Author Topic: Is it too late [bitcoin]?  (Read 77519 times)

Nate79

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 68
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #400 on: December 16, 2017, 10:10:28 AM »
Recent article in Wall Street Journal today says that 51 out of 53 economic experts and forecasters surveyed says Bitcoin is a classic bubble.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


ILikeDividends

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 193
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #401 on: December 16, 2017, 11:27:25 AM »
I know this was intended as an explanation of how bitcoin isn't in a bubble, but to me it reads as confirmation that bitcoin has never been anything except a bubble.

Hey, Ilikedividends? Statements like the one above are why I spend time clarifying the difference between say that something is in a bubble and that something is a bubble. ;-)
Looks like a tied score to me.  You should at least feel some gratification in taking half a victory lap. ;)
« Last Edit: December 16, 2017, 11:35:30 AM by ILikeDividends »

maizeman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2372
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #402 on: December 16, 2017, 12:20:36 PM »
Ugh, we're clearly having separate discussions past each other again. Nevermind.

ILikeDividends

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 193
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #403 on: December 16, 2017, 12:45:54 PM »
Ugh, we're clearly having separate discussions past each other again. Nevermind.
Well, hmm.  I thought we already agreed that, if taken too literally, that statement you quoted is nonsensical. 

If you were referring to that post to illustrate your prior point, well, I'd have to say, yes, I still agree.  That was as good an example as any.

Maybe I'm missing something more subtle than that? It wouldn't be a first.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2017, 12:59:21 PM by ILikeDividends »

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1140
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #404 on: December 16, 2017, 02:46:17 PM »
It may be too late to get into bitcoin investing, but it's never too late to get into baseball card investing. I have a Ken Griffey Jr. rookie card that I'm willing to part with. Cheap.

Sorry dude, the baseball card bubble ended years ago.

That's.
The.
Joke.

lifeanon269

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #405 on: December 16, 2017, 04:29:11 PM »
In the original bitcoin, the way a coin is transferred is taking the prior signature and the next user's public key, and hashing that. Miners saw this data and updated the utxo to the ledger. The original bitcoin was defined as a chain of digital signatures, and accompanying that was a longstanding economic model base on being able to verify the signatures. Segwit removes miners ability to 'witness' the signatures. It changed the economics and weakened the security model. In segwit, signatures have no value; the lack of witnessing a signature can allow malicious miners to redirect transactions to their own address. This, in addition to pruning and increasingly rewarding segwit transactions, creates a situation of new risk.

Here's a more in-depth article can about segwit risk: https://calvinayre.com/2017/06/19/bitcoin/risks-segregated-witness-opening-door-mining-cartels-undermine-bitcoin-network/ 

This is not true at all. Saying that signatures have no value with SegWit is completely false. They're still the basis and necessity for being able to spend one's bitcoins. Craig Wright has a history of misinformation (Satoshi Nakamoto ID theft?) and he has always downplayed the role that nodes play in the bitcoin network and overstates the role that miners play in the network. Any node that recognizes SegWit transactions and addresses see the signatures and therefore will validate those transactions and blocks. What Craig Wright is stating in that article would essentially result in a hard fork. It is only the old nodes that wouldn't see the witness data for SegWit transactions, so if a miner were to attempt to spend transactions that didn't meet the rules of the network according to the nodes that recognize SegWit, they'd effectively be performing a hardfork and creating a blockchain that is ignoring the rules of the network that dictate that those coins can't be spent without a valid signature. A miner attempting to mine a block trying to steal coins from SegWit transactions, those blocks would only be recognized by a few old nodes on the network and that block would get quickly orphaned as soon as more legitimate blocks that all the rest of the SegWit nodes recognize get mined. In other words, this is no different of a 51% attack under a SegWit scenario than we would have under a non-SegWit network. This is a similar soft-fork technique that P2SH scripts used when implemented.

As we've already seen this year, it has been shown that miners have much less power over the network than they've realized and Craig Wright (the author of your article) has always neglected the power that the nodes and userbase/market have in dictating the direction that the network takes.

https://seebitcoin.com/2017/02/segwit-facts-not-anyone-can-spend-so-stop-saying-they-can/

I don't know the technical side of OMG and how that works, so I can't comment there. I'd have to do some research on it more. Thanks for the info.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2017, 04:32:37 PM by lifeanon269 »

shadow

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 119
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #406 on: December 16, 2017, 05:33:41 PM »
This is not true at all. Saying that signatures have no value with SegWit is completely false. They're still the basis and necessity for being able to spend one's bitcoins. Craig Wright has a history of misinformation (Satoshi Nakamoto ID theft?) and he has always downplayed the role that nodes play in the bitcoin network and overstates the role that miners play in the network. Any node that recognizes SegWit transactions and addresses see the signatures and therefore will validate those transactions and blocks. What Craig Wright is stating in that article would essentially result in a hard fork. It is only the old nodes that wouldn't see the witness data for SegWit transactions, so if a miner were to attempt to spend transactions that didn't meet the rules of the network according to the nodes that recognize SegWit, they'd effectively be performing a hardfork and creating a blockchain that is ignoring the rules of the network that dictate that those coins can't be spent without a valid signature. A miner attempting to mine a block trying to steal coins from SegWit transactions, those blocks would only be recognized by a few old nodes on the network and that block would get quickly orphaned as soon as more legitimate blocks that all the rest of the SegWit nodes recognize get mined. In other words, this is no different of a 51% attack under a SegWit scenario than we would have under a non-SegWit network. This is a similar soft-fork technique that P2SH scripts used when implemented.

As we've already seen this year, it has been shown that miners have much less power over the network than they've realized and Craig Wright (the author of your article) has always neglected the power that the nodes and userbase/market have in dictating the direction that the network takes.

I'll concede that segwit signatures retain value, but remain firm that the economic model has changed to increased risk, due to segwit. User non-mining nodes cannot validate transactions. Miners are the ones who decide what to validate. User nodes cannot stop what miners validate. If the reward or reason is large enough, and large number of miners collude on malicious behavior, then the chances of a hardfork are very high. What do miners lose, in this situation, and what do they stand to gain? You can't simply assume that it can't happen, or if it happens, that it will not be a big impact, especially when there is a chance of it happening.

There are a ton of controversy surrounding segwit signatures. Physicist and chief scientist of bitcoin unlimited, Peter Rizun, backs up the claim that segwit signatures have little or no value (let's make the distinction to mean monetary value (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO176mdSTG0&feature=youtu.be&t=783). Segwit also poses a forensics issue: "SegWit is not concerned with maintaining digital signatures, only with validating transactions as they occur. The SegWit approach creates significant uncertainty as to whether only a hash of signature data can meet the e-SIGN statutory requirements to prove a digital signature." https://www.coindesk.com/the-risks-of-bitcoins-segregated-witness-problems-under-us-contract-law/

Segwit changed the economic model and introduced a point of risk.


lifeanon269

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #407 on: December 16, 2017, 06:22:02 PM »
I'll concede that segwit signatures retain value, but remain firm that the economic model has changed to increased risk, due to segwit. User non-mining nodes cannot validate transactions. Miners are the ones who decide what to validate. User nodes cannot stop what miners validate. If the reward or reason is large enough, and large number of miners collude on malicious behavior, then the chances of a hardfork are very high. What do miners lose, in this situation, and what do they stand to gain? You can't simply assume that it can't happen, or if it happens, that it will not be a big impact, especially when there is a chance of it happening.

There are a ton of controversy surrounding segwit signatures. Physicist and chief scientist of bitcoin unlimited, Peter Rizun, backs up the claim that segwit signatures have little or no value (let's make the distinction to mean monetary value (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO176mdSTG0&feature=youtu.be&t=783). Segwit also poses a forensics issue: "SegWit is not concerned with maintaining digital signatures, only with validating transactions as they occur. The SegWit approach creates significant uncertainty as to whether only a hash of signature data can meet the e-SIGN statutory requirements to prove a digital signature." https://www.coindesk.com/the-risks-of-bitcoins-segregated-witness-problems-under-us-contract-law/

Segwit changed the economic model and introduced a point of risk.

What are you talking about that non-mining nodes cannot validate transactions? Non-mining nodes are the very nodes that validate transactions. Miners don't validate anything. I bolded your statement above because that statement is fundementally not true. Miners perform the proof-of-work to build each of the blocks, but they don't validate those blocks. Only the non-mining nodes that store the blockchain validate whether or not a block that a miner solved is valid. This is the key misunderstanding that Craig Wright and Peter Rizun in his presentation have. We even saw this play out quite vividly this year with several of the hardforks that occurred (Bcash and S2X). Hashpower does not get to dictate what bitcoin is and isn't. A massive number of bitcoin core nodes validate and accept SegWit blocks and transactions and they view all witness data. The market sees bitcoin as having SegWit implemented and so do all the exchanges that are a part of this ecosystem. As we saw with the BCash EDA hassle this year, hashpower had little sway in what the market viewed as being bitcoin.

If you watch Peter Rizun's video that you linked to, the very first question that was asked pointed out this very clear misunderstanding and Peter Rizun's response was...

"I'm assuming that the non-mining nodes don't have too much influence over the protocol."

Peter Rizun views the bitcoin ecosystem as a closed system from the standpoint of miners and only miners. As we've seen, this is a faulty viewpoint and it isn't how the economical market reacts to what bitcoin is and isn't. If all nodes are validating SegWit blocks with witness data and the market views this as bitcoin and all the exchanges view this as bitcoin and there is massive economic activity that occurs with SegWit transactions, then the miners have very little influence with regard to trying to take over SegWit transactions without witness data. This will only get more and more true as time goes on and more and more economic activity occurs with SegWit transactions that include the witness data. As exchanges like Coinbase and many others make their transition to SegWit, it will become less and less likely that there would ever be an attempt to hard fork away from SegWit. That's essentially what is being argued here...that the miners would make an attempt to hard fork away from a Bitcoin network that uses SegWit and back onto a chain that does not recognize SegWit transactions. The economic model has not changed at all. In fact, it is the economic model (the market determines what Bitcoin is and isn't) that makes this arguement invalid in the first place. What you're essentially arguing is that nodes that don't recognize SegWit transactions that strip witness data will someday be the nodes that determine that Bitcoin no longer utilizes SegWit. In doing so, a hardfork would occur and the market would also need to agree with that fact idea...given the fact that the market would likely have billions of dollars locked up in SegWit addresses, I can assure you that would not happen.

Miners can hardfork to their hearts content, we've all seen how well that has worked in the past for them.

phil22

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 144
  • "This quote is very memorable." -Randall Munroe
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #408 on: December 16, 2017, 06:45:49 PM »
What are you talking about that non-mining nodes cannot validate transactions? Non-mining nodes are the very nodes that validate transactions. Miners don't validate anything.

false.  miners validate the entire history of the blockchain (that's the whole point) to decide which blockchain to work on top of, and miners validate all outstanding transactions in the mempool when deciding which transactions to include in a block.

Hashpower does not get to dictate what bitcoin is and isn't.

false again.  hashpower does determine which blockchain is the "concensus" blockchain.  again, that's the whole point.  hashpower = secure blockchain = bitcoin.

lifeanon269

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #409 on: December 16, 2017, 07:16:39 PM »
false.  miners validate the entire history of the blockchain (that's the whole point) to decide which blockchain to work on top of, and miners validate all outstanding transactions in the mempool when deciding which transactions to include in a block.

Wrong, the decentralized network of non-mining nodes that store a copy of the blockchain is what validates the historical blockchain. The mining nodes simply take a hash of the latest block from those nodes to work on top of for the current block that they're processing. They can certainly choose which transactions to process from the mempool, but if they don't build a valid block that the non-mining nodes agree to, then they will have wasted their hash power. That's the whole point in how the checks and balances work between nodes and miners. If a miner builds an invalid block, that block will not be accepted by the network.

Quote
false again.  hashpower does determine which blockchain is the "concensus" blockchain.  again, that's the whole point.  hashpower = secure blockchain = bitcoin.

That's not really true as we saw and was proven this year. Hashpower is completely economically driven. If the market and ecosystem values bitcoin as being a certain chain and the tokens on the forked chain don't hold any value, then the miners would be operating at a loss under the rules of the forked chain. While they might be able to hold out for a short while, if the market does not get behind that forked chain, then ultimately the miners would need to mine the more profitable chain to stay in business. There is certainly a give and take between the two forces, but it just isn't true that hashpower is what determines what the bitcoin blockchain is. History clearly shows this to be true, so I don't really feel as if I need to argue it.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2017, 07:24:08 PM by lifeanon269 »

shadow

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 119
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #410 on: December 17, 2017, 01:06:39 AM »
false.  miners validate the entire history of the blockchain (that's the whole point) to decide which blockchain to work on top of, and miners validate all outstanding transactions in the mempool when deciding which transactions to include in a block.

Wrong, the decentralized network of non-mining nodes that store a copy of the blockchain is what validates the historical blockchain. The mining nodes simply take a hash of the latest block from those nodes to work on top of for the current block that they're processing. They can certainly choose which transactions to process from the mempool, but if they don't build a valid block that the non-mining nodes agree to, then they will have wasted their hash power. That's the whole point in how the checks and balances work between nodes and miners. If a miner builds an invalid block, that block will not be accepted by the network.

Quote
false again.  hashpower does determine which blockchain is the "concensus" blockchain.  again, that's the whole point.  hashpower = secure blockchain = bitcoin.

That's not really true as we saw and was proven this year. Hashpower is completely economically driven. If the market and ecosystem values bitcoin as being a certain chain and the tokens on the forked chain don't hold any value, then the miners would be operating at a loss under the rules of the forked chain. While they might be able to hold out for a short while, if the market does not get behind that forked chain, then ultimately the miners would need to mine the more profitable chain to stay in business. There is certainly a give and take between the two forces, but it just isn't true that hashpower is what determines what the bitcoin blockchain is. History clearly shows this to be true, so I don't really feel as if I need to argue it.

There are two opposing schools of thought here.

One says user fullnodes are needed to keep miners honest, to enforce consensus rules against miners violating them. The more user fullnodes there are, the greater the security for bitcoin.

The other says miners, themselves, are the nodes that keep themselves in checks and balances; other miners reject invalid transactions. Most users do not need to run user fullnodes. In the original nonsegwit economic model, miners are incentivized to not accept or perform fraud, which would harm the network and their mining investments. A simple model: 

Remove user fullnodes:
Bitcoin network = miners + user fullnodes
You still have bitcoin.

Remove miners:
Bitcoin network = miners + user fullnodes
You no longer have bitcoin.

Conclusion:
Bitcoin = miners
Bitcoin can function without user fullnodes; and before user fullnodes, this was how it functioned.

Here's a good article about the this school of thought: "Why ďnon-mining full nodesĒ are a terrible idea." that fundamentally disagrees with normal users needing to run fullnodes. https://medium.com/@olivierjanss/why-non-mining-full-nodes-are-a-terrible-idea-ad3c49f7a7b6


lifeanon269

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #411 on: December 17, 2017, 06:45:01 AM »
Shadow, the argument you're making against "user" full-nodes is not an argument I ever made. Not once did I ever mention "user" full-nodes or making the case for the ability of users to run full-nodes on Raspberry Pis.

There is a big difference between "user" full-nodes and just the idea of full-nodes in general. Essentially if you're a non-mining Bitcoin business, you're going to want to run a full node. As a business, you're not going to want to trust your business to some other third-party that is running a full-node. Secondly, Coinbase, for example, as an Exchange will want to run a full-node to ensure that their transactions are fully validated and that they're also a complete check and balance against the rest of the community. If the only full-nodes out there were miners, then that would mean miners would be able to dictate the business decisions that Coinbase as an exchange were to make. Also, since Coinbase is a business that relies directly on its userbase, Coinbase has a vested interest in listening to that user base to determine what path to follow. This is the key market mechanism that people miss when they place too much emphasis on the power that miners have over Bitcoin. Coinbase isn't in the mining business, but it most assuredly is in the business of making sure that Bitcoin follows the path that the market demands. That is essentially its entire business model and that model depends directly on running a non-mining full-node.

The article you linked to and the argument you've made only make sense when talking about "user" full-nodes, but don't make much sense in the context of what I stated above.

Finally, if you value decentralization (which the article never mentions), then you must also value non-mining full-nodes. I run cold-storage watch only Electrum SPV wallet. At any given time it is connected to about 10 different servers, many of them are Tor hidden servers, and are very geographically diverse. This is a very critical component when it comes to creating a payment network that is censorship resistant. Bitcoin mining is essentially performing energy market arbitrage by being able to be located in areas with cheap electricity. Because of this, there is a reason why a large chunk of the mining resources are located in China. I mine with an ASIC at my house and use the Slushpool mining pool since it gives me a vote as to which Bitcoin version I mine for. Since most mining takes place in pools, if only miners were the ones running full-nodes, then my SPV wallet would not be making nearly as many diverse connections around the globe. This is very bad for decentralization and censorship resistance. Large numbers of geographically diverse full-nodes provides a proper check against mining, especially when that mining is not nearly as geographically diverse.

I agree that Bitcoin without mining is not Bitcoin, but if you put too much emphasis on the power that mining has over the network, then I'd absolutely argue that Bitcoin without a large number of geographically diverse full-nodes is not Bitcoin either.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2017, 06:53:57 AM by lifeanon269 »

shadow

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 119
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #412 on: December 17, 2017, 09:27:52 AM »
Shadow, the argument you're making against "user" full-nodes is not an argument I ever made. Not once did I ever mention "user" full-nodes or making the case for the ability of users to run full-nodes on Raspberry Pis.

There is a big difference between "user" full-nodes and just the idea of full-nodes in general. Essentially if you're a non-mining Bitcoin business, you're going to want to run a full node. As a business, you're not going to want to trust your business to some other third-party that is running a full-node. Secondly, Coinbase, for example, as an Exchange will want to run a full-node to ensure that their transactions are fully validated and that they're also a complete check and balance against the rest of the community. If the only full-nodes out there were miners, then that would mean miners would be able to dictate the business decisions that Coinbase as an exchange were to make. Also, since Coinbase is a business that relies directly on its userbase, Coinbase has a vested interest in listening to that user base to determine what path to follow. This is the key market mechanism that people miss when they place too much emphasis on the power that miners have over Bitcoin. Coinbase isn't in the mining business, but it most assuredly is in the business of making sure that Bitcoin follows the path that the market demands. That is essentially its entire business model and that model depends directly on running a non-mining full-node.

The article you linked to and the argument you've made only make sense when talking about "user" full-nodes, but don't make much sense in the context of what I stated above.


My statements don't disagree with this. Businesses that accept btc will want to run nonmining fullnodes. Enthusiasts and researchers may want to run a nonmining fullnode.

Quote
Finally, if you value decentralization (which the article never mentions), then you must also value non-mining full-nodes. I run cold-storage watch only Electrum SPV wallet. At any given time it is connected to about 10 different servers, many of them are Tor hidden servers, and are very geographically diverse. This is a very critical component when it comes to creating a payment network that is censorship resistant. Bitcoin mining is essentially performing energy market arbitrage by being able to be located in areas with cheap electricity. Because of this, there is a reason why a large chunk of the mining resources are located in China. I mine with an ASIC at my house and use the Slushpool mining pool since it gives me a vote as to which Bitcoin version I mine for. Since most mining takes place in pools, if only miners were the ones running full-nodes, then my SPV wallet would not be making nearly as many diverse connections around the globe. This is very bad for decentralization and censorship resistance. Large numbers of geographically diverse full-nodes provides a proper check against mining, especially when that mining is not nearly as geographically diverse.

I agree that Bitcoin without mining is not Bitcoin, but if you put too much emphasis on the power that mining has over the network, then I'd absolutely argue that Bitcoin without a large number of geographically diverse full-nodes is not Bitcoin either.

The thing about decentralization in a proof-of-work, is that it faces unsustainability and other risks. Every performance tweak, every optimization, every competitive advantage, every newer model of of asic, creates a situation where miners must adapt similiar enhancements to compete. Factor in areas where you get cheap electricity. Miners are ok as long as they operate in the black, but if they can't keep up with costs (higher and higher costs, or btc value doesn't keep pace with costs), they have to shutdown part of the mining operation or they may even entirely have to give it up.

Another thing about decentralization is that there is no agreement on what constitutes decentralization in a proof-of-work crypto. Miners are distributed groups, but we see a trend toward greater and greater centralization base on the factors listed above. Those who support running nonmining fullnodes says the more people that run fullnodes the better: for example, 100 users, 10 miners, and if 90 people are nonmining fullnodes, then you've extended decentralization by including nonmining fullnodes across 90% of users. You limit a protocol blocksize increase base on this decentralized reasoning 

The problem with this is that it affects usability. The crucial aspect impacted is infrastructure. The people who believe concentrated pools of miners are ok, given the factors of increasing efficiency that will phase out smaller miners, also believe that decentralization naturally results from a higher blocksize limit, which increases usability. Businesses are the ones who must at least run nonmining fullnodes because they process customer transactions. So greater usability --> more users --> more businesses. Now, you have 1000 users, 10 miners or even more (systems that rent mining power to normal users increase), and 90 businesses that run nonmining fullnodes. The percentage of nonmining fullnodes are lower than in the limited blocksize scenario (10% vs 90%), but that does not make it more centralized then the other scenario.
 
It seems to a be question of perspective: which situation would actually better defend against centralization?
« Last Edit: December 17, 2017, 09:33:47 AM by shadow »

phil22

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 144
  • "This quote is very memorable." -Randall Munroe
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #413 on: December 17, 2017, 11:05:45 AM »
The mining nodes simply take a hash of the latest block from those nodes to work on top of for the current block that they're processing.

sorry but there's no point in continuing this discussion in this thread.  you've obviously been misinformed.

mining nodes don't have to take a block hash from non-mining nodes.  miners can ignore new blocks coming in from the network and create their own chain in secret, then broadcast this secret chain later once they have the most cumulative proof of work.  that's how a "51%" attack works.

They can certainly choose which transactions to process from the mempool, but if they don't build a valid block that the non-mining nodes agree to, then they will have wasted their hash power.

that's all they do.  there's no other way for transactions end up in a block.  if the majority of miners are working on a chain a node doesn't consider valid, and the node wants to follow a different chain, then the node has to follow some other consensus rules.  the node would then not be a "bitcoin" node.  in fact this is exactly how the bitcoin forks work.

Quote
false again.  hashpower does determine which blockchain is the "concensus" blockchain.  again, that's the whole point.  hashpower = secure blockchain = bitcoin.

That's not really true as we saw and was proven this year.
...
History clearly shows this to be true, so I don't really feel as if I need to argue it.

i don't know what you're talking about.  no other chain has ever had the most cumulative proof of work.

lifeanon269

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #414 on: December 17, 2017, 11:14:56 AM »
My statements don't disagree with this. Businesses that accept btc will want to run nonmining fullnodes. Enthusiasts and researchers may want to run a nonmining fullnode.

I agree. I was a little confused then that you linked to an article that was literally titled: "Why non-mining full nodes are a terrible idea." and you claimed that Bitcoin = miners. If you agree that non-mining full-nodes are a critical component of the Bitcoin network, then we can agree there, but it didn't seem as if your post was arguing for that at all.

Quote
The thing about decentralization in a proof-of-work, is that it faces unsustainability and other risks. Every performance tweak, every optimization, every competitive advantage, every newer model of of asic, creates a situation where miners must adapt similiar enhancements to compete. Factor in areas where you get cheap electricity. Miners are ok as long as they operate in the black, but if they can't keep up with costs (higher and higher costs, or btc value doesn't keep pace with costs), they have to shutdown part of the mining operation or they may even entirely have to give it up.

Another thing about decentralization is that there is no agreement on what constitutes decentralization in a proof-of-work crypto. Miners are distributed groups, but we see a trend toward greater and greater centralization base on the factors listed above. Those who support running nonmining fullnodes says the more people that run fullnodes the better: for example, 100 users, 10 miners, and if 90 people are nonmining fullnodes, then you've extended decentralization by including nonmining fullnodes across 90% of users. You limit a protocol blocksize increase base on this decentralized reasoning 

The problem with this is that it affects usability. The crucial aspect impacted is infrastructure. The people who believe concentrated pools of miners are ok, given the factors of increasing efficiency that will phase out smaller miners, also believe that decentralization naturally results from a higher blocksize limit, which increases usability. Businesses are the ones who must at least run nonmining fullnodes because they process customer transactions. So greater usability --> more users --> more businesses. Now, you have 1000 users, 10 miners or even more (systems that rent mining power to normal users increase), and 90 businesses that run nonmining fullnodes. The percentage of nonmining fullnodes are lower than in the limited blocksize scenario (10% vs 90%), but that does not make it more centralized then the other scenario.
 
It seems to a be question of perspective: which situation would actually better defend against centralization?

It seems like you operate with a very black and white perspective.

Since hashrate within mining pools can be fairly dispersed, I don't feel there is a need to have a large number of mining pools, so long as the hashrate within them is fairly decentralized. So long as you have enough mining pools to cover the varying degrees of consesus, then you can withstand various attacks and censorship. Since mining pools are more abstract and application layer entities, it is very hard to censor a mining pool itself even if there are only a few of them. Having a geographically decentralized and disperse group of non-mining full nodes however is even more important since often these groups of nodes need to talk the Bitcoin protocol across the internet and often are businesses themselves that depend on these nodes to run their business. Since these business operate within the jurisdiction of any given nation, it would be much easier to censor non-mining full-nodes than it would be to censor any given mining pool of diverse miners. As I stated earlier, it is this large group of decentralized and geographically disperse non-mining full-nodes that provide a proper check against the mining infrastructure.

Again, I'm not for or against a bigger blocksize at some point. It will need to be an inevitable change to be made to the protocol in order to scale it even with adequate side chain solutions in place. But, I feel like you're straying from the original argument and trying to now squeeze a blocksize debate into the picture where there was none previously. Aside from acknowledging that blocksize increases are not a valid form of scaling exponentially (which is needed for large scale adoption), then I understand the need for blocksizes that are larger than the current restriction today.

However, our original argument was in regard to whether mining is the central form of power within the Bitcoin network and ecosystem and whether or not SegWit introduces security flaws. As I've stated, unless you feel that miners are the sole dictators of Bitcoin, then SegWit does not introduce any more security issues than were already present with the risk of a 51% attack or a contentious hardfork driven by miners. I stand by my position on the fact that non-mining full-nodes are a check and balance against miners and even though you've now strayed into a separate debate altogether (block-size), I haven't heard a valid argument against having that check and balance in place. That check and balance provides security and will ensure that SegWit is a secure part of Bitcoin going forward that can't simply be contentiously removed one day by a malicious group of miners, no matter how strong they think they are.

lifeanon269

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #415 on: December 17, 2017, 11:31:23 AM »
sorry but there's no point in continuing this discussion in this thread.  you've obviously been misinformed.

mining nodes don't have to take a block hash from non-mining nodes.  miners can ignore new blocks coming in from the network and create their own chain in secret, then broadcast this secret chain later once they have the most cumulative proof of work.  that's how a "51%" attack works.

But they still need to choose a valid block height to operate from as a point of fork. That was my point. They obviously don't need to pull that block from a non-mining node, but that misses the point that they'd certainly need to pull that block from a legitimate chain (whether their own copy or not) in order to present their fork chain for consensus. Otherwise what would be the point of forking?

Quote
that's all they do.  there's no other way for transactions end up in a block.  if the majority of miners are working on a chain a node doesn't consider valid, and the node wants to follow a different chain, then the node has to follow some other consensus rules.  the node would then not be a "bitcoin" node.  in fact this is exactly how the bitcoin forks work.

I'm not up for arguing semantics, so please don't underline my sentence and claim like I was stating anything other than what was clearly typed out. We're in full agreement with how transactions end up in a block.

Quote
i don't know what you're talking about.  no other chain has ever had the most cumulative proof of work.

I agree we haven't. But that's certainly not without an effort to have one, as was shown with the proposed SegWit2X fork. That was a proposed hardfork that had a majority of hashrate behind it. Had it gone through, it would have been the most cumulative proof of work chain. However, due to the lack of support from the community, the number of non-mining full-nodes in opposition, and the lack of ecosystem support (exchanges, payment operators, etc), then the fork didn't go through (not taking into account that the code itself was screwed up).

shadow

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 119
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #416 on: December 17, 2017, 12:31:12 PM »
However, our original argument was in regard to whether mining is the central form of power within the Bitcoin network and ecosystem and whether or not SegWit introduces security flaws. As I've stated, unless you feel that miners are the sole dictators of Bitcoin, then SegWit does not introduce any more security issues than were already present with the risk of a 51% attack or a contentious hardfork driven by miners. I stand by my position on the fact that non-mining full-nodes are a check and balance against miners and even though you've now strayed into a separate debate altogether (block-size), I haven't heard a valid argument against having that check and balance in place. That check and balance provides security and will ensure that SegWit is a secure part of Bitcoin going forward that can't simply be contentiously removed one day by a malicious group of miners, no matter how strong they think they are.

My stance remains: 1) miners are essential and a central component to bitcoin, because they are the ones who validate transactions and update the ledger in return for coins; 2) as already pointed out, segwit created a point of vulnerability. I haven't been convinced otherwise.


talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1452
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #417 on: December 18, 2017, 08:33:29 AM »
It may be too late to get into bitcoin investing, but it's never too late to get into baseball card investing. I have a Ken Griffey Jr. rookie card that I'm willing to part with. Cheap.

Sorry dude, the baseball card bubble ended years ago.

Don't you dare drag Junior into this. That man is one of the most talented athletes ever, and nothing but a class Act.*

*Besides, he's still on the Reds' payroll today because he signed a brilliant contract with a ton of deferred money, so he's probably being paid by them in bitcoin, too

Mr Mark

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1145
  • Location: Planet Earth
  • Achieved Financial Independence summer 2014. RE'18
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #418 on: December 19, 2017, 06:47:42 AM »
Ughhh, my friend is obsessed with bitcoin and I was this close to investing $3k as experiment money in August but I didnít because I set a goal for my Vanguard account ($100k) and havenít reached that yet. Now Iím kinda kicking myself and wondering if I should invest now or leave the game to the more fearless? (I still wouldnít invest more than $3k max).  If I donít do it, will I be regretting it in 5 years?

BTC when OP asked the question: $7813.50
BTC now: $18211

Gain: +133%
CAGR: OMFG

Mr. Mark

$25 free for your hotel stays by using this link to join  Booking.com https://www.booking.com/s/27_8/ef1fdaad

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1452
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #419 on: December 19, 2017, 12:39:40 PM »
Bitcoin is exactly as risky today as it was in November. It's just more expensive now...

Cassie

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4262
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #420 on: December 19, 2017, 03:07:59 PM »
Recently we sold most of ours. WE decided a bird in the hand is better and just kept a few in case it goes up even more.

seattlecyclone

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4304
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #421 on: December 19, 2017, 03:11:07 PM »
Ughhh, my friend is obsessed with bitcoin and I was this close to investing $3k as experiment money in August but I didnít because I set a goal for my Vanguard account ($100k) and havenít reached that yet. Now Iím kinda kicking myself and wondering if I should invest now or leave the game to the more fearless? (I still wouldnít invest more than $3k max).  If I donít do it, will I be regretting it in 5 years?

BTC when OP asked the question: $7813.50
BTC now: $18211

Gain: +133%
CAGR: OMFG



Come on, it only needs to double about 15 more times before everyone holding at least 1 BTC is a USD billionaire. At this surely sustainable growth rate that should happen by this time next year.
I made a blog! https://seattlecyclone.com/

The Roth IRA was named after William Roth, who represented Delaware in the US senate from 1971-2001. "Roth" is a name, not an acronym. There's no need to capitalize the final three letters.

hgjjgkj

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 120
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #422 on: December 19, 2017, 10:10:58 PM »
How do people feel about coinbase adding BCH?

MrThatsDifferent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 635
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #423 on: December 19, 2017, 10:46:51 PM »
Ughhh, my friend is obsessed with bitcoin and I was this close to investing $3k as experiment money in August but I didnít because I set a goal for my Vanguard account ($100k) and havenít reached that yet. Now Iím kinda kicking myself and wondering if I should invest now or leave the game to the more fearless? (I still wouldnít invest more than $3k max).  If I donít do it, will I be regretting it in 5 years?

BTC when OP asked the question: $7813.50
BTC now: $18211

Gain: +133%
CAGR: OMFG



Come on, it only needs to double about 15 more times before everyone holding at least 1 BTC is a USD billionaire. At this surely sustainable growth rate that should happen by this time next year.

Damn! In August when my best friend tried to get me to buy bitcoin it was $3k and I thought that was too high to buy in. He thought $10k was the ceiling and it would take a year.

Scandium

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2152
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #424 on: December 20, 2017, 02:40:02 PM »
Bitcoin is exactly as risky today as it was in November. It's just more expensive now...

yeah. To be fair, with zero intrinsic value the PE ratio (or whatever) is no worse at $20k than at $2k..

dougules

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1175
  • Location: AL
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #425 on: December 20, 2017, 03:45:04 PM »
Bitcoin is exactly as risky today as it was in November. It's just more expensive now...

yeah. To be fair, with zero intrinsic value the PE ratio (or whatever) is no worse at $20k than at $2k..

There is no PE ratio because E=0.

Scandium

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2152
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #426 on: December 20, 2017, 04:44:51 PM »
Bitcoin is exactly as risky today as it was in November. It's just more expensive now...

yeah. To be fair, with zero intrinsic value the PE ratio (or whatever) is no worse at $20k than at $2k..

There is no PE ratio because E=0.
Exactly. Just like intrinsic value, and potential value, or future earnings, or spending power, etc etc. Math is easy when it's all zero!

phil22

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 144
  • "This quote is very memorable." -Randall Munroe
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #427 on: December 20, 2017, 05:14:21 PM »
How do people feel about coinbase adding BCH?

open competition between BTC and BCH is good.  the actual announcement and start of trading didn't go well, but i don't think that will matter either way in the long run.

my guess is all the people that tried to make a quick buck and sold all their BCH early now regret it because of the current price of BCH.  if BCH drops to zero they'll be vindicated but i don't think that's likely.

CanuckExpat

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2711
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Travelling
    • Freedom35
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #428 on: December 20, 2017, 07:53:47 PM »
Recent article in Wall Street Journal today says that 51 out of 53 economic experts and forecasters surveyed says Bitcoin is a classic bubble.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

It is very hard call a bubble/top without the benefit of hindsight:


From this great series of charts

dougules

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1175
  • Location: AL
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #429 on: December 21, 2017, 07:19:08 AM »
Recent article in Wall Street Journal today says that 51 out of 53 economic experts and forecasters surveyed says Bitcoin is a classic bubble.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

It is very hard call a bubble/top without the benefit of hindsight:


From this great series of charts

There's a difference between calling a bubble and calling a top.  You can be in a bubble for years.

asosharp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 61
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #430 on: December 21, 2017, 08:07:42 AM »
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the complete opposite scenario of most bitcoin investors at the moment?  Few people have only a couple hundred dollars of bitcoin, most appear to be hoarding large sums with the intent to use as an investment rather than for any transactions that can be carried out.

The original premise was that bitcoin would have use-cases that would compel people to acquire it to use; and this would therefore escalate demand and value. However, rising use-cases and transactions have shifted to newer, superior crypto. My prediction is that by 2019, bitcoin's market dominance will dip below 50% (it's currently 62.4% and one year ago it was 86%). There will be crypto that will outperform bitcoin; and a few of these crypto have the potential for a huge breakout due to true onchain scalability, mass adoption, and compelling use-cases (superior remittance system, access to online financial services, a platform that allows payment networks to instantly settle and various units of value to be traded with each other, etc).

I recall reading something about how a bank (or some financial institution) was trialling cryptocurrency. One of the team mates was totally into Bitcoin and had personally invested into it but after performing the rigourous tests he decided that it was a bad investment as it takes hours to transact.

I didn't know about the dip in market dominance but I'm also not surprised. That's why I think Dash, Ripple, and other similar crypto will win the day. The only thing is I don't think Dash and Ripple are seriously considered a digital currency as opposed to Bitcoin.

Ethereum might win as well but I have heard they are having some serious problems as well. I'm not too sure about Litecoin though as I'm not sure what its use cases are.

Gondolin

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 494
  • Location: Northern VA
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #431 on: December 21, 2017, 10:12:44 AM »
Quote
At this surely sustainable growth rate that should happen by this time next year

Just in time for me to buy the Carolina Panthers with my bitcoin billions!
"There cannot be two skies"

ChpBstrd

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 978


bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2685
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #434 on: December 21, 2017, 12:40:40 PM »
It really is the dot-com bust all over again.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/long-island-iced-teas-stock-rockets-nearly-500-after-changing-name-to-long-blockchain-2017-12-21?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo

OMFG

I just read that too.

What's a good name for the impending bust? The dotcom era led to the dotbomb. The bitcoin era has a...bitless crash?



ILikeDividends

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 193
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #435 on: December 21, 2017, 01:23:27 PM »

Scandium

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2152
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #436 on: December 21, 2017, 01:29:05 PM »
It really is the dot-com bust all over again.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/long-island-iced-teas-stock-rockets-nearly-500-after-changing-name-to-long-blockchain-2017-12-21?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo

OMFG

WTF? That's not real is it? Pivoting from iced tea to blockchain.. something? Whaa??

And to be fair to the dot-com boom those companies at least had the potential to make money. Pets.com could have been profitable, at some point. BTC can...eh, function as a highly volatile middle-man to buy starbucks, which is instantly converted to USD.

Nate79

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 68
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #437 on: December 21, 2017, 06:13:38 PM »
Recent article in Wall Street Journal today says that 51 out of 53 economic experts and forecasters surveyed says Bitcoin is a classic bubble.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

It is very hard call a bubble/top without the benefit of hindsight:


From this great series of charts
Sure. These are economic experts, not kindergardeners.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


phil22

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 144
  • "This quote is very memorable." -Randall Munroe
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #438 on: December 21, 2017, 07:22:09 PM »
Recent article in Wall Street Journal today says that 51 out of 53 economic experts and forecasters surveyed says Bitcoin is a classic bubble.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

It is very hard call a bubble/top without the benefit of hindsight:


From this great series of charts
Sure. These are economic experts, not kindergardeners.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

i hope you don't heed the financial advice of these "economic experts":

here's The Economist in October 2011, with the price around $3: "BITCOIN, briefly the world's favorite cryptocurrency, is in trouble."
https://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/10/virtual-currencies

here's CNN Money in April 2013, with the price around $80: "Bitcoin bubble may have burst"
http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/12/investing/bitcoin-bubble/index.html

here's The Economist again in November 2013, with the price around $1000: "the recent price surge, driven by Chinese investors stashing money offshore, looks like a classic bubble."
https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21590901-it-looks-overvalued-even-if-digital-currency-crashes-others-will-follow-bitcoin

and again in May 2015, with the price near $225: "Six-and-a-half years on, the bankers may feel they can relax a little. Interest in bitcoin has waned."
https://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21650295-or-it-next-big-thing

here's The Wall Street Journal in June 2017, with the price near $3000: "Bitcoin [...] roughly tripled this year.  Given bitcoinís history of volatility, a tumble at some point seems inevitable."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/bitcoin-drives-to-a-new-high-but-is-it-headed-for-a-crash-1496771053

CanuckExpat

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2711
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Travelling
    • Freedom35
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #439 on: December 21, 2017, 08:17:45 PM »
I didn't post that graph to say whether it is true that we are in a bubble or not, nor whether it would be prudent to invest in Bitcoin or not, but rather about the fallacy of making predictions without hindsight, especially if you were going to act on them (no shorting is available that I know of).

It's a bit of a semantics argument, but I'm not sure one can call a bubble until it is popped. It has to be done with hindsight.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2017, 09:22:36 PM by CanuckExpat »

phil22

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 144
  • "This quote is very memorable." -Randall Munroe
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #440 on: December 21, 2017, 08:43:24 PM »
agreed that hindsight is needed to declare bitcoin was "in" a bubble.  time will tell if bitcoin altogether "is" a bubble.  if you look at the log chart the history appears a lot less dramatic, but it's still climbing at an unsustainable pace:


ILikeDividends

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 193
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #441 on: December 21, 2017, 08:50:47 PM »
I didn't post that graph to say whether it is true that we are in a bubble or not, nor whether it would be prudent to invest in Bitcoin or not, but rather about the fallacy of making predictions without foresight, especially if you were going to act on them (no shorting is available that I know of).

It's a bit of a semantics argument, but I'm not sure one can call a bubble until it is popped. It has to be done with hindsight.
Call me a sematics geek, but it's a bubble.  It can continue to be a bubble for another 10 years, but it's a bubble, nevertheless.  Hopefully, many can make fortunes before the bubble bursts.  But it will burst.  I don't intend to be there when it does, and I won't regret the potential billions I could have made in the mean time.  There is potentially functional value with this technology, but there is no economic value.

At some point, the functional value of this technology will be exploited.  But it will not be in the form of a currency.  The company that can exploit that will be the next Google, but they are not on the investment horizon yet.

Right now, there are penny stock Tea companies (who actually just sell tea) changing their names to "block chain Tea," and realizing a 1,000% appreciation in share price in mere days (less than a week), simply because of a name change.

That's a bubble, my friend, no matter how you want to slice it, semantically.

And, unlike BCOs, they fall under the regulatory purview of the SEC.

The regulators commeth.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2017, 09:24:31 PM by ILikeDividends »

ChpBstrd

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 978
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #442 on: December 21, 2017, 08:57:44 PM »
Recent article in Wall Street Journal today says that 51 out of 53 economic experts and forecasters surveyed says Bitcoin is a classic bubble.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

It is very hard call a bubble/top without the benefit of hindsight:


From this great series of charts
Sure. These are economic experts, not kindergardeners.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

i hope you don't heed the financial advice of these "economic experts":

here's The Economist in October 2011, with the price around $3: "BITCOIN, briefly the world's favorite cryptocurrency, is in trouble."
https://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/10/virtual-currencies

here's CNN Money in April 2013, with the price around $80: "Bitcoin bubble may have burst"
http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/12/investing/bitcoin-bubble/index.html

here's The Economist again in November 2013, with the price around $1000: "the recent price surge, driven by Chinese investors stashing money offshore, looks like a classic bubble."
https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21590901-it-looks-overvalued-even-if-digital-currency-crashes-others-will-follow-bitcoin

and again in May 2015, with the price near $225: "Six-and-a-half years on, the bankers may feel they can relax a little. Interest in bitcoin has waned."
https://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21650295-or-it-next-big-thing

here's The Wall Street Journal in June 2017, with the price near $3000: "Bitcoin [...] roughly tripled this year.  Given bitcoinís history of volatility, a tumble at some point seems inevitable."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/bitcoin-drives-to-a-new-high-but-is-it-headed-for-a-crash-1496771053
^ It really is the dot-com bust all over again.

Mighty-Dollar

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #443 on: December 21, 2017, 11:31:28 PM »
Recent article in Wall Street Journal today says that 51 out of 53 economic experts and forecasters surveyed says Bitcoin is a classic bubble.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Well 51 out of 53 were right. Down more than 50% off it's high.

KTG

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 198
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #444 on: December 22, 2017, 08:10:57 AM »
Bitcoin is so stupid. Imagine if the US dollar behaved like Bitcoin. The US economy would be in ruin.

Stay away from this nonsense. If you do throw money at it (I refuse to call it investing) assume you will lose it, and if you win, its just like going to the casino.

L.A.S.

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 671
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #445 on: December 22, 2017, 10:15:25 AM »
This is only the beginning of the bitcoin price drops!

I would think that 30% or 40% drops are right around the corner on thin transactions.

Get ready for a rush to the exit.... It's about to get messy.

This isn't going to age well.

My question to the skeptics. 

Have you ever used bitcoin, studied it, or the ecosystem? Have you read about the banks who are developing their entire future around it?
https://cointelegraph.com/news/koreas-second-largest-bank-building-secure-crypto-wallet-services

https://news.bitcoin.com/japans-sbi-crypto-businesses-mining/

Also, when would you ever considering using bitcoin? What would it take? Or do you just scream ponzi, scam, tulips until you die, regardless of how many people are using it?

Ahhem...


https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/22/bitcoin-plunges-below-12000-on-coinbase-as-rout-accelerates-now-down-40-percent-from-record.html

thenextguy

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 200
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #446 on: December 22, 2017, 11:10:50 AM »
This is only the beginning of the bitcoin price drops!

I would think that 30% or 40% drops are right around the corner on thin transactions.

Get ready for a rush to the exit.... It's about to get messy.

This isn't going to age well.

My question to the skeptics. 

Have you ever used bitcoin, studied it, or the ecosystem? Have you read about the banks who are developing their entire future around it?
https://cointelegraph.com/news/koreas-second-largest-bank-building-secure-crypto-wallet-services

https://news.bitcoin.com/japans-sbi-crypto-businesses-mining/

Also, when would you ever considering using bitcoin? What would it take? Or do you just scream ponzi, scam, tulips until you die, regardless of how many people are using it?

Ahhem...


https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/22/bitcoin-plunges-below-12000-on-coinbase-as-rout-accelerates-now-down-40-percent-from-record.html

Uh...if you invested on the day you made that post, November 30th. You'd be up over 30% today. Nice try though.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2017, 11:12:58 AM by thenextguy »

KTG

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 198
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #447 on: December 22, 2017, 11:30:33 AM »
Exactly... you just said invested. I can invest in playing slot machines too. And when I am up I can say this was a worthwhile investment, but we all know its just gambling.

Bitcoin and others are supposed to be a currency, which needs to be stable, which they are far from. So people are not buying them to use as a currency, especially since any place that does accept them also legally has to accept their local country's currency as well, which they will already have. They are buying them because they see the value going up and don't want to be left out. That is speculation. Its essentially gambling.

Its going to be fun coming back to this thread in a few years when all this implodes, and there are tons of people who will be left crying, the congressional hearings that follow, and eventually these random currencies become sanctioned by governments. Much like the way the US prevents banks and credit card companies from dealing directly with online casinos. Yes, you can get money into and out of them, but it is a pain in the ass and time consuming. I don't doubt something similar will happen with Bitcoin and others.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2017, 11:35:14 AM by KTG »

phil22

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 144
  • "This quote is very memorable." -Randall Munroe
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #448 on: December 22, 2017, 03:33:47 PM »
Exactly... you just said invested. I can invest in playing slot machines too. And when I am up I can say this was a worthwhile investment, but we all know its just gambling.

Bitcoin and others are supposed to be a currency, which needs to be stable, which they are far from. So people are not buying them to use as a currency, especially since any place that does accept them also legally has to accept their local country's currency as well, which they will already have. They are buying them because they see the value going up and don't want to be left out. That is speculation. Its essentially gambling.

Its going to be fun coming back to this thread in a few years when all this implodes, and there are tons of people who will be left crying, the congressional hearings that follow, and eventually these random currencies become sanctioned by governments. Much like the way the US prevents banks and credit card companies from dealing directly with online casinos. Yes, you can get money into and out of them, but it is a pain in the ass and time consuming. I don't doubt something similar will happen with Bitcoin and others.

do you think this downturn in bitcoin's price is fundamentally different than the downturns in 2011, 2013, or 2014?  or are cryptocurrencies categorically not able to survive long-term for some particular reason?

ILikeDividends

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 193
Re: Is it too late [bitcoin]?
« Reply #449 on: December 22, 2017, 03:51:27 PM »
Exactly... you just said invested. I can invest in playing slot machines too. And when I am up I can say this was a worthwhile investment, but we all know its just gambling.

Bitcoin and others are supposed to be a currency, which needs to be stable, which they are far from. So people are not buying them to use as a currency, especially since any place that does accept them also legally has to accept their local country's currency as well, which they will already have. They are buying them because they see the value going up and don't want to be left out. That is speculation. Its essentially gambling.

Its going to be fun coming back to this thread in a few years when all this implodes, and there are tons of people who will be left crying, the congressional hearings that follow, and eventually these random currencies become sanctioned by governments. Much like the way the US prevents banks and credit card companies from dealing directly with online casinos. Yes, you can get money into and out of them, but it is a pain in the ass and time consuming. I don't doubt something similar will happen with Bitcoin and others.

do you think this downturn in bitcoin's price is fundamentally different than the downturns in 2011, 2013, or 2014?  or are cryptocurrencies categorically not able to survive long-term for some particular reason?
Tulips didn't just disappear when the mania crashed.  There is still a market for tulips, it's just a rational market now.

Having said that, bitcoin's swoon today isn't really much different, in magnitude, then what it's had several times this year alone.  The bubble could go on for quite a long time, and reach new highs as well.  That doesn't mean it's not a bubble.  It just means there's enough disagreement about that to keep it going, at least for now.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2017, 03:55:20 PM by ILikeDividends »