Bitcoin, I've Been Here Before • Hacker News Board

Re: Bitcoin, I've Been Here Before

#51

Post by nkrisc » Fri, Dec 22, 2017, 11:34 PM UTC

saalweachter wrote: post #40

olalonde wrote: post #20

If this article interested you, you might like https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoinobituaries/ . And here's more or less the same article from 2013 when price was $84: https://whistlinginthewind.org/2013/04/12/the-bitcoin-bubble... "So what now for bitcoin? It will crash and disappear like Pets.com, Leheman Brothers and Anglo Irish Bank, existing only in the memories of economists." "There have been some slight recoveries…

I will say, as a Bitcoin "hater", Bitcoin is far more resilient than many things it might be compared to. With Pets.com or Leheman Brothers, there was a corporate structure that could stop existing. It could go bankrupt, the C-executives could be arrested, something could happen beyond which it'd be fair to say it was over. With Bitcoin, you could have all of the exchanges go defunct, you could have 99% of the miners…

Or just continue on being useful to a small fraction of people. It doesn't have to be this massive market.

Re: Bitcoin, I've Been Here Before

#52

Post by brucephillips » Fri, Dec 22, 2017, 11:35 PM UTC

nadam wrote: post #39

ardit33 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is using bitcoin for any daily transactions.... at this point is just bits... so, it fails as a cash. The the second argument is made, it is a "storage" medium, like gold/silver, etc... At least you could argue that gold/platinium/silver have some intrinsic industrial value, but bitcoin?

The vision of the BTC community is that on-chain scalability for payment has no chance anyway (1MByte is capable of 5 orders of magniutde less tx/sec than VISA), so using second layer methods (like lighting network) to do payment is absolutely inevitable anyway. So they keep blocksize small enough that a regular guy with a regular PC can realistically sync-up the network and become a full node, because they think thi…

You've described how BTC can scale as a currency, but haven't addressed ardit33's first point, which is that not many people seem to want to use it as a currency in the first place.

Re: Bitcoin, I've Been Here Before

#53

Post by xapata » Fri, Dec 22, 2017, 11:36 PM UTC

saalweachter wrote: post #40

olalonde wrote: post #20

If this article interested you, you might like https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoinobituaries/ . And here's more or less the same article from 2013 when price was $84: https://whistlinginthewind.org/2013/04/12/the-bitcoin-bubble... "So what now for bitcoin? It will crash and disappear like Pets.com, Leheman Brothers and Anglo Irish Bank, existing only in the memories of economists." "There have been some slight recoveries…

I will say, as a Bitcoin "hater", Bitcoin is far more resilient than many things it might be compared to. With Pets.com or Leheman Brothers, there was a corporate structure that could stop existing. It could go bankrupt, the C-executives could be arrested, something could happen beyond which it'd be fair to say it was over. With Bitcoin, you could have all of the exchanges go defunct, you could have 99% of the miners…

How is that different than the folks from pets.com starting a new company, like wag.com?

Re: Bitcoin, I've Been Here Before

#54

Post by drizzzler » Fri, Dec 22, 2017, 11:37 PM UTC

ardit33 wrote: post #34

nadam wrote: post #27

These "bitcoin = tulip maina = .com bubble" articles get a bit boring after a while especially if one is relatively deeply involved with the space. This has been discussed at very great depths thousands of times already. What shows how superficial these articles are is that almost all of these articles (and most of the mainstream media articles) single out BTC, (which is less than 50% of total crypto market capitaliz…

Nobody is using bitcoin for any daily transactions.... at this point is just bits... so, it fails as a cash. The the second argument is made, it is a "storage" medium, like gold/silver, etc... At least you could argue that gold/platinium/silver have some intrinsic industrial value, but bitcoin?

This has nothing to do with the parent.

Re: Bitcoin, I've Been Here Before

#55

Post by throwaway2048 » Fri, Dec 22, 2017, 11:38 PM UTC

ardit33 wrote: post #34

nadam wrote: post #27

These "bitcoin = tulip maina = .com bubble" articles get a bit boring after a while especially if one is relatively deeply involved with the space. This has been discussed at very great depths thousands of times already. What shows how superficial these articles are is that almost all of these articles (and most of the mainstream media articles) single out BTC, (which is less than 50% of total crypto market capitaliz…

Nobody is using bitcoin for any daily transactions.... at this point is just bits... so, it fails as a cash. The the second argument is made, it is a "storage" medium, like gold/silver, etc... At least you could argue that gold/platinium/silver have some intrinsic industrial value, but bitcoin?

the value of gold is in no strong way tied to its industrial uses, the concept of "intrinsic value" being what drives market value is silly. If gold had zero industrial usage it would still be almost as valuable as it is now.

After all how much of money's value is due to the fact that it has a decent BTU value per weight in a furnace?

Most money is as purely a "digital fiction" as bitcoin is these days.

Re: Bitcoin, I've Been Here Before

#56

Post by nadam » Fri, Dec 22, 2017, 11:44 PM UTC

brucephillips wrote: post #52

nadam wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vision of the BTC community is that on-chain scalability for payment has no chance anyway (1MByte is capable of 5 orders of magniutde less tx/sec than VISA), so using second layer methods (like lighting network) to do payment is absolutely inevitable anyway. So they keep blocksize small enough that a regular guy with a regular PC can realistically sync-up the network and become a full node, because they think thi…

You've described how BTC can scale as a currency, but haven't addressed ardit33's first point, which is that not many people seem to want to use it as a currency in the first place.

I speculate that at first people want to use it as a store of value, but after a critical amount of holders, and having a lighting network, users and merchants could also adopt it as a currency.

A conservative scenario is that cryptocurrencies will not really become adopted other than store of value: I think even in this case BTC value can go up tremendously. It has benefits over gold: like easy and fast transport accross countries.

Re: Bitcoin, I've Been Here Before

#57

Post by brucephillips » Fri, Dec 22, 2017, 11:44 PM UTC

drizzzler wrote: post #54

ardit33 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is using bitcoin for any daily transactions.... at this point is just bits... so, it fails as a cash. The the second argument is made, it is a "storage" medium, like gold/silver, etc... At least you could argue that gold/platinium/silver have some intrinsic industrial value, but bitcoin?

This has nothing to do with the parent.

It does. There's little point it debating which currency or index of currencies to analyze, when none of them are showing significant traction as a currency.

Re: Bitcoin, I've Been Here Before

#58

Post by moneytide1 » Fri, Dec 22, 2017, 11:46 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #35

moneytide1 wrote: post #32

Bitcoin will be more relevant soon because there is exponentially more gold/silver/platinum/uranium in the solar system than on Sol-3. It would be silly to ship in paper every 2 years so people could trade "cash" while working at the methane harvesters and excavators. Just keep that price constant and we can finally move forward.

I haven't carried paper currency as a matter of course for something like 12 years. Most transaction since the Summer in our small UK business have been "contactless" (debit/credit card), though we still took 2 cheques IIRC. Bitcoin isn't the only alternative to cash.

Then the currency will be debit/credit with your bank which has Assets on Sol-3 and the consistent activity there guarantees a steady value on the value of USD, GBP, EUR, etc.

If things do come to pass and a significant carbon mass is shifted off Sol-3 (human population), then currencies will fluctuate since that is what drives steady value. This value will fluctuate as bitcoin is now doing "if" the abundance of rare-earths is transmitted back to the Origin planet.

I'll say it again: "if".

Re: Bitcoin, I've Been Here Before

#59

Post by moneytide1 » Fri, Dec 22, 2017, 11:46 PM UTC

659087 wrote: post #49

moneytide1 wrote: post #32

Bitcoin will be more relevant soon because there is exponentially more gold/silver/platinum/uranium in the solar system than on Sol-3. It would be silly to ship in paper every 2 years so people could trade "cash" while working at the methane harvesters and excavators. Just keep that price constant and we can finally move forward.

"Soon" is a pretty hilarious term to use here, assuming you're talking about mass scale resource mining in space. We must have very different definitions of that term.

Soon is relative. Most people have their bitcoin charts set on 1h.

LOL

Re: Bitcoin, I've Been Here Before

#60

Post by brucephillips » Fri, Dec 22, 2017, 11:49 PM UTC

nadam wrote: post #56

brucephillips wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've described how BTC can scale as a currency, but haven't addressed ardit33's first point, which is that not many people seem to want to use it as a currency in the first place.

I speculate that at first people want to use it as a store of value, but after a critical amount of holders, and having a lighting network, users and merchants could also adopt it as a currency. A conservative scenario is that cryptocurrencies will not really become adopted other than store of value: I think even in this case BTC value can go up tremendously. It has benefits over gold: like easy and fast transport ac…

> I speculate that at first people want to use it as a store of value, but after a critical amount of holders, and having a lighting network, users and merchants could also adopt it as a currency.

Why would they? Why should I buy things with BTC instead of USD? The fact that I've yet to hear a convincing answer to this most fundamental question is the strongest indicator that BTC is a bubble.

I do agree that BTC could become gold, though.