing to read. If I open up an article and it starts with, "the reason the dinosaurs were faked" by "flatEarther96", I pretty much know it's not worth continuing to read.

For what it's worth, I did go back and keep reading that article in the end. I got half way the second time.


Fwiw, and the reason I responded to RB as I did, is I think broadly you have got the majority of the two article writing camps pretty well summed up. There seems to be precious little moderate and serious review out there, it's either deliriously negative or positive.

I have a great article on banking approach to blockchain tech that I'm unable to share, but to paraphrase 20 pages: At least one clique of Banks are taking blockchain technology almost as seriously as they are taking mifid 2(resource wise). The desire for first mover advantage has forced JVs with unlikely partners. The afforementioned clique sees blockchain as basically making half their operations departments redundant within the next 15-20 years.

What does this mean for the decentralised cryptos? As I see it.

1. Banks have a vested interest in seeing them fail. Take any commented from an IB on cryptos with huge grains of salt.
2. The above point doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong about bubbles etc.
3. Any intelligent analysis of cryptos by the types that normally do such things won't be forthcoming, as they are all locked up working on the inside with extensive NDAs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Posts: 5470
Location: Stockholm
sounds like a totally reasonable analysis to me. I would guesstimate that nobody serious, even ardent btc supporters, think that this isn't a bubble. Only delusional hopefuls with dreams of overnight fortunes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 313
pontifex wrote:
The question, according to the article I posted, is how digital contracts will interface with human interpretation (natural language etc.). That will be solved at some point, whether by an existing project or one yet to be founded, I don't know.

Eh? The whole point of a digital/smart contract is that there is NO interface with human interpretation. You accept the behavior of the contract - effectively expressed as a computer program - as determining the evolution of the contract.

That's the idea anyway. Unless you're an etherium founder and invester in the DAO and someone figures out there was a flaw int he contract and potentially runs off with 150 million dollars. Then you change the rules and fork your currency. Otherwise it's tough shit - you should have been able to foresee that happening by reading the contract source code.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 32434
Location: Planet Rock
Mog The Almighty wrote:
ya ya. laugh it up.

I read a lot of stuff, particularly from Peter Schiff and Andreas Antonopoulos. There comes a point you can guess pretty much what they're going to say. Especially if they self-label themselves, "whatever the opposite of a futurist is"; and then start their case with the implication that cryptocurency (or atleast BTC) is good for nothing but funding criminal activity. As if nobody has ever used cash for that,.

Come on man. You don't have to agree with them but if they are saying that is all it's good for then it's a bit different from cash isn't it. You know the thing you buy a pint of milk with


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2582
That's the point (made in the article). How will an autistic digital contract with a relentless singular logic interact with real humans?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 313
dam0 wrote:
My interest in XRP has come partly from my massively gain and partly because I understand it is being looked at seriously by banks as a cheaper and faster replacement for the SWIFT system. Lets see if it pans out, but for now I am enjoying the ride.

I think you misunderstand the banks' interest in distributed ledger technology. The idea is to use it for clearing/settlement which occurs after SWIFT's involvement in a transfer - which is slow currently if the source and destination bank aren't linked in a common payments body. I'm fairly sure that many proposals in this area are being considered and will be developed - it's an obvious application of distributed ledger technology - but I can guarantee that they will not use any current crytocurrency for the purpose. Why would they? They'll develop a distributed ledger suitable for purpose - i.e. one denominated in real currencies.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 12:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22812
Location: SOB>Todd
Mog The Almighty wrote:
I'm a newb in all this, but I have been looking into it pretty heavily for a week or so now, and it's obvious the two sides can be divided neatly between "the old" and "the new". To me it seems that the old are threatened. They don't want to see their life's work and "expertise in finance" made redundant in a decade.

:lol:
Is this a parody post?!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1370 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 ... 35  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Armchair_Superstar, ASMO, backrow, Banana Man, camroc1, Chuckles1188, clydecloggie, danny_fitz, dargotronV.1, de_Selby, Diego, DOB, Dork Lard, DragsterDriver, duke, earl the beaver, eldanielfire, frankster, Google Adsense [Bot], happyhooker, Hong Kong, Insane_Homer, jezzer, Jumper, Kid A, kingswood, Laurent, Leinsterman, Margin_Walker, Mick Mannock, Morgan14, Mullet 2, nardol, Nieghorn, OttawaKat, Raggs, Rinkals, Rossco, Rumham, Santa, Scrumhead, St_Badger, Steamin Beamin, Stevus55, tabascoboy, Tecumseh, TheBouncer, The Man Without Fear, The Sun God, Turbogoat, unseenwork, usermame, youngsidd and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group