Goldman Sachs Report Explores Use of Bitcoin as Currency • Hacker News Board

Re: Goldman Sachs Report Explores Use of Bitcoin as Currency

#141

Post by lawlessone » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 10:13 AM UTC

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #14

Bitcoin is not remotely usable as a currency now. The fees are incredible, the confirmation times ridiculous. We need to move on to something more modern like Ethereum, Stellar Lumens, etc. immediately. Asking the current 1 mb blocksize version of Bitcoin to be a currency is like Goldman Sachs writing a report saying they want to run their website on Intel 486 processors. They mention Zimbabwe moving to it as an alte…

>something more modern like Ethereum

it's insecure and its programming language is bad.

Re: Goldman Sachs Report Explores Use of Bitcoin as Currency

#142

Post by mcv » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 10:28 AM UTC

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #14

Bitcoin is not remotely usable as a currency now. The fees are incredible, the confirmation times ridiculous. We need to move on to something more modern like Ethereum, Stellar Lumens, etc. immediately. Asking the current 1 mb blocksize version of Bitcoin to be a currency is like Goldman Sachs writing a report saying they want to run their website on Intel 486 processors. They mention Zimbabwe moving to it as an alte…

There are many cryptocurrency exchanges that don't accept real money (because then they'd be subject to regulation), so to trade there, you need to buy some cryptocurrency elsewhere and move it there before you can trade.

Many sites recommend buying Litecoin or Ether for that rather than Bitcoin, exactly because Bitcoin is so impractical. Bitcoin is failing as a currency even in the cryptocurrency market.

Recently there was a bitcoin conference that stopped accepting bitcoin as payment because processing was too expensive.

Cryptocurrencies might become mainstream payment systems some day, but it's not going to be Bitcoin. Ether is probably the most likely candidate.

Re: Goldman Sachs Report Explores Use of Bitcoin as Currency

#143

Post by ThomPete » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 10:55 AM UTC

dsacco wrote: post #89

ThomPete wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gold has not intrinsic value either. Nothing has to be honest. What it's all based on is trust whether FIAT, Gold or Bitcoin.

> Gold has not intrinsic value either. Nothing has to be honest. Unless you mean something very different from the established consensus of economics when you use the term, “intrinsic value”, both of those statements are false.

Well aware of the economic term that's not the problem.

The claim was that gold have intrinsic value and bitcoin doesn't. But to the extent of discussing intrinsic value in economical terms then bitcoin does too.

In other words you can't both have your cake and eat it.

Either both bitcoin and gold has intrinsic value in economical terms or none of them have in philosophical terms.

The value of them are both based on the trust that the market will accept that value which currently for bitcoin is fluctuating very rapidly and for gold more slowly.

Re: Goldman Sachs Report Explores Use of Bitcoin as Currency

#144

Post by ThomPete » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 10:57 AM UTC

MarkSweep wrote: post #75

bobwaycott wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no intrinsic value in gold. Or any other thing. The only value things have are the exchange and use values humans imbue them with.

I think intrinsic means in this context "valuable for something other than bartering with". Gold has intrinsic value in electronics. It is used for electrical connectors due to its corrosion resistance and conductivity. Tiny golden wires are used in packaging integrated circuits (connecting the ICs to the pins of the chip). Bitcoins have no such intrinsic value. They can only be bartered for something else. Even fiat…

Gold has utility in electronics. It has nothing to do with it's value.

Bitcoin have utility as a store of value.

Re: Goldman Sachs Report Explores Use of Bitcoin as Currency

#145

Post by ThomPete » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 10:59 AM UTC

dullgiulio wrote: post #125

bobwaycott wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no intrinsic value in gold. Or any other thing. The only value things have are the exchange and use values humans imbue them with.

Well, there is its physical essence. Cryptocurrencies are a bit like a DVD vs a movie on Netflix. Everyone is starting a new cryptocurrency nowadays, whereas opening a gold mine is an entirely different matter.

You can start as many cryptos currencies as you want you won't be able to get the price of a bitcoin. You can't because they aren't bitcoin.

It's not at all like Netflix or a DVD.

Re: Goldman Sachs Report Explores Use of Bitcoin as Currency

#146

Post by lawlessone » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 11:06 AM UTC

mrtest002 wrote: post #46

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #14

Bitcoin is not remotely usable as a currency now. The fees are incredible, the confirmation times ridiculous. We need to move on to something more modern like Ethereum, Stellar Lumens, etc. immediately. Asking the current 1 mb blocksize version of Bitcoin to be a currency is like Goldman Sachs writing a report saying they want to run their website on Intel 486 processors. They mention Zimbabwe moving to it as an alte…

I agree BTC is unusable as a currency due to high fees - however, Bitcoin Cash has low fees and because it is dedicated to on-chain scaling, it will continue having low fees as demand for blockspace increases.

No it wont lol,

Re: Goldman Sachs Report Explores Use of Bitcoin as Currency

#147

Post by arekkas » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 11:08 AM UTC

trhway wrote: post #134

SkyMarshal wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While technically Ethereum's ~15tx/s is an order of magnitude more than Bitcoin's 7x max, that's not really what I had in mind, they're effectively equivalent in relation to where they need to be (hundreds or thousands/sec). And as expected Ethereum's tx cost is increasing with usage too. And Vitalik to his credit is clear that Ethereum still has significant work to do on this front: https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/15…

> Bitcoin's 7x max 1 block per 10 minutes with 4000tx per block results in 7tx/s ... well, why not use blocks of 100x size for starters, that would immediately produce 700tx/s. Still not VISA, yet that would be at least something. The main reason it is not going to happen is probably that that the major Bitcoin stakeholders are completely satisfied with the current situation where they are collecting higher and highe…

Literally the comment above:

> On-chain scaling is not sustainable. If you want to handle as many transaction as for example Visa, you would need 1 GB blocks every 10 minutes, which would make the whole blockchain heavily centralized because regular users won't be able to host full nodes to validate payments.

Re: Goldman Sachs Report Explores Use of Bitcoin as Currency

#148

Post by lmm » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 11:09 AM UTC

tananaev wrote: post #38

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #14

Bitcoin is not remotely usable as a currency now. The fees are incredible, the confirmation times ridiculous. We need to move on to something more modern like Ethereum, Stellar Lumens, etc. immediately. Asking the current 1 mb blocksize version of Bitcoin to be a currency is like Goldman Sachs writing a report saying they want to run their website on Intel 486 processors. They mention Zimbabwe moving to it as an alte…

On-chain scaling is not sustainable. If you want to handle as many transaction as for example Visa, you would need 1 GB blocks every 10 minutes, which would make the whole blockchain heavily centralized because regular users won't be able to host full nodes to validate payments. About "adopting" and increasing block size. I think most developers agree that we would need to increase it at some point, but I believe cor…

> If you want to handle as many transaction as for example Visa, you would need 1 GB blocks every 10 minutes, which would make the whole blockchain heavily centralized because regular users won't be able to host full nodes to validate payments.

The whole blockchain is already "centralized" in that sense - almost all mining happens in a small number of large mining pools.

1GB every 10 minutes doesn't sound so bad. Random users probably won't run full chains on their desktops, sure, but the option's available if they want to (in distinct contrast to Lightning). Third-party service providers could run full chains and sell validation against the full chain as a service, in a competitive free market - you don't need anyone's permission to run the full chain, so if prices get high or service gets bad then another provider can enter the market.

Re: Goldman Sachs Report Explores Use of Bitcoin as Currency

#149

Post by ThomPete » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 11:10 AM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #135

bobwaycott wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your definition of “intrinsic value” does not match that of standard economic terminology. I am well aware of that—because using standard economic terminology in this case, that of ascribing the property of intrinsic value to gold, is dead wrong . It’s both a misuse of language and a confusion of terms. Value is a thing agents ascribe to objects; in economic theory, it is a measured result of social relations. It i…

>If everyone decides gold has no value tomorrow, it has no value. There’s nothing intrinsic about it. And then I will buy the entire supply of gold and abuse my market power to force manufacturers to pay exorbitant prices and become a billionaire. Why? Because even if all the speculators have left people still want jewelry and corrosion resistant metals.

You are overestimating the value of gold as a utility.

Think about diamonds. They have utility to and they have value as jewelry, they used to be of almost no value as jewelry.

It's not impossible that we will be able to create to find another metal that corrosion resistant. The value as a jewelry is exactly like bitcoin. It's speculative.

Re: Goldman Sachs Report Explores Use of Bitcoin as Currency

#150

Post by ThomPete » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 11:17 AM UTC

wallace_f wrote: post #122

bobwaycott wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I stated in my other reply to you, I am very well aware “intrinsic value” is a specific economic term. I was speaking exactly to that term—what it means, what it implies—and disputing the logical sense of the term itself. You have twice now in your comments made a host of assumptions about my intentions and the coherence, relevance, and applicability of my statement. You’re ascribing an awful lot of impossible-to-…

The thing your argument is that no one is arguing about these philosophical ideas of intrinsic value. People are just saying: 'if people didn't use gold as money anymore because they lost faith in it, the gold would still be useful (ie as in jewlery, circuit boards, etc).' I mean I could do you one better with this type of argumentation and say 'your idea is wrong because all ideas are social constructs, so all are e…

You could do one better but that would be missing the point.

The claim was that gold have intrinsic value and bitcoin doesn't. But to the extent of discussing intrinsic value in economical terms then bitcoin does too.

In other words you can't both have your cake and eat it.

Either both bitcoin and gold has intrinsic value in economical terms or none of them have in philosophical terms.