Author Topic: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion  (Read 143450 times)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10700
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #350 on: September 21, 2017, 06:07:08 PM »
Fundamentals are good and team is good, HYPE hasn't hit it yet.

Cheers

I'm honestly curious - what "fundamentals" do cryptocurrencies/exchanges/companies have?

-W

lol

phil22

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 144
  • "This quote is very memorable." -Randall Munroe
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #351 on: September 22, 2017, 03:59:02 PM »
I'm honestly curious - what "fundamentals" do cryptocurrencies/exchanges/companies have?
lol


Fundamentals are good and team is good, HYPE hasn't hit it yet.
This kind of comment is what I'd expect from a PUMP & DUMP kind of investor.  The statements made about future value have no basis.  It would be more productive if you give some review of this new coin you just bought and how it's better than others rather than a shameless pump.

agreed.  we shouldn't be doing empty sales pitches for various cryptocurrencies.  if you want to argue why a particular coin is valuable the requirement should be to defend the position you've taken with a coin with lots of posts and discussion here -- not a single one-off post.

if coin X has "atomic swaps" with coins Y and Z, why wouldn't you just buy coins Y and Z?  why would X still be valuable if Y and Z aren't?

--

as for "what fundamentals cryptocurrencies have" i think it can be broken down like:

since the code and features are in my opinion not "fundamentals," we should only be looking at the health of the community of users/miners/developers/companies for a coin, and government favorability as well.

alena30

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #352 on: September 28, 2017, 04:46:08 AM »
We must accept the fact that the cryptocurrency is the future of currency as the blockchain technology is far better than the traditional way followed by the central banks.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10700
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #353 on: September 28, 2017, 07:37:21 AM »
We must accept the fact that the cryptocurrency is the future of currency as the blockchain technology is far better than the traditional way followed by the central banks.

No we mustn't.  No cryptocurrency to date has taken the place of fiat currency or proved itself as a useful means of exchange for goods.  It's interesting technology - something to think about, and something that might be a good idea to keep an eye on.  By no means is there any kind of certainty regarding it.

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2668
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #354 on: September 28, 2017, 08:34:26 AM »
Don't bother, those are just sock puppets spamming us.

-W

powskier

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 301
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #355 on: September 30, 2017, 12:21:09 AM »
I didn't invest at Google IPO because I didn't quite understand how it all worked.I hate the feeling I have now looking at what could have been.

I threw a little play money at some crypto because I didn't want to have that same feeling 10 years from now.

Yes there are tons of gimmicky ICO's and pump and dump is for real,  but there is also some very interesting blockchain technology happening and also an entirely new model of funding for start ups. Why hassle with VCs and banks when you can just issue a coin....

runbikerun

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 209
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #356 on: September 30, 2017, 12:42:37 AM »
One thing I've noticed when discussing cryptocurrencies elsewhere is that actual discussion of things that can materially effect the future of cryptocurrency is almost totally absent among crypto boosters.

For example: by the end of 2018, it's quite likely that the single biggest cryptocurrency on earth will be one developed by a consortium of six banks for the purposes of simplifying cross-border transfers. This project was announced about two months ago, and doesn't make use of any existing cryptocurrencies; instead it uses blockchain technology to simply make the existing system easier. If you think crypto has a future beyond fringe uses, this should be genuinely earth-shattering: we've just been shown that existing cryptocurrencies will be irrelevant to perhaps 99.9% of the world's money market activity. And yet, the day this appeared in the Financial Times, bitcoin's price simply kept going up. Even here, I don't believe there's been a single mention of it. At the very least, crypto is limited to interpersonal transactions that can't be done using existing currencies: at the most, even that is potentially under threat as it's now clear that banks can build their own systems for these purposes. And yet there's nothing; no acknowledgement of what this means, no acknowledgement that it's even happening.

lifeanon269

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 333
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #357 on: September 30, 2017, 08:10:05 AM »
For example: by the end of 2018, it's quite likely that the single biggest cryptocurrency on earth will be one developed by a consortium of six banks for the purposes of simplifying cross-border transfers.

Saying that institutional banks utilizing blockchain technology to become more efficient is a threat to an open and decentralized bitcoin is like saying that a gas powered pickup truck model increasing its miles per gallon from 15MPG to 25MPG is a threat to Tesla. Bitcoin is such a huge paradigm shift that an efficiency improvement for centralized financial institutions utilizing fiat money will not be what impacts its success.

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2668
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #358 on: September 30, 2017, 08:21:28 AM »
For example: by the end of 2018, it's quite likely that the single biggest cryptocurrency on earth will be one developed by a consortium of six banks for the purposes of simplifying cross-border transfers.

Saying that institutional banks utilizing blockchain technology to become more efficient is a threat to an open and decentralized bitcoin is like saying that a gas powered pickup truck model increasing its miles per gallon from 15MPG to 25MPG is a threat to Tesla. Bitcoin is such a huge paradigm shift that an efficiency improvement for centralized financial institutions utilizing fiat money will not be what impacts its success.

Well, as a sort of normal non-aligned person who uses money, I'd be much more likely to use (for actually buying stuff) a crypto currency issued by a major bank or government than Bitcoin or some other free-range crypto. The various horror stories of exchanges disappearing, people having their crypto stolen, etc all add up (for me, and probably for most folks without a strong preexisting opinion) to total distrust of any of them.

When ordinary people (not rich Chinese trying to hide money or speculate) start buying and selling actual stuff with Bitcoin on a large scale, you could convince me.

-W

lifeanon269

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 333
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #359 on: September 30, 2017, 09:56:25 AM »
Well, as a sort of normal non-aligned person who uses money, I'd be much more likely to use (for actually buying stuff) a crypto currency issued by a major bank or government than Bitcoin or some other free-range crypto. The various horror stories of exchanges disappearing, people having their crypto stolen, etc all add up (for me, and probably for most folks without a strong preexisting opinion) to total distrust of any of them.

When ordinary people (not rich Chinese trying to hide money or speculate) start buying and selling actual stuff with Bitcoin on a large scale, you could convince me.

-W

I have no doubt that there will be advances is payment technologies utilizing fiat currencies, etc. In fact, there already has been (ApplePay/Google wallet/SamsungPay, NFC, EMV chip cards, etc). Please explain how central banks or financial institutions that utilize blockchain technology to reduce overhead costs will make any sort of difference for the consumer. Maybe it will be a slight change in the point of sale transaction where they use their cell phone to pay (similar to ApplePay) instead of swiping a card. Or maybe the consumer pays lower fees for international transfers (although the greater likelihood is that banks will simply improve their profit margins with these efficiencies). A blockchain backend within a centralized system isn't really much different than a database backend in a centralized system.

Exchanges disappearing and crypto getting stolen are all part of the pain points of an early technology getting its start. Larger exchanges that are more tightly regulated and better funded will naturally appear over time (look at Coinbase as an example). That isn't a criticism against an open decentralized bitcoin though. Who knows, maybe some day there won't be a need for an exchange which would make that argument seem ridiculous in hindsight. New apps and consumer education will make it easier for endusers to store and secure their bitcoin without as much worry about losing it.

If you think that the people buying bitcoin are rich Chinese, then you're sorely mistaken. Especially now given the fact that the Chinese market has largely evacuated the market since the Chinese government clamped down on exchanges. The Chinese market makes up a very small portion of the market.

But you miss the whole point of bitcoin. Given some of your statements about bitcoin, I think this would be a good read for you to help you understand Bitcoin a little better:

https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/why-bitcoin-matters/

runbikerun

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 209
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #360 on: September 30, 2017, 11:35:36 AM »
For example: by the end of 2018, it's quite likely that the single biggest cryptocurrency on earth will be one developed by a consortium of six banks for the purposes of simplifying cross-border transfers.

Saying that institutional banks utilizing blockchain technology to become more efficient is a threat to an open and decentralized bitcoin is like saying that a gas powered pickup truck model increasing its miles per gallon from 15MPG to 25MPG is a threat to Tesla. Bitcoin is such a huge paradigm shift that an efficiency improvement for centralized financial institutions utilizing fiat money will not be what impacts its success.

That is firstly a wildly optimistic assessment of the state of the US car market and Tesla's share of it (they're only just barely on the radar, and it remains very much an open question whether they'll scale up fast enough to prevent established car companies cutting the ground from under them), and secondly a wildly optimistic assessment of Bitcoin's position. Tesla represents less than 1% of new car sales in the United States, and compared to Bitcoin that's a staggering success. Bitcoin transactions total about a quarter of a million a day: for comparison, Starbucks sells about 25 times that many drinks in the same time. Compared to fiat currency transactions, Bitcoin activity is a rounding error - and that's including God knows how many speculative transactions that have no purpose beyond trying to get rich trading the damn stuff.

Here's a question: what percentage of daily transactions in the United States is composed of purchases of goods or services using cryptocurrencies? I suspect it's beyond microscopic: Bitcoin isn't Tesla, it's not even your friend Dave who upgrades his car every year and sells the old one on Craigslist. It's a libertarian crank selling coal-rolling kits on eBay.

phil22

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 144
  • "This quote is very memorable." -Randall Munroe
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #361 on: September 30, 2017, 01:28:28 PM »
market share has nothing to do with it, i believe the point was that the markets don't overlap.  that's why it's not earth-shattering for the crypto community.  people who buy teslas don't care about the latest models of gas-powered pickups.  likewise, people who believe in the future of non-government cryptocurrencies don't care about a new way banks are going to be transacting with fiat currency.

lifeanon269

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 333
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #362 on: September 30, 2017, 02:24:11 PM »
market share has nothing to do with it, i believe the point was that the markets don't overlap.  that's why it's not earth-shattering for the crypto community.  people who buy teslas don't care about the latest models of gas-powered pickups.  likewise, people who believe in the future of non-government cryptocurrencies don't care about a new way banks are going to be transacting with fiat currency.

That was exactly my point.

runbikerun

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 209
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #363 on: September 30, 2017, 03:17:20 PM »
market share has nothing to do with it, i believe the point was that the markets don't overlap.  that's why it's not earth-shattering for the crypto community.  people who buy teslas don't care about the latest models of gas-powered pickups.  likewise, people who believe in the future of non-government cryptocurrencies don't care about a new way banks are going to be transacting with fiat currency.

That was exactly my point.

If there are people who think Bitcoin's price shouldn't necessarily bear any relation to market share, we're in an even bigger and more ridiculous bubble than I thought.

lifeanon269

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 333
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #364 on: October 01, 2017, 08:52:51 AM »
If there are people who think Bitcoin's price shouldn't necessarily bear any relation to market share, we're in an even bigger and more ridiculous bubble than I thought.

First off, marketshare of what? Second, in what world is the price of anything ever dictated by marketshare? By that measure, any new product, asset or commodity that comes to market would automatically start with a value of $0. It is no different for currencies.

The value of something in an open market is strictly determined by supply and demand. The more demand for something with a limited supply, then the greater its value. The market determines the value. Bitcoin is one of the few completely open and unmanipulated marketplaces out there, so if this economic principle were ever true for anything, it would be for bitcoin. You can argue that some people are purchasing bitcoin at today's price on the premise that its future marketshare of the gold market (for example) will be a certain amount, but that doesn't change the fact that today's value of bitcoin is based on today's market forces (supply/demand) of bitcoin, not tomorrow's. So the given price of bitcoin today is strictly based on today's supply and demand for it. So long as people continue to view it as a good store of value, then there will continue to be new people looking to bitcoin to store some of their wealth. The premise that it is a good store of value has a direct relationship with how well the network operates and whether or not it is technologically stable, which for the last almost 10 years, it has been so incredibly.

Now, if you'd excuse me, I am off to demand that I purchase a Ferrari for a few bucks while their marketshare is negligible.

JAYSLOL

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #365 on: October 01, 2017, 09:06:46 AM »

Now, if you'd excuse me, I am off to demand that I purchase a Ferrari for a few bucks while their marketshare is negligible.

If that works, get one for me too.  Good point about market share vs price

runbikerun

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 209
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #366 on: October 01, 2017, 09:17:02 AM »
If there are people who think Bitcoin's price shouldn't necessarily bear any relation to market share, we're in an even bigger and more ridiculous bubble than I thought.

First off, marketshare of what? Second, in what world is the price of anything ever dictated by marketshare? By that measure, any new product, asset or commodity that comes to market would automatically start with a value of $0. It is no different for currencies.

The value of something in an open market is strictly determined by supply and demand. The more demand for something with a limited supply, then the greater its value. The market determines the value. Bitcoin is one of the few completely open and unmanipulated marketplaces out there, so if this economic principle were ever true for anything, it would be for bitcoin. You can argue that some people are purchasing bitcoin at today's price on the premise that its future marketshare of the gold market (for example) will be a certain amount, but that doesn't change the fact that today's value of bitcoin is based on today's market forces (supply/demand) of bitcoin, not tomorrow's. So the given price of bitcoin today is strictly based on today's supply and demand for it. So long as people continue to view it as a good store of value, then there will continue to be new people looking to bitcoin to store some of their wealth. The premise that it is a good store of value has a direct relationship with how well the network operates and whether or not it is technologically stable, which for the last almost 10 years, it has been so incredibly.

Now, if you'd excuse me, I am off to demand that I purchase a Ferrari for a few bucks while their marketshare is negligible.

There's no point in continuing this particular thread of the conversation. We're at cross-purposes. I still cannot for the life of me see how a history of less than a decade, punctuated by astronomical gains and horrendous losses in price, and specifically named by the guy who wrote the Nobel-winning book on asset bubbles as being a perfect example of an asset bubble, can be sanely compared to gold, which has been used as a store of value for several thousand years and is more or less immediately convertible to usable money. Especially not when a significant number of its proponents don't even believe a currency should be a store of value.

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2668
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #367 on: October 01, 2017, 09:57:58 AM »
I think Bitcoin could conceivably be e-gold. The design of they system (inherently deflationary/limited supply) is actually ideal for store-of-value use. The hyper-volatility and various scams/frauds/thefts are obviously a problem.

As a currency, it's a bad joke. I am not sure how you could do a worse job designing a currency.

-W

mcampbell

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 57
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #368 on: October 01, 2017, 11:17:20 PM »
Invested in my first ICO. It was painless. I feel like I am on the ground floor of an amazon, microsoft, or pets.bomb. I am ready for moon or total loss. So exciting. I still rather have a highly diversified crytpo ETF that spreads out the risks.

You can’t “invest” in an ICO cause you don’t get equity. You get speculation tokens you hope will appreciate. It’s no where near getting in ground floor of an Amazon


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10700
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #369 on: October 02, 2017, 07:50:14 AM »
I didn't invest at Google IPO because I didn't quite understand how it all worked.I hate the feeling I have now looking at what could have been.

The mind is kinda selective though.  You remember Google because they were the winner.  There were a lot of losers, and picking the winner was not easy to do:


runbikerun

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 209
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #370 on: October 02, 2017, 09:40:54 AM »
For perspective: if you compare Google's share price post-IPO and Bitcoin's price from the point at which it reached a dollar, you can see that Bitcoin is growing in price about eight to ten times as fast as Google. Whether that's indicative of limitless potential or an impending collapse is up to the observer.

PDXTabs

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #371 on: October 02, 2017, 09:44:20 AM »
The mind is kinda selective though.  You remember Google because they were the winner.  There were a lot of losers, and picking the winner was not easy to do...

That's a very good point. I loved Alta Vista. Google attacked a fortified hill and won.

EDIT- Actually, the fought (at least) a two front battle with Alta Vista and Yahoo.

maizeman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2228
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #372 on: October 02, 2017, 10:30:50 AM »
Speaking of attacking fortified hills and winning.


jmecklenborg

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 134
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #373 on: October 02, 2017, 01:59:38 PM »
Google came along at the moment when Yahoo blew $3 billion buying out Mark Cuban for something that went absolutely nowhere. Later, Yahoo stayed alive because of its lucky investment in Alibaba. 

Switch a few things around back in 1996-97 (someone buys a condo in the same association as someone else, or something like that) and the history of the internet as we know it would be quite different.  That's why early investors are more lucky than good.  And not only do they have to buy the right stock, they have to hold it for a decade or more. 

maizeman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2228
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #374 on: October 02, 2017, 03:16:07 PM »
If you are based in the USA, you are either not "getting in on the ground floor" or the companies you are investing in through ICOs are going to end up in big trouble with the SEC. At best, companies in the USA are able to offer kickstarter-like ICOs where you are prepaying for a product that may exist in the future, potentially at a discount to its ultimate market price.

To understand the difference between these two transactions, ask anyone who helped kickstart the Oculus Rift with $2.4M in funding what their share of the profit was when Lucky Palmer went on to sell the company to facebook for a sweet $2.3B less than two years later (1000x return in two years).

Outside the USA you could indeed be getting in on the ground floor with various business ventures with something like an equity stake, but keep in mind that many VCs and Angel investors end up losing money, even the ones that make money expect to lose money on between 9/10 and 19/20ths of their investments, and that's after careful review of business plans and assessing the qualifications and personal qualities of the founders. As long as you really are prepared for a total loss though... here's hoping you shoot the moon!

Jeferson

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #375 on: October 02, 2017, 03:19:04 PM »
I see that not many money mustache folkes support and believe in these digital coins. I am, however of an opposite opinion and I believe that they have their place in the twenty-first century. I don't see much of a use for Bitcoin, because the fees that are associated with Bitcoin transactions are quite extensive, plus the process time isn't exactly great. Saying that, Bitcoin's only purpose is only to transfer money from one individual to another, nothing else. Other cryptocurrencies, such as Ethereum has also other usages, such as the dapps. You can check this crypto guide, if you are not sure how to determine the potential of a cryptocurrency. But still, if you don't think they have future, even after you read smth about them, there is no point for you to invest in them.
Why do people think that my name is Jeferson?
 Read my trading journal

mcampbell

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 57
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #376 on: October 02, 2017, 03:23:11 PM »
If you are based in the USA, you are either not "getting in on the ground floor" or the companies you are investing in through ICOs are going to end up in big trouble with the SEC. At best, companies in the USA are able to offer kickstarter-like ICOs where you are prepaying for a product that may exist in the future, potentially at a discount to its ultimate market price.

To understand the difference between these two transactions, ask anyone who helped kickstart the Oculus Rift with $2.4M in funding what their share of the profit was when Lucky Palmer went on to sell the company to facebook for a sweet $2.3B less than two years later (1000x return in two years).

Outside the USA you could indeed be getting in on the ground floor with various business ventures with something like an equity stake, but keep in mind that many VCs and Angel investors end up losing money, even the ones that make money expect to lose money on between 9/10 and 19/20ths of their investments, and that's after careful review of business plans and assessing the qualifications and personal qualities of the founders. As long as you really are prepared for a total loss though... here's hoping you shoot the moon!

Theoretically companies outside USA could offer equity via an ICO, I have yet to see any that have done this. Cause they haven’t needed to cause people are essentially giving them free Kickstarter type money, hoping the tokens will raise in value. It’s illegal in USA to even have on your website that the tokens can raise in value or they are any kind of “investment”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bicycle_B

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1631
  • Mustachian-ish in Live Music Capital of the World
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #377 on: October 03, 2017, 12:14:36 AM »
One thing I've noticed when discussing cryptocurrencies elsewhere is that actual discussion of things that can materially effect the future of cryptocurrency is almost totally absent among crypto boosters.

For example: by the end of 2018, it's quite likely that the single biggest cryptocurrency on earth will be one developed by a consortium of six banks for the purposes of simplifying cross-border transfers. This project was announced about two months ago, and doesn't make use of any existing cryptocurrencies; instead it uses blockchain technology to simply make the existing system easier. If you think crypto has a future beyond fringe uses, this should be genuinely earth-shattering: we've just been shown that existing cryptocurrencies will be irrelevant to perhaps 99.9% of the world's money market activity. And yet, the day this appeared in the Financial Times, bitcoin's price simply kept going up. Even here, I don't believe there's been a single mention of it. At the very least, crypto is limited to interpersonal transactions that can't be done using existing currencies: at the most, even that is potentially under threat as it's now clear that banks can build their own systems for these purposes. And yet there's nothing; no acknowledgement of what this means, no acknowledgement that it's even happening.

Informative and thought-provoking comment; thanks for posting.

maizeman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2228
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #378 on: October 03, 2017, 02:31:17 AM »
Fair points ICO's should not be considered an "investment", but they have potential for making you real money. I'm not sure how a kickstarter does that.

How do you make real money pre-purchasing a product at a discount? You resell your product to someone who is willing to pay more for it than you were. People actually did this with Oculus Rift pre-orders and some of them doubled their money.

Cryptocurrency-like tokens makes the process of buying and reselling a lot lower friction, which reduces transaction costs, but produces greater elasticity of supply, which means you're unlikely to see the biggest mismatches between supply and demand which is when people make the most money on reselling products.

TL;DR I'm not arguing there isn't potential to make money on ICOs, but they're not set up to give "invest in a successful silicon valley startup" scale returns, even if the underlying company turns out to be the next amazon/google. 

flyersman

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 86
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #379 on: October 03, 2017, 08:03:18 AM »
What are everyones thoughts on Crypto Index's?

https://crypto20.com/en/

I just signed up for that one and also read an article that a few Google Employees started one as well.

runbikerun

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 209
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #380 on: October 03, 2017, 11:02:14 AM »
My personal opinion is that a crypto index fund is a very bad idea. The risks involved in investing in Bitcoin are almost identical to the risks involved in investing in Ethereum, or Ripple, or Monero - they all have wildly volatile price swings, they're all more or less completely unusable as actual currency, and they're all effectively in the same mode characterised by Robert Shipper as indicative of a bubble. Building an index fund does nothing to negate those risks, which are vastly bigger than the risks specific to individual altcoins.

Further to that, an index fund runs the risk of building false confidence. Someone who invests in a crypto index fund may well think they're properly diversified, but they're still entirely exposed to the vicissitudes of what remains a very immature industry.

lifeanon269

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 333
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #381 on: October 03, 2017, 12:54:02 PM »
My personal opinion is that a crypto index fund is a very bad idea.

Further to that, an index fund runs the risk of building false confidence. Someone who invests in a crypto index fund may well think they're properly diversified, but they're still entirely exposed to the vicissitudes of what remains a very immature industry.

So your stance is essentially that the crypto-currency industry as a whole does not have any worthwhile future at all? Wow, that's quite the bearish stance. Even some of the most bearish of bears on crypto-currencies yield to the fact that crypto-currencies in general are here to stay.

runbikerun

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 209
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #382 on: October 03, 2017, 01:30:56 PM »
My personal opinion is that a crypto index fund is a very bad idea.

Further to that, an index fund runs the risk of building false confidence. Someone who invests in a crypto index fund may well think they're properly diversified, but they're still entirely exposed to the vicissitudes of what remains a very immature industry.

So your stance is essentially that the crypto-currency industry as a whole does not have any worthwhile future at all? Wow, that's quite the bearish stance. Even some of the most bearish of bears on crypto-currencies yield to the fact that crypto-currencies in general are here to stay.

My personal opinion is that the cryptocurrency industry as it's currently comprised is in a spectacular bubble phase. There may be cryptocurrencies in the future (although it's instructive to note that perhaps 99% of the population of the US have never once used cryptocurrency, and perhaps 99% of the remainder haven't used it for anything except speculative investment or illegal activity), but there's no reason to assume that what's currently popular will be what turns out to be any use whatsoever.

There's no day-to-day use case for crypto as it stands, and ten years in it doesn't look as though there ever will be. There's nothing stopping organisations which like blockchain technology from simply using that without reference to existing cryptocurrency. A gigantic chunk of the money that's currently in cryptocurrency is only there because of the promise of massive gains: if we believe the market will crash (and I have very little doubt that it will), we have no basis for trying to figure out what cryptocurrencies will be worth when the dust settles. Nothing. Bitcoin could fall to a dollar; Ethereum could fall to a cent. With that kind of uncertainty,  putting money in a crypto index is close to pointless.

lifeanon269

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 333
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #383 on: October 03, 2017, 02:23:27 PM »
My personal opinion is that the cryptocurrency industry as it's currently comprised is in a spectacular bubble phase. There may be cryptocurrencies in the future (although it's instructive to note that perhaps 99% of the population of the US have never once used cryptocurrency, and perhaps 99% of the remainder haven't used it for anything except speculative investment or illegal activity), but there's no reason to assume that what's currently popular will be what turns out to be any use whatsoever.

There's no day-to-day use case for crypto as it stands, and ten years in it doesn't look as though there ever will be. There's nothing stopping organisations which like blockchain technology from simply using that without reference to existing cryptocurrency. A gigantic chunk of the money that's currently in cryptocurrency is only there because of the promise of massive gains: if we believe the market will crash (and I have very little doubt that it will), we have no basis for trying to figure out what cryptocurrencies will be worth when the dust settles. Nothing. Bitcoin could fall to a dollar; Ethereum could fall to a cent. With that kind of uncertainty,  putting money in a crypto index is close to pointless.

It is clear from what you've posted you have your biases and misunderstands of the technology and how it works. The blatant bogus statistics that you spout out are ridiculous and for someone who denounces speculation, you sure are doing an awful lot of it yourself.

Also, I don't think you understand how the crypto indexes work (such as BTWTY and Crypto20). They reallocate themselves to the top twenty crypto-currencies every month or so. So unless the crypto-currency market completely dries up (extremely unlikely), then a crypto-index fund has a lot of value. Plus, unlike mutual funds today, they're low maintenance with non-existent fees (driven by programming) and can't be manipulated and you don't have to worry whether or not your institution is gambling your money away behind the seasons. This is the power that mathematics, openness, and programmable money will bring to the financial industry.

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2668
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #384 on: October 03, 2017, 03:00:30 PM »
One of the things I find odd about the crypto currency folks is how emotional they are about it (not you Maizeman!)

I own lots of stuff - stocks, bonds, a couple houses, many big fancy tools, etc. All of those things have some intrinsic value to varying degrees.

When I want to sell or buy something, I could care less what I use to make that transaction as long as it's easy, relatively secure, and that the currency is stable in value and accepted pretty much everywhere. I have no interest in whether or not that's dollars, bitcoins, dirty socks, you name it. I'm agnostic on the specific currency as long as it has those basic attributes.

As of right now, none of that applies, and the "success" of crypto looks more to me like failure, since none of them have managed to become commonly used or even stable in value. I have no interest in buying something that has no use and is only transacted with itself (I don't go out and buy a bunch of dollars to stick under my bed either, and those at least are easy to use for buying stuff I actually want).

So an index fund to me seems more like the cherry on top of a speculation sundae than evidence that the markets are "mature" or that you can "invest" in the technology as a whole by buying such a fund.

-W

runbikerun

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 209
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #385 on: October 03, 2017, 03:23:55 PM »
My personal opinion is that the cryptocurrency industry as it's currently comprised is in a spectacular bubble phase. There may be cryptocurrencies in the future (although it's instructive to note that perhaps 99% of the population of the US have never once used cryptocurrency, and perhaps 99% of the remainder haven't used it for anything except speculative investment or illegal activity), but there's no reason to assume that what's currently popular will be what turns out to be any use whatsoever.

There's no day-to-day use case for crypto as it stands, and ten years in it doesn't look as though there ever will be. There's nothing stopping organisations which like blockchain technology from simply using that without reference to existing cryptocurrency. A gigantic chunk of the money that's currently in cryptocurrency is only there because of the promise of massive gains: if we believe the market will crash (and I have very little doubt that it will), we have no basis for trying to figure out what cryptocurrencies will be worth when the dust settles. Nothing. Bitcoin could fall to a dollar; Ethereum could fall to a cent. With that kind of uncertainty,  putting money in a crypto index is close to pointless.

It is clear from what you've posted you have your biases and misunderstands of the technology and how it works. The blatant bogus statistics that you spout out are ridiculous and for someone who denounces speculation, you sure are doing an awful lot of it yourself.

Also, I don't think you understand how the crypto indexes work (such as BTWTY and Crypto20). They reallocate themselves to the top twenty crypto-currencies every month or so. So unless the crypto-currency market completely dries up (extremely unlikely), then a crypto-index fund has a lot of value. Plus, unlike mutual funds today, they're low maintenance with non-existent fees (driven by programming) and can't be manipulated and you don't have to worry whether or not your institution is gambling your money away behind the seasons. This is the power that mathematics, openness, and programmable money will bring to the financial industry.

What's with the furiously emotional response?

You asked about my position, and I explained it. I specifically avoided discussing the specifics of the technology, because the reasons I believe cryptocurrencies will collapse have nothing to do with the technology itself.

Regarding the rebalancing: I don't think you've read what I've written. I argued that indexing cryptocurrencies is futile, because they're all exposed to the same major risks, and explained that I expect to see a severe crypto crash. I do expect to see a drastic shrinkage in the crypto market, so monthly rebalancing and near-zero fees make no difference. Why would I mention monthly rebalancing when discussing a fund I fully expect will lose perhaps 90% of its value? If I have absolutely no faith in the underlying asset class, then it doesn't matter how the index fund operates.

On the subject of my numbers: yes, I guessed, because real figures are hard to come by. That said, though, I'd be pretty confident that less than three million Americans have actually possessed cryptocurrency. And I'd be outright astonished if thirty thousand Americans have managed to actually pay for a legal good or service with crypto.

shotgunwilly

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 544
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #386 on: October 03, 2017, 04:38:48 PM »
One of the things I find odd about the crypto currency folks is how emotional they are about it (not you Maizeman!)

I own lots of stuff - stocks, bonds, a couple houses, many big fancy tools, etc. All of those things have some intrinsic value to varying degrees.

When I want to sell or buy something, I could care less what I use to make that transaction as long as it's easy, relatively secure, and that the currency is stable in value and accepted pretty much everywhere. I have no interest in whether or not that's dollars, bitcoins, dirty socks, you name it. I'm agnostic on the specific currency as long as it has those basic attributes.

As of right now, none of that applies, and the "success" of crypto looks more to me like failure, since none of them have managed to become commonly used or even stable in value. I have no interest in buying something that has no use and is only transacted with itself (I don't go out and buy a bunch of dollars to stick under my bed either, and those at least are easy to use for buying stuff I actually want).

So an index fund to me seems more like the cherry on top of a speculation sundae than evidence that the markets are "mature" or that you can "invest" in the technology as a whole by buying such a fund.

-W

Your posts, and many others here crying that cryptocurrencies are useless because "you can't buy shit or use it to transact in an efficient way", make it blatantly clear that you have a very narrow minded grasp on how blockchain can be used.  No, Bitcoin is not widely used for transferring money, and buying or selling things.  Yes, it has some issues that are keeping it from being a currency.  But there are extremely exciting use cases for blockhain, and therefor a token that runs the chain.  So much that it will change industries.  And when you have a blockchain, you have a token, or coin, or "cryptocurrency" (which is what most people are using as the term for these tokens) that is used for the protocol to maintain decentralization.  And they can grow in value as a blockchain is used or adopted.

Right now, there is a speculative bubble in all of these cryptocurrencies as a whole. (This can be seen when comparing value derived from actual use vs the value the coins are listed at today due to speculation.) MANY will fail.  Lot's of money will be made and lost, and new companies and blockchains will be created for different use cases.  Many more will fail, and some will become successful.  This doesn't mean that "cryptocurrencies" as a whole are useless and will be a failure, any more than saying all internet companies were a failure because of the dot com bubble.

I believe you are confusing "cryptocurrency" with a blockchain token meant to be used as an actual currency, which very few are.  Ethereum, for example, runs on a token called Ether.  It was never designed to be used as a currency.  Yet it get's listed under the term "cryptocurrency."  I think as the market matures it will develop better distinguishing terms for various coins. (Maybe?)

lifeanon269

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 333
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #387 on: October 03, 2017, 04:54:53 PM »
What's with the furiously emotional response?

You asked about my position, and I explained it. I specifically avoided discussing the specifics of the technology, because the reasons I believe cryptocurrencies will collapse have nothing to do with the technology itself.

Regarding the rebalancing: I don't think you've read what I've written. I argued that indexing cryptocurrencies is futile, because they're all exposed to the same major risks, and explained that I expect to see a severe crypto crash. I do expect to see a drastic shrinkage in the crypto market, so monthly rebalancing and near-zero fees make no difference. Why would I mention monthly rebalancing when discussing a fund I fully expect will lose perhaps 90% of its value? If I have absolutely no faith in the underlying asset class, then it doesn't matter how the index fund operates.

On the subject of my numbers: yes, I guessed, because real figures are hard to come by. That said, though, I'd be pretty confident that less than three million Americans have actually possessed cryptocurrency. And I'd be outright astonished if thirty thousand Americans have managed to actually pay for a legal good or service with crypto.

What was it about my post that was "furiously emotional"? I don't think I posted anything or wrote any sentence that exuded any emotion at all, in fact. Was there something specific about my post that led you to believe it was furiously emotional?

I did read what you wrote and to be honest I didn't really see much of any specifics other than your opinion on the matter...

Quote
-"If there are people who think Bitcoin's price shouldn't necessarily bear any relation to market share, we're in an even bigger and more ridiculous bubble than I thought."
-"The risks involved in investing in Bitcoin are almost identical to the risks involved in investing in Ethereum, or Ripple, or Monero"
-"they all have wildly volatile price swings, they're all more or less completely unusable as actual currency, and they're all effectively in the same mode characterised by Robert Shipper as indicative of a bubble."
-"Building an index fund does nothing to negate those risks, which are vastly bigger than the risks specific to individual altcoins."
-"My personal opinion is that the cryptocurrency industry as it's currently comprised is in a spectacular bubble phase."
-"There's no day-to-day use case for crypto as it stands, and ten years in it doesn't look as though there ever will be."
-"Why would I mention monthly rebalancing when discussing a fund I fully expect will lose perhaps 90% of its value"
-"If I have absolutely no faith in the underlying asset class, then it doesn't matter how the index fund operates."
-"Bitcoin could fall to a dollar; Ethereum could fall to a cent. With that kind of uncertainty,  putting money in a crypto index is close to pointless."
-"My personal opinion is that a crypto index fund is a very bad idea."
-"Someone who invests in a crypto index fund may well think they're properly diversified, but they're still entirely exposed to the vicissitudes of what remains a very immature industry."
-"That said, though, I'd be pretty confident that less than three million Americans have actually possessed cryptocurrency."
-"And I'd be outright astonished if thirty thousand Americans have managed to actually pay for a legal good or service with crypto."

These are all the things from the last several posts of yours and most of it is either just speculative itself, misinformed and opinionated, or just outright false.

Investing in a crypto index fund allows an individual to diversify among crypto-currencies as a whole. It is no different than someone who feels that technology companies will do well, but rather than investing in specific companies, they invest in a fund that diversifies among the largest tech companies. You don't invest in a fund like that unless you're already comfortable investing in the underlying market itself. The same goes for a crypto index fund. Clearly, for someone like you who doesn't think crypto-currencies will be around in 10 years, then its not a fund targeted toward an individual like yourself. But, to say that they're a bad idea when they're clearly designed for individuals comfortable with the idea of crypto-currencies fails to understand the benefit they provide. They're for the individuals who feel that crypto-currencies have a place in the world, but aren't comfortable picking a winner just yet. If a particular crypto-currency fails and loses market cap, then it will fall out of the index fund and another currency will take its place. Overall, however, if one feels that the overall market will continue to grow (so far it has), then the index fund will as well.

I don't mind debating crypto-currencies and one look back at my previous posts throughout this threat and others regarding crypto-currencies will show that I enjoy a good debate and will always keep things cordial and free from personal attacks. However, looking at your previous quotes above, it is difficult to have an adequate debate regarding a topic when one side fails to talk about anything specific or outright uses false or exaggerated information.

lifeanon269

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 333
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #388 on: October 03, 2017, 05:09:39 PM »
One thing that I think many don't realize about crypto-currencies is the boom in innovation that is going to take place on the internet because of them. Previously, inventing new protocols and internet technologies involved the classic "chicken or the egg" problem. Inventing a new protocol typically depends upon its inherently widespread use among users. However, without its widespread use, it won't be adopted by users. Crypto-currencies change this. It monetizes the protocols themselves. This will allow for a ton of innovation over the next decade or so that I don't think a lot of people realize. Take for example SMTP. It is the protocol that email rides over and it is completely out of date. Yet, even though it is very outdated and lacks any sort of security at all, it is still widely used simply because nothing can supplant its widespread use.

Monetizing the protocols (which crypto-currencies allow for) allows for individuals to become invested in the protocols themselves and thus receive economic gains when the protocol sees widespread use and by becoming invested in these protocols, they also become users of the protocol. This solves the "chicken or the egg" problem. All the protocols in use on the internet today, despite the fact that brilliant minds poured into them, weren't monetized. DNS, SMTP, TCP, HTTP, etc. No one received economic benefit directly from those protocols even though they've completely revolutionized our way of life. Protocol innovation has now stagnated because of this and I believe crypto-currencies will completely revolutionize internet innovation because of the benefit they provide. We will no longer be handcuffed by the "chicken or egg" problem that is holding innovation back.

So you want a use case? There is one for you and I can't wait to see where it takes us.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 05:17:46 PM by lifeanon269 »

lifeanon269

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 333
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #389 on: October 03, 2017, 07:58:58 PM »
I'm unable to follow this.  Is blockchain the protocol?  So investing/trading in the currency (e.g. bitcoin) will result in adoption of blockchain technology as a standard?  I don't understand how that in turn would make the tokens more valuable. 

I know all the protocols listed above and have a working understanding of how protocols are developed and evolve through consortiums and standards bodies like IETF.  So I get about half of your comment above, but I don't think it ties together like you suggest.

My understanding is that blockchain is the protocol, like TCP/IP or HTTP are protocols.  The coins are what travels over the protocol, like a particular webpage or Netflix show would.  Now that we have this new protocol, companies (like banks) are starting to put it to all kinds of new uses.  Recording the transfer of digital tokens is a nice proof of concept, but it seems the protocol can move on to bigger things without the original tokens that got it started.

Take, for example, Siacoin. If someone wanted to create a decentralized storage network to compete against Amazon, you'd have a chicken and the egg problem. No one would store their files on the network because there isn't enough people offering storage on the network to be decentralized and with enough capacity to support a user base...and without a user base, no one is going to offer up their storage to a service that doesn't make it worth their while. So a system like that with an open protocol would never be able to get off the ground. With blockchain technology, users become financially invested in the protocol itself. So users are then incentivized to offer storage on the network since that is what earns the tokens as part of the protocol. Now, since there is an entire protocol being supported by incentivized contributors, the user base can grow and adopt it.

We're going to see all sorts of new innovations like this that we're never possible before simply because economics never allowed it to be possible.

Here is a further read on the subject. Not the exact article I was looking for when I first read about the concept, but still a decent read:

http://continuations.com/post/148098927445/crypto-tokens-and-the-coming-age-of-protocol

jmecklenborg

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 134
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #390 on: October 04, 2017, 12:11:09 AM »
So what happens to the value of Bitcoin when Wall St. gets exchanges shut down in the United States just like they were in China? 

At some point in the near future the investment banks are going to develop their own blockchain network and their own daily "cash" currency and their own digital "gold" and they'll get the exchanges shut down. 

They have been harassing peer-to-peer lending and microlending for several years now.  This is the next thing. 

runbikerun

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 209
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #391 on: October 04, 2017, 02:41:03 AM »
What's with the furiously emotional response?

You asked about my position, and I explained it. I specifically avoided discussing the specifics of the technology, because the reasons I believe cryptocurrencies will collapse have nothing to do with the technology itself.

Regarding the rebalancing: I don't think you've read what I've written. I argued that indexing cryptocurrencies is futile, because they're all exposed to the same major risks, and explained that I expect to see a severe crypto crash. I do expect to see a drastic shrinkage in the crypto market, so monthly rebalancing and near-zero fees make no difference. Why would I mention monthly rebalancing when discussing a fund I fully expect will lose perhaps 90% of its value? If I have absolutely no faith in the underlying asset class, then it doesn't matter how the index fund operates.

On the subject of my numbers: yes, I guessed, because real figures are hard to come by. That said, though, I'd be pretty confident that less than three million Americans have actually possessed cryptocurrency. And I'd be outright astonished if thirty thousand Americans have managed to actually pay for a legal good or service with crypto.

What was it about my post that was "furiously emotional"? I don't think I posted anything or wrote any sentence that exuded any emotion at all, in fact. Was there something specific about my post that led you to believe it was furiously emotional?

I did read what you wrote and to be honest I didn't really see much of any specifics other than your opinion on the matter...

Quote
-"If there are people who think Bitcoin's price shouldn't necessarily bear any relation to market share, we're in an even bigger and more ridiculous bubble than I thought."
-"The risks involved in investing in Bitcoin are almost identical to the risks involved in investing in Ethereum, or Ripple, or Monero"
-"they all have wildly volatile price swings, they're all more or less completely unusable as actual currency, and they're all effectively in the same mode characterised by Robert Shipper as indicative of a bubble."
-"Building an index fund does nothing to negate those risks, which are vastly bigger than the risks specific to individual altcoins."
-"My personal opinion is that the cryptocurrency industry as it's currently comprised is in a spectacular bubble phase."
-"There's no day-to-day use case for crypto as it stands, and ten years in it doesn't look as though there ever will be."
-"Why would I mention monthly rebalancing when discussing a fund I fully expect will lose perhaps 90% of its value"
-"If I have absolutely no faith in the underlying asset class, then it doesn't matter how the index fund operates."
-"Bitcoin could fall to a dollar; Ethereum could fall to a cent. With that kind of uncertainty,  putting money in a crypto index is close to pointless."
-"My personal opinion is that a crypto index fund is a very bad idea."
-"Someone who invests in a crypto index fund may well think they're properly diversified, but they're still entirely exposed to the vicissitudes of what remains a very immature industry."
-"That said, though, I'd be pretty confident that less than three million Americans have actually possessed cryptocurrency."
-"And I'd be outright astonished if thirty thousand Americans have managed to actually pay for a legal good or service with crypto."

These are all the things from the last several posts of yours and most of it is either just speculative itself, misinformed and opinionated, or just outright false.

Investing in a crypto index fund allows an individual to diversify among crypto-currencies as a whole. It is no different than someone who feels that technology companies will do well, but rather than investing in specific companies, they invest in a fund that diversifies among the largest tech companies. You don't invest in a fund like that unless you're already comfortable investing in the underlying market itself. The same goes for a crypto index fund. Clearly, for someone like you who doesn't think crypto-currencies will be around in 10 years, then its not a fund targeted toward an individual like yourself. But, to say that they're a bad idea when they're clearly designed for individuals comfortable with the idea of crypto-currencies fails to understand the benefit they provide. They're for the individuals who feel that crypto-currencies have a place in the world, but aren't comfortable picking a winner just yet. If a particular crypto-currency fails and loses market cap, then it will fall out of the index fund and another currency will take its place. Overall, however, if one feels that the overall market will continue to grow (so far it has), then the index fund will as well.

I don't mind debating crypto-currencies and one look back at my previous posts throughout this threat and others regarding crypto-currencies will show that I enjoy a good debate and will always keep things cordial and free from personal attacks. However, looking at your previous quotes above, it is difficult to have an adequate debate regarding a topic when one side fails to talk about anything specific or outright uses false or exaggerated information.

"The blatant bogus statistics that you spout out are ridiculous."

This is what I was referring to as an emotional response.

Regarding the statistics I mentioned (and freely admitted were very rough guesses): it appears as though I have severely overestimated the number of American cryptocurrency users. This item of research from Cambridge University (http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/study-highlights-growing-significance-of-cryptocurrencies) indicates that the total number of users worldwide is three million, so my estimate of the same number for America alone was off by quite a distance. Cryptocurrency is in fact a good deal more niche than I had thought.

Regarding my estimate of 1% of transactions being for the purchase of legal goods or services: I freely admit that this is a shot in the dark. There's very little data on this at present; the best I could find just now was a survey done at a Chinese conference, where the self-reported figure for such transactions was 5%. If you have data to the contrary, feel free to share; I'm happy to recant in the face of better data.

On the specific subject of cryptocurrencies as a method for monetising protocol adoption: I have to say, I've been discussing cryptocurrencies with ardent advocates for a while now, and you're the first person I've seen coming in with this as a potential use case. It makes for interesting reading, and makes sense of some of what I've read elsewhere that was poorly explained. I'd still be extremely wary of investing in crypto at the moment, as I'm convinced prices have bee badly inflated by speculative investment, but I'm a good deal less cynical about its uses in ten to fifteen years than I was yesterday.

Would I be right in saying that this effectively means buying Siacoin is equivalent to putting money into an early-stage startup?

lifeanon269

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 333
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #392 on: October 04, 2017, 06:36:11 AM »
"The blatant bogus statistics that you spout out are ridiculous."

This is what I was referring to as an emotional response.

Regarding the statistics I mentioned (and freely admitted were very rough guesses): it appears as though I have severely overestimated the number of American cryptocurrency users. This item of research from Cambridge University (http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/study-highlights-growing-significance-of-cryptocurrencies) indicates that the total number of users worldwide is three million, so my estimate of the same number for America alone was off by quite a distance. Cryptocurrency is in fact a good deal more niche than I had thought.

Regarding my estimate of 1% of transactions being for the purchase of legal goods or services: I freely admit that this is a shot in the dark. There's very little data on this at present; the best I could find just now was a survey done at a Chinese conference, where the self-reported figure for such transactions was 5%. If you have data to the contrary, feel free to share; I'm happy to recant in the face of better data.

On the specific subject of cryptocurrencies as a method for monetising protocol adoption: I have to say, I've been discussing cryptocurrencies with ardent advocates for a while now, and you're the first person I've seen coming in with this as a potential use case. It makes for interesting reading, and makes sense of some of what I've read elsewhere that was poorly explained. I'd still be extremely wary of investing in crypto at the moment, as I'm convinced prices have bee badly inflated by speculative investment, but I'm a good deal less cynical about its uses in ten to fifteen years than I was yesterday.

Would I be right in saying that this effectively means buying Siacoin is equivalent to putting money into an early-stage startup?

That Cambridge survey was also conducted over a year ago starting in Sept 2016 when the market cap for bitcoin was less than $10 billion and the total market cap for all crypto-currencies was at around $12 billion. The market has grown 10-fold since then. So you're essentially excluding the largest growth year for the market by citing those statistics. Going by Coinbase's sign-ups alone, there are about 10.8 million accounts with Coinbase and recently they've been adding accounts up to a magnitude of about 100k-200k a day.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that crypto-currencies are widely used and I'd even accept figures that are arguably very small, so it isn't necessarily that I was arguing the numbers themselves. Outside of the handful of people I've gotten into crypto-currencies myself, I'd only know one other person who actually owns any. But, I think the more important figure isn't what the current adoption levels are, but what the trend is for those adoption levels. This is an extremely new market and concept and so it is going to have a small market, but the trend shows that it is growing and growing fast. The fact that a lot of people know about bitcoin because of the media shows that it is only a matter of time before its continued existence will bring in more people willing to give it a try.

I fully agree that the number of ICOs that are poorly designed or even worse, fraudulent, are extremely high. A vast majority will fail. That will largely have its biggest impact on the ICO tokens themselves and the blockchain they're built on (Ethereum). I don't think the impact on bitcoin will be felt as much. Bitcoin is certainly the reserve currency for all other cryptos, but the demand that these other cryptos place on bitcoin is extremely fleeting. The current market demand for bitcoin is mostly for bitcoin itself.

I don't think investing in Siacoin is quite the same as investing in a fledgling startup. Most startup investments (even outside of crypto), in my opinion, are bold promises or based upon prototypes that are hoped to become widely used. Investing in one of these startups is largely speculative based on the idea that they'll become successful. Sia is a completely usable network today. So while it is still in a fledgling state and has new features being added all the time, it is still a completely usable product. So in that sense there is something that can actually be purchased with Siacoin. As long as there is something that is receivable, I think it is less speculative than a startup that is based on promises. Purchasing and owning the product itself is vastly different than investing in a company that has yet to prove itself. Sia is a usable product today and its usability can be attributed 100% to the breakthrough of the blockchain concept.

lifeanon269

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 333
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #393 on: October 04, 2017, 09:24:14 AM »
Interesting example on Sia.  On the surface it looks like a valid concept and real use of digital currency for decentralized cloud storage. 

I did some digging and have some concerns though.  This thing could be just taking off, or it could be failing - I'm not sure.  The coin itself had a spike in July, but now is down about 75% from the peak.  I guess this was due to speculation?  It seems that speculators driving up the price could effectively kill the whole thing before it gets off the ground by driving up the price too high.

I see the top hosts are offering storage for free now as well.  So in effect, the coin is not being used at all for it's intended purpose right now?  There is so much over-capacity in the network and so few early users that hosting storage is not profitable (income=0).

I have no idea whether Sia will succeed or fail. The decentralized storage space is starting to really pickup with many other competitors out there now (Storj, MaidSafe, Filecoin, etc). I do think however that any decentralized storage solution needs to remain cheap to be competitive. The economics of decentralized storage need to remain unprofitable. What I mean by that is that in order to out price its centralized competitors, decentralized cloud storage needs to remain cheap so that it prevents the profitability of large scale storage solutions from taking over the network (thus removing the decentralized nature of it). The point is to make it so hosts simply offer up their unused disk space to the network to utilize.

Also, when you upload your files to the network, it is spread out over many hosts. So even a few hosts offering free storage does not mean that your storage contract on the network is free for the files you upload.

Anyway, the example of Sia isn't whether or not it is a success story, but merely an example of the fact that crypto-currencies will allow for protocol monetization that was previously impossible. In that regard, Sia is a shining success given the fact that there is an abundance of storage offered up on the network even without a large user base to justify it. That effectively shows that the "chicken and the egg" problem didn't come into play which was the main point I was making. We're going to see a lot of innovation because of this; where great ideas no longer die before they were even started.

The possibilities are endless. Another concept that isn't feasible with fiat currencies is the concept of micro-payments. Currently, there isn't a way to pay for something cheaper than a penny and the current financial system that is built upon and supported by fees doesn't support payments that are too low to support those fee structures. With micro-payments, monetized protocols and machine-based currencies, we could very well see a world where sending an email could cost 1/100th of a penny. This would be a negligible cost for the individual who sends a few emails a day or for a business that sends several thousand emails a day. But, for the spammer who sends out millions or even billions of emails out in any given spam campaign, it suddenly makes that spam campaign economically unfeasible. Something like that could make spam email a thing of the past. Obviously nothing like that is in the works, but even the fact that these concepts are now theoretically possible because of crypto-currencies shows the vast potential of them.

Ravenik

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #394 on: October 04, 2017, 10:07:42 AM »

I did some digging and have some concerns though.  This thing could be just taking off, or it could be failing - I'm not sure.  The coin itself had a spike in July, but now is down about 75% from the peak.  I guess this was due to speculation?  It seems that speculators driving up the price could effectively kill the whole thing before it gets off the ground by driving up the price too high.


Yes, speculation drives these markets.  There have been a few major events that have impacted the ecosystem since the summer, and they cause bitcoin to plummet.  When bitcoin drops, then most altcoins drop even harder.  Their value in satoshis goes down, and the value of the satoshis themselves go down.  Double whammy.  Then you have market sentiment on the individual altcoins themselves, the actions of "whales", rumors/news, etc.  It's crazy.  Speaking to Siacoin itself, it is an older and more established coin, and lately it feels like most people are investing in the newer coins for a greater chance at big profits.

Just my 2 cents.

mcampbell

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 57
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #395 on: October 04, 2017, 02:58:27 PM »
Just found a great video on Bloomberg where they interview a hedge fund guy and how he is exploring Bitcoin and Ethereum, he has one of the most positive but most compelling talks on the subject. https://youtu.be/DozrRY2NENU


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

powskier

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 301
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #396 on: October 04, 2017, 03:53:13 PM »
The OP was pretty clear that this was not a thread to debate if crypto currency is legit/real/of value/etc. But to discuss crypto portfolios, unfortunately it has been hijacked pretty hard.
Can you all stop now?

Tonyahu

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 127
  • Age: 26
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Ambassador
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #397 on: October 04, 2017, 04:09:45 PM »
The OP was pretty clear that this was not a thread to debate if crypto currency is legit/real/of value/etc. But to discuss crypto portfolios, unfortunately it has been hijacked pretty hard.
Can you all stop now?

Exactly.

If you don't agree with investing in this "asset class", then feel free to argue over PM's with eachother.

This thread is for those who invest and/or plan to invest in order to reap the benefits of this volatility.

EXAMPLE:
Today on 10/04/2017, 1 Monero is $91, 1 Ether is $292, 1 Lisk is $5.45, 1 LINK is $.39 and 1 ARDR is $.16.

I will go ahead and bump this in 90 days to show you that there is rewards to be had by investing in this area.

For transparency sake, the market will be facing a decent downturn staring as soon as now (or as late as a few weeks) and will go until mid/late November. This is due to Political and Technological disagreements among the Bitcoin community. If you have been considering joining this market, the time will be then. As always, DCA into positions.

Cheers
« Last Edit: October 04, 2017, 04:14:43 PM by Tonyahu »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10700
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #398 on: October 05, 2017, 07:34:57 AM »
The OP was pretty clear that this was not a thread to debate if crypto currency is legit/real/of value/etc. But to discuss crypto portfolios, unfortunately it has been hijacked pretty hard.
Can you all stop now?

The name should probably be changed then . . . currently it reads "Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion".  You're suggesting that something like "Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency - Only Promotion And Good Words Allowed" would be more apt.

runbikerun

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 209
Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion
« Reply #399 on: October 06, 2017, 02:32:18 AM »
- Banker friendly coin: XRP
I personally do not like the thought of centralized coins, but this is a hedge more then anything that banks like control and will start using this platform.

Limiting myself to the terms of the thread: going by the announcement from the six-bank consortium, financial institutions are going to skip the middleman and build their own cryptocurrency rather than use someone else's.