Gyroscopic Investing

dualstow wrote:Cool. Dot IT,-- are you Italian? I have an Italian friend who is gaga for bitcoin. Name starts with E..are you him?

Not him. That wiki just happens to be on .it domain.

bitcoininthevp wrote:

- why can it comes to ZERO?

Most likely scenario is that humans no longer attribute value to a finite, internet-based, money. I dont see this happening.

- Advantages of internet coin?

From a tech perspective:
- Email vs Snail mail
- Wikipedia vs Encyclopedia Britannica
- Netflix vs Blockbuster

Digital internet based products and services replacing traditional products and services. Bitcoin is internet money. Traditional money can be internet money but its got much more friction.

With bitcoin:
- Sovereign money
- Send money without legal concerns
- Send money across borders
- Asset with finite supply
- No physical storage concerns
- Circumvent governmental controls (drugs, oppressive regimes)

- Disadvantages ?

- Technical glitches could occur which are unrecoverable
- Incorrect assumptions about the incentives in bitcoin could cause failures
- Governments could ban it
- Volatile

hi,

ethereum is not safe?

What do you suggest for whom is out now of bitcoins?

Regards

frugal wrote: ethereum is not safe?

I do not believe so. I know the price is rising for ETH and there is a ton of news and buzz.

However, currently there is no supply cap for the # of ETH. So think USD style inflation.

Additionally, ethereum is built on the idea that decentralized smart contracts are something that is better than centralized web services. Right now there are not really any smart contracts that are widely used on ethereum. There is a lot of hand waving here and I have not seen anything practical that people are using. Ive posted in ethereum forums asking for what those people are using on ethereum and no one gives me a good answer and promise "it will happen in the future". Maybe... maybe not.

Ethereum is also changing the way the transactions are processed. (from proof of work to proof of stake if you are interested). This switch hasnt happened in other cryptos before so it is risky. Also cryptos that are on proof of stake have been susceptible to attacks.

Another thing about ethereum that rubbed me the wrong way was that someone took advantage of one of the smart contracts to "steal" money. Instead of living by their mantra "the code is the law", the people running ethereum decided to "undo" the stealing. Essentially they were acting as a government deciding what transactions are good and which are bad. That sort of governance doesnt bode well for a "decentralized", censorship resistant platform.

frugal wrote: What do you suggest for whom is out now of bitcoins?

Im not sure what you mean here, can you clarify?

bitcoininthevp wrote:

frugal wrote: ethereum is not safe?

I do not believe so. I know the price is rising for ETH and there is a ton of news and buzz.

However, currently there is no supply cap for the # of ETH. So think USD style inflation.

Additionally, ethereum is built on the idea that decentralized smart contracts are something that is better than centralized web services. Right now there are not really any smart contracts that are widely used on ethereum. There is a lot of hand waving here and I have not seen anything practical that people are using. Ive posted in ethereum forums asking for what those people are using on ethereum and no one gives me a good answer and promise "it will happen in the future". Maybe... maybe not.

Ethereum is also changing the way the transactions are processed. (from proof of work to proof of stake if you are interested). This switch hasnt happened in other cryptos before so it is risky. Also cryptos that are on proof of stake have been susceptible to attacks.

Another thing about ethereum that rubbed me the wrong way was that someone took advantage of one of the smart contracts to "steal" money. Instead of living by their mantra "the code is the law", the people running ethereum decided to "undo" the stealing. Essentially they were acting as a government deciding what transactions are good and which are bad. That sort of governance doesnt bode well for a "decentralized", censorship resistant platform.

frugal wrote: What do you suggest for whom is out now of bitcoins?

Im not sure what you mean here, can you clarify?

hi friend

for newbies what do you suggest?

Bitcoin for investing a longterm buy and hold ?

Alt coins for daytrading?

Regards!

Why do I get the idea that people are going to lose money on this Scheiss

ochotona wrote:Why do I get the idea that people are going to lose money on this Scheiss

That's ridiculous! Why, look at how safe Beanie Baby investing was!

bitcoininthevp wrote: Another thing about ethereum that rubbed me the wrong way was that someone took advantage of one of the smart contracts to "steal" money. Instead of living by their mantra "the code is the law", the people running ethereum decided to "undo" the stealing. Essentially they were acting as a government deciding what transactions are good and which are bad. That sort of governance doesnt bode well for a "decentralized", censorship resistant platform.

Bitcoin started out the same way. There is some point in time, before which if Satoshi had said "wait, guys, something needs to be changed; here's new code," he could have started it over. Everyone would have gone along with it. No new (real, human) network can start out decentralized. It can become that way eventually.

Kind of parallel to the way civilizations rise, in a way.

Personal monarchy and absolutism > Increasingly law-based rule > Republic or something else more loose-knit > Incredible wealth and success > Empire > Collapse

It's those last two steps (or at least the very last one!) that we'd really like to avoid!

frugal wrote: for newbies what do you suggest?

Bitcoin for investing a longterm buy and hold ?

Alt coins for daytrading?

Im just some guy on the internet. But I like buy and hold, long on bitcoin only.

Libertarian666 wrote:

ochotona wrote:Why do I get the idea that people are going to lose money on this Scheiss

That's ridiculous! Why, look at how safe Beanie Baby investing was!

You guys might enjoy the comparisons of the recent crypto bubbles to the South Sea Bubble of the 1700s.

http://www.coindesk.com/cryptocurrency- ... as-bubble/

LC475 wrote:

bitcoininthevp wrote: Another thing about ethereum that rubbed me the wrong way was that someone took advantage of one of the smart contracts to "steal" money. Instead of living by their mantra "the code is the law", the people running ethereum decided to "undo" the stealing. Essentially they were acting as a government deciding what transactions are good and which are bad. That sort of governance doesnt bode well for a "decentralized", censorship resistant platform.

Bitcoin started out the same way. There is some point in time, before which if Satoshi had said "wait, guys, something needs to be changed; here's new code," he could have started it over. Everyone would have gone along with it. No new (real, human) network can start out decentralized. It can become that way eventually.

Bitcoin started out the same way in that Satoshi could have unilaterally made changes to the project to steal peoples money. But he didnt. If Satoshi did that, it would have consequences. The later he took unilateral action in the project life the worse the consequences.

Vitalik, the ethereum project lead even said the other day: "we can just delete the attackers' deposits and keep going"
https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/stat ... 5593572353

Thats a nice sentiment, but doesnt make for good government-free money.

bitcoininthevp wrote:Bitcoin started out the same way in that Satoshi could have unilaterally made changes to the project to steal peoples money. But he didnt. If Satoshi did that, it would have consequences. The later he took unilateral action in the project life the worse the consequences.

Stealing money is not the only unilateral action he could have taken. He could have sent out an e-mail, "Hey, I discovered a really bad bug in my C code. Here's a new Genesis Block." Everyone would have switched.

Certainly the content and nature of the actions being taken in the early days matters, and is pretty much all that matters (or certainly matters the most). And I agree with you that the actions being taken by ethereum are poor, while those that were taken by bitcoin were better, and that differentiates them tremendously!

My point is just an academic one. Human networks and institutions must start out centralized. Here with bitcoin, we have a network that consciously is setting out to be decentralized. It really, really wants to be decentralized! More than anything else! That's its top priority, and the point of the whole project. And yet even it could not be decentralized in its early, formative stages. It literally could not. Why? Because of the nature of new networks. They are high-trust environments. Everybody trusts each other, and everybody trusts the government (Satoshi).

Machiavelli averred, and correctly I believe, that no new human institution can be created except under absolutist authority. (Discourses on Livy)

LC475 wrote: Machiavelli averred, and correctly I believe, that no new human institution can be created except under absolutist authority. (Discourses on Livy)

Then how was government created?

LC475 wrote:My point is just an academic one. Human networks and institutions must start out centralized. Here with bitcoin, we have a network that consciously is setting out to be decentralized. It really, really wants to be decentralized! More than anything else! That's its top priority, and the point of the whole project. And yet even it could not be decentralized in its early, formative stages. It literally could not. Why? Because of the nature of new networks. They are high-trust environments. Everybody trusts each other, and everybody trusts the government (Satoshi).

If your point is that everything starts out as an idea in some single individuals head (and then their code) and therefore it is centralized in the beginning, then its hard to disagree with that. Im just unclear on the productivity of such a definition and it borders on a truism.

Point of clarification for any onlookers to the conversation:
With respect to bitcoin, the second Satoshi released the source code (on day 0) people could have changed it and run more nodes than Satoshi did and taken over the network. The only reason people followed Satoshi voluntarily was because it was in their best interest to do so. Not because Satoshi had any degree of coercive advantage of force over them.

Libertarian666 wrote:

LC475 wrote: Machiavelli averred, and correctly I believe, that no new human institution can be created except under absolutist authority. (Discourses on Livy)

Then how was government created?

Well, it depends what you mean by government (which can mean many things involving "governance," including wholly voluntary things you would approve of), but as far as states go, the general pattern in history is:

Personal monarchy and absolutism > Increasingly law-based rule > Republic or something else more loose-knit > Incredible wealth and success > Empire > Collapse

bitcoininthevp wrote:If your point is that everything starts out as an idea in some single individuals head (and then their code) and therefore it is centralized in the beginning, then its hard to disagree with that. I'm just unclear on the productivity of such a definition and it borders on a truism.

No, my point is different than that: about networks. Specifically networks made up of and created by humans. A network of one man (coding away in his basement) is not much of a network, right?

The Bitcoin network or community started out to a degree centralized. This even though a specific goal (meta-goal?) of the network was to make themselves into a decentralized network!

It's just interesting.

And it is relevant. Because, you see, decentralization is gone off the internet. Dead. No more. And it might be quite wonderful to bring it back. So that brings up questions like "Why did it die?" and "How could we try again and build something in such a way that it would end up lastingly and sustainably decentralized?" See:

https://medium.com/@urbit/design-of-a-d ... b6b3109902

LC475 wrote:

bitcoininthevp wrote:If your point is that everything starts out as an idea in some single individuals head (and then their code) and therefore it is centralized in the beginning, then its hard to disagree with that. I'm just unclear on the productivity of such a definition and it borders on a truism.

No, my point is different than that: about networks. Specifically networks made up of and created by humans. A network of one man (coding away in his basement) is not much of a network, right?

The Bitcoin network or community started out to a degree centralized. This even though a specific goal (meta-goal?) of the network was to make themselves into a decentralized network!

It's just interesting.

And it is relevant. Because, you see, decentralization is gone off the internet. Dead. No more. And it might be quite wonderful to bring it back. So that brings up questions like "Why did it die?" and "How could we try again and build something in such a way that it would end up lastingly and sustainably decentralized?" See:

https://medium.com/@urbit/design-of-a-d ... b6b3109902

There is indeed something lastingly and sustainably decentralized.

You may have heard of it: it's called "the market".

Libertarian666 wrote:There is indeed something lastingly and sustainably decentralized.

You may have heard of it: it's called "the market".

Yes, I agree. I love the market!

Here, maybe this better explains the idea I'm trying to convey:

http://urbit.org/blog/dao/

WSJ says bitcoin trading fees can be US$5-6 per transaction. So, no buying coffee with it, they point out.

dualstow wrote:WSJ says bitcoin trading fees can be US$5-6 per transaction. So, no buying coffee with it, they point out.

Currently the bitcoin network supply of available transactions is being overwhelmed by demand for those transactions which is causing the spike in transaction costs.

There are plans to add new technological capabilities to bitcoin which will allow for more available transactions. However, change is slow in bitcoin.

Side note: I'm not sure coffee buying is an appropriate use case for bitcoin's decentralized censorship resistant protocol. You can if you would like but I think credit card works better for everyone at this point and bitcoin offers no efficiency for coffee purchasing.

I agree, but wasn't that the original idea for bitcoin?
Not for investing or hoarding, but for commerce?

dualstow wrote:I agree, but wasn't that the original idea for bitcoin?
Not for investing or hoarding, but for commerce?

Yeah. Unless the Bitcoin devs get their act together, Bitcoin will become a clearing system for large players. So you'll hold your bitcoin at a site like Coinbase, and if I use that bitcoin to pay you, another Coinbase customer who owns a coffee shop, that transaction will never actually go on the bitcoin blockchain; Coinbase will just make note of the differences in our accounts there. Due to high fees, the real bitcoin blockchain will only be used for large transactions.

dualstow wrote:I agree, but wasn't that the original idea for bitcoin?
Not for investing or hoarding, but for commerce?

If so, it hasn't fulfilled that requirement.

One of the desirable attributes of money is a reasonably predictable purchasing power, at least in the short run.

I guess that's why I don't think of gold as money.

I was planning to get a few bitcoins and the price is more than what I searched yesterday 1947.45 British Pound. It has increased by 10 Pounds.

dualstow wrote:I guess that's why I don't think of gold as money.

Gold is like Bonds, Bitcoins. Sort of currency but not money.