Printable View
Well, it seems like TZ crypto user base has exploded over the last 6 months, which is fantastic.
My question is this, what will you do with any gains?
Don't expect you to make declarations as to specific value or volume, just curious.
Me? I have seen how a fraction of a bitcoin can be life changing, so I'm actually looking forward to giving most of it away. Right now, thats my real incentive for growing my holdings.
Sent from my [device_name] using TZ-UK mobile app
Good for you, that’s a great thing to do.
Forgive my observation, and it’s not intended to be disparaging to crypto, but it seems to me that it’s now moved away from its intended use, it’s not really for spending anymore is it? It’s like a house, you only ‘make profit’ when you cash out. Your giveaway may indeed change lives but only when the recipient cashes out to ‘normal’ currency. Or have I missed the point ?
Yes, I think you have missed the point. ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonM
Specifically, you appear to be searching for some sort of authority-granted, de jure purpose when the only purpose of a new invention in the market is de facto, i.e. what the market makes of it.
In fact you asked a broadly similar question way back in March 2014 here: http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...=1#post3058033
Here was my reply at the time:
Quote:
There are many ways it could be used and reasons why it might be useful, just as with any currency. Choice is never a bad thing (although I note that many people do in fact fear choice because they find it bewildering).Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonM
Not being controlled by any state is only one possible advantage, but a potentially significant one (for example, if you're Ukrainian at the moment). Not being controlled by banks is another possible advantage (for example, if you're Cypriot).
It often seems to me that asking "but why do we need it?" in relation to a new technology or a new invention somehow misses the point. When a potentially disruptive new invention comes along it is sometimes better to just accept that it's happening and cannot be uninvented, to see where it leads, and to then make the most of it. Maybe that sounds a bit Silicon Vallery-ish but it's how things are. ;-)
Not specifically. It doesn't have to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonM
But it could be used as an anti-establishment tool. It certainly seems to be the case that some nation state 'powers that be' fear its use in this manner although, that said, my impression is that they seem to fear it more because they didn't invent it and cannot realistically now stop its spread[1], even amongst people who have no specific anti-establishment intent. Thus they seem to fear that it could upset the status quo in relation to the political/social influence that they have through control of their national currencies and related 'regulation' and legislation. They may also be concerned that it might render existing tax collection apparatus ineffective.
What is the "digital underground" exactly? You give me the impression of seeing it as a "them and us" situation. As a heavy web forum user there are many people who would still see you as a member of the "digital underground". ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonM
I'd say that Bitcoin is already in 'mainstream use' but it is also true that there are many levels of 'mainstream'. As far as I know you can't yet pay for your gas supply anywhere using Bitcoin, for example.
Not yet, for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonM
I don't think it can be said to have an ultimate aim. It has no de jure ruling body to set specific goals like that (although there is a group of core developers who are de facto leaders) and it can be forked by anyone who wants to start a new currency using the same or similar technology or who wants to do something different with it. This has been done many times so far, with varying levels of success. (N.B. Even though other currencies may use Bitcoin's technology, they are still not Bitcoin).Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonM
My impression is that Bitcoin was originally launched as an experiment, albeit an experiment that was very cleverly and thoroughly thought through indeed and which was thus useable in the real world.
How Bitcoin ends up being used is anyone's guess. It is a natural and obvious expectation that it should be used in exactly the same way that conventional currencies are used (e.g. debit card in Next), and that is certainly a likely possibility sooner or later, but it could equally well be the case that Bitcoin, or some other cryptographically-backed currency not yet invented, will change the way that money is used entirely. What might happen in the longer run is not yet imaginable. That is the nature of disruptive technologies: Their outcomes are chaotically unpredictable.
Note that I don't suppose there are any significant technical barriers to the Visa or Mastercard payment authorisation networks being used to authorise payments on a bank account denominated in Bitcoin. From Visa's or Mastercard's perspective it would just be a currency like any other. Exchange rates, just as at present with EFTPOS payments, would be the responsibility of the issuing bank. I'd be amazed if someone wasn't working on just such a thing right now, although I expect the nation state regulatory hurdles would be horrendous. Nevertheless, it's a ripe area for an entrepreneur to exploit (even with variable exchange rates).
Note also that there are some nascent digital payment providers (which are effectively currency agnostic) which will in time potentially compete against the likes of Visa, Mastercard, and PayPal in a perhaps more decentralised fashion.
Lots of "potentially" and "perhaps" but that's how it is. It's all being made up as it goes along.
The market will make of it what it does. As I see it, saying that "its value needs to stabilise first" presupposes that there is a specific goal for it. As I mentioned above, there is no (and can be no) de jure goal. It will become what the market wants it to be, what people imagine it to be, and what the technology allows it to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonM
The price is, so far I believe, a very long way indeed from being stable due to the nature of the Bitcoin cryptographic protocol and its built in constraints (in other words, the price will continue to rise for a long time to come with occasional scary drops from which it will recover relatively quickly[2]). Will this actually hold back the progression of the network effect in terms of growth of Bitcoin after a certain level of progress? I don't think so but only time will tell.
Footnotes:-
1: See my thoughts on this in #33.
2: Unless a killer fault that cannot be fixed is found in the protocol or unless a better and cooler idea comes along to replace it.
I feel quite proud, I’ve never been ‘Mark-ed’ before lol. 😁
“Yes, I think you have missed the point. ;-)
Specifically, you appear to be searching for some sort of authority-granted, de jure purpose when the only purpose of a new invention in the market is de facto, i.e. what the market makes of it.”
I don’t think I am, I’m not against it in the slightest, I just don’t see it (especially recently) as a currency, just as a crypto commodity, I would say that’s what the market has made of it, again, this is fine by me.
In my message from 2014 above I wrote, "Unless a killer fault that cannot be fixed is found in the protocol".
Well, almost four years on and no killer (i.e. unfixable) faults have been found so far. A disagreement over one potential fault was 'solved' by Bitcoin splitting in two. Problem solved by allowing the market to choose which one (or both) solutions works best.
In fact, the split into Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash, whilst as I understand it successful for both sides so far, did highlight a possible problem with Bitcoin: That is overly costly and excessively slow transaction validation. If Bitcoin is to fulfil its full promise, transaction validation must be fast and very cheap (at least in relation to the value of the transaction). Time will tell as to whether or not transaction validation is a real sticking point. It could end up influencing the de facto style in which Bitcoin (and/or Bitcoin Cash) are eventually used in the market.
Yup, that's fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonM
But you still seem to me to be looking for hard and fast differences between a 'currency' and a 'commodity' that do not in fact exist.
As I also said to you back in 2014: ;-)
Quote:
I think it's a moot point: Broadly speaking as I understand it, a commodity is something that is theoretically worth something in its own right which can be bought or sold whereas a currency is primarily intended to be a medium of value exchange or value storage which may or may not be worth something in its own right (and which can also be bought or sold).
You can trade currency for profit and you can trade commodities for profit. The value of currency goes up and down (in terms of the commodities it can buy as well as in terms of other currencies) as does the value of currencies (in terms of other currencies and in terms of the commodities they can buy).
Thus a currency can be treated as a commodity and a commodity can (often, if people choose to agree) be used as a currency.
At the end of the day, the functionality and intent of Bitcoin is that of currency (i.e. you can directly spend it because people have agreed this) but just like all other currencies it has traits of a commodity too. Thus if you prefer to think of it as a commodity then that's fine. It makes no difference whatsoever in reality. There is no meaningful difference in this context.
[...]
P.S. For the avoidance of doubt, I didn't say you were against Bitcoin or against what it has or could become. It was more that I think you were looking in vain for de jure answers rather than de facto, market-generated answers, i.e. you were looking for what it 'should' be rather than what it simply is.
P.P.S. I just noticed that the quote from my 2014 message above refers to currencies twice in the second paragraph of the quote. Oops. I think the intention was clear but here is a better version:
Quote:
You can trade currency for profit and you can trade commodities for profit. The value of currency goes up and down (in terms of the commodities it can buy as well as in terms of other currencies) as do the values of commodities (in terms of currencies).