• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Bitcoin - Part 3

Samson said:
Meanwhile the periodic table is stable with additions hard to add.

Cryptos not so difficult.
Click to expand...
psionl0 on 22nd May 2020 said:
This exchange took place 6 months ago.
psionl0 said:
Other than the highlighted, I can't make any sense out of this word salad.

You seem to insist that if you divide a finite crypto market by infinite cryptos, you get $0 per crypto.

That just illustrates your abysmal maths. Consider the sequence {1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, . . . }: This has an infinite number of terms and a finite sum but many of the terms are an appreciable fraction of the total (not zero).

The same is true of cryptos. No matter how many are invented, most will not amount to anything and won't drag money away from the top cryptos.
Click to expand...
Samson said:
I accept that zero is an unrealistic valuation, but that is all.
Click to expand...
psionl0 said:
I wish I could believe that but no doubt, you will soon go back to your "there are infinite bitcoins so bitcoins have no value" line again as if this exchange never happened. :boggled:
Click to expand...
No doubt, Samson was hoping that after all this time, the exchange will have been forgotten so that he could again rabbit on abou "infinite supply of digital money" as if it had never been discussed again.


Samson said:
For a moment putting to one side the technical picture, the fundamentals never change.
There is an infinite supply of digital money.
It is a matter of time to patiently watch infinite supply catastrophically atrophy demand.

Rat poison .
Click to expand...
Nailled It!!!
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
Will you all please remember to stay on topic and to refrain from personal attacks. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
psionl0 said:
Etherium might have been a better choice.
Click to expand...


Why is that? Because of the energy consumption thing?



Incidentally I think it's insane for any country to actually do this, whether with BTC, or with any other cryptocurrency. One day, perhaps, but that day isn't here yet. If one must do this for some reason, and do it right now, then some other, controlled kind of blockchain-based money perhaps, but not something entirely "open" like this.

My view isn't based on any value judgment on cryptos, not even on a view on their general viability, but simply because of the de facto volatility of these things. It seems crazy, suicidal, to go out of your way to peg your country's economy to something whose worth keeps yoyoing like this.

(Of course, I don't know the details of their proposal. They may, for all I know, have worked in some safeguards that mitigate those risks.)
 
arthwollipot said:
No, because it's more stable. Its value doesn't fluctuate as wildly and unpredictably as that of Bitcoin.
Click to expand...


But here's a view, from a couple months ago, that apparently Etherium is the more volatile.

(Of course, which is of the two is more volatile is a question that can be settled objectively by looking at the price charts and the variance. Perhaps someone who tracks cryptos can weigh in here? Someone like Chris perhaps, or whoever else goes in for this kind of thing?)




Incidentally, a quick search brought up this (somewhat dated) paper, which says that what differentiates etherium from bitcoin is that they're apparently moving to "proof of stake" from "proof of work". (That was some years ago. Question for those who might know: have they already done that?)

So apparently "proof of stake" has two advantages over "proof of work": first, lesser energy consumption; and two, by providing a mechanism for "punishing", and therefore discouraging, bad actors (a feature that is apparently entirely absent from "proof of work" based cryptos).


By the way, I'm simply quoting out from that paper, without myself clearly understanding why exactly proof of stake should carry these features and why proof of work wouldn't. So absolutely, this is open to correction from you, or psionl0, or whoever else may actually understand exactly how these things work.
 
Regardless of what is mandated or approved by the government, the US dollar is the most used and most trusted currency in El Salvador and will continue to be so with obvious advantages over bitcoin or any other currency. When it comes to our trust, the federal reserve deserves it much more so than the bitcoin algorithm which results in hyper-centralization and the proof of that trust isn't by our words, but by our actions.
 
Chanakya said:
Why is that? Because of the energy consumption thing?
arthwollipot said:
No, because it's more stable. Its value doesn't fluctuate as wildly and unpredictably as that of Bitcoin.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Actually it's because of the energy consumption thing. Also, Etherium scales much better. Bitcoin can barely manage 4.6 transactions per second which would be totally inadequate for a national currency.

Chanakya said:
Incidentally I think it's insane for any country to actually do this, whether with BTC, or with any other cryptocurrency. One day, perhaps, but that day isn't here yet. If one must do this for some reason, and do it right now, then some other, controlled kind of blockchain-based money perhaps, but not something entirely "open" like this.
Click to expand...
Actually it would be better for a country to start its own cryptocurrency for its citizens. The problem is that this would mean pre-mined coins to be released at the pleasure of the government. So, even if the blockchain is fully decentralized, the question remains, "do you trust the government of El Salvador"?
 
Listening to scumbag greed merchant Michael Saylor saying bitcoin is a paradigm for certainty of wealth hiding makes me say watch under.
 
psionl0 said:
Why talk about it? Price variations like these happen all the time. I bet that one of the sentences you will never post is "wow, talk about a rise".
Click to expand...

Edited by xjx388: 
<SNIP>Rule 0; Rule 12


Yeah, why the hell would I post about a sudden drop in BTC value in a thread about bitcoin? What was I thinking? It surely wasn't that I was surprised by the drop and wanted to make sure it was known by the participants.

Edited by xjx388: 
<SNIP>Rule 0; Rule 12
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr.Sid said:
Lol, not really. 10% drop in BTC is really not a topic. Especially when it jumps right back.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it at about 60K not long ago? That's a 50% drop. Of course it's still higher than it was further back, but that's a huge drop.

I'm interesting in how that happened. What precipitated the latest drop. Why is BTC so vulnerable to those factors? Does that affect other cryptos as well?
 
Belz... said:
Wasn't it at about 60K not long ago? That's a 50% drop. Of course it's still higher than it was further back, but that's a huge drop.

I'm interesting in how that happened. What precipitated the latest drop. Why is BTC so vulnerable to those factors? Does that affect other cryptos as well?
Click to expand...

50% drop since ATH is also pretty normal. We had 60% drop in 2013. Then it went up 500%. Then it was dropping for a year till it reached 25% of ATH. Then it laid low another 2 years. Then it blew a reached almost 2000% of previous ATH in 2017. Which is still lower than it is today, after 50% drop.
That's simply how it is.

Cryptos are being inflated beyond reason .. and then they drop. There are strong positive feedback loops, and only few links to reality (compared to fiat, commodities or stock). So you end up with very volatile market.

And yes, it does affect all cryptos. Most of the time, cryptos are all connected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom