4 ms·

/biz/ has been great for me, I bought some MOONCOINS at 1 satoshi and I will sell next week at 5 sat at least once the current sell walls have been broken. Ther

/biz/ has been great for me, I bought some MOONCOINS at 1 satoshi and I will sell next week at 5 sat at least once the current sell walls have been broken. There also is a very active community behind MOONCOIN. Why are you so dismissive of this new technology? Can you expand on your idea?

Ologn 9y ago
> Why are you so dismissive of this new technology? I'm skeptical of the idea that Bitcoins have value in the way commodities and other things which can be traded and exchanged have value. People might find some use for blockchain technology, but the speculation around the value of Bitcoins is ridiculous. It's a bubble like any other bubble. The notion that a Bitcoin can remain at a $2000 value is absurd. The current top comment says "Internet companies during the dotcom bubble had market value of several trillion dollars. The total market cap of crypto-currency is still only ~$70 billion. I agree with the principle, but this boom is still pretty modest." Well there you go. I have an old worn sock with a hole in it that I am throwing away. It is worth $500. It is worth $500 because I am willing to pay $500 for it. I am capable of creating a bubble of that size. Even a $70 billion bubble can be created apparently. Once it reaches a certain point it will pop. Your point about Mooncoins points to it - as a Bitcoin is worthless, clones like Mooncoins can be created as speculative bubbles. Eventually it will no longer be a micro-economic oddity like my $500 sock, but will bump up against the market as a whole and collapse like every other speculative bubble. It's not blockchain technology, which may or may not have worth at some point. It's the speculative bubble on cryptocoin choice. As I said, Pets.com and Webvan made sense on some level. Just not the valuations they had at the time. And Bitcoins valuation is even sillier than theirs, since Webvan was not a bad idea, it just had a few problems including being ahead of its time.
- dageshi 9y ago
  I have no personal position in bitcoins or any other cryptocurrency but it seems to me bitcoin is the first internet native "money like thing". Based on how powerful and distruptive the internet has been to various industries in the past few decades I'm not sure I would bet against an internet native version of "money".
- FabHK 9y ago
  I agree with your skeptical sentiment, for the most part. However, dismissing Bitcoin as a bad commodity (because it cannot be used for anything) misses the mark. Instead, look at Bitcoin not as a commodity, but as money. Money (particularly paper money) has no intrinsic worth. What makes it valuable are its properties, and functions bestowed on it by consensus: counterfeiting resistance, fungibility, medium of exchange for payments, storage of value, unit of account. Can Bitcoin fulfil those functions? That remains to be seen, and I'm skeptical on storage of value (too volatile) and unit of account (too volatile, nothing is denominated in it), but it works to an extent as a payment mechanism (though worse and worse now, with the increasing transaction fees).
  - Ologn 9y ago
    If we look at the past 10,000 years of history - commodities are useful things, objects with utility. Currencies are commodities which people begin to favor for use in trading. Currencies are commodities which have properties that make them good currencies - they have properties such as uniformity, durability, divisibility, portability. This is why precious metals like gold have been favored as currencies through history - gold is uniform, durable, divisible and portable. The paper dollar bill is, and always has been, completely worthless in and of itself. It is just a piece of paper. Just like Confederate bills were and are pieces of paper, just like the Papiermark was and is a piece of paper. US bills have a history, just as German bills do. In 1914, the German Mark, or "Goldmark" was redeemable for gold. The Mark/gold link was broken in 1914 and the Mark became the "Papiermark". By 1923, hyperinflation had made the Papiermark near worthless and it was replaced by the Rentenmark and then in the next year this was replaced by the Reichsmark. Swinging back to the USA, the words "redeemable in gold" were removed from the hundred dollar bill in 1934, and then by 1971 Nixon had closed the gold window entirely. Sort of. Because if he really had, he could have just taken the thousands of tons of gold in Fort Knox and paid down the US debt. But he couldn't. Because that gold still backs the dollar. The dollar was an abstraction of gold before 1934 and 1971, a promise. Then it became an abstraction of the abstraction. It's still on some level backed by the gold in Fort Knox, Trump and the Fed chair could just reopen gold/dollar reconversion if need be, and a hard floor would suddenly appear under the dollar. Bitcoin has no such floor. There are no thousands of tons of gold waiting in the wings for Bitcoin, no nuclear armed #1 (going on #2) world economy with the power to tax and receive tax payments backing it. We don't even know who created Bitcoin. It's an odd argument - the only commodity people can find which has no apparent value is the dollar (or euro), so that's what people compare it to. If this was 1917, you might be asking me why the Papiermark had worth when it was not backed by something, and thus Bitcoins must have value. What people found out was that the Papiermark unhooked from gold did not have value, as the German government of the time didn't give a damn about its value. It's kind of the same argument - Papiermarks in 1917 had value, so Bitcoins must have value. People found out in the 1920s that Papiermarks didn't have value as the implicit promise of government gold conversion went away.
- stult 9y ago
  I think you're right mostly but missing a key point. Crypto's value is inversely proportional to faith in government backed currencies in places with high internet penetration. So in the US, it's actual value is quite low because we have an extremely strong currency and well developed payment systems. In China, faith in the government-backed currency (renminbi) and the investment options available in that denomination are relatively low. Coupled with reasonably high access to internet connections and government restrictions on expatriating capital, crypto becomes a valuable alternative denomination. Crypto has no inherent value except as a policy failure. At least so far. I have yet to see a large scale proof, but potentially at least block chain tech has value for reducing transaction costs in shipping or other fields.
  - Ologn 9y ago
    > China...government restrictions on expatriating capital, crypto becomes a valuable alternative denomination Money is expatriated via Bitcoin from the PRC to, say, Vancouver. The point is that with a currency, people would be comfortable leaving it as Canadian dollars or US dollars. This is not what happens though, the Bitcoin is converted to Canadian dollars, and is then perhaps converted into other things, such as real estate. It is more like a concert ticket or gallon of milk in this case - something which might be valuable for a time, but then loses its value. The Papiermark in the early 20s could be used to move money around as well.
    - stult 9y ago
      >Money is expatriated via Bitcoin from the PRC to, say, Vancouver. The point is that with a currency, people would be comfortable leaving it as Canadian dollars or US dollars. No one is OK leaving their money in hard currency. That's why we invest it, or put it in interest bearing accounts. Leaving it under your mattress leads to losses to inflation. In that sense, currency is very much like a gallon of milk or a concert ticket, though it loses its value much more slowly in a healthy economy. With BTC, we actually have the opposite problem, deflation. It is increasing in value every day, whereas with a normal fiat currency it is more efficient to have a low, stable rate of inflation (where the individual unit of currency loses its value over time). So I don't disagree with you completely. You're right that BTC should be more like a concert ticket than it is. The important question is why it isn't.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- askafriend 9y ago
  Why do diamonds have value then? They have no intrinsic value. They are not a scarce resource. They don't have many industrial applications. Labs can grow diamonds that look pretty much identical to the real thing. Yet people still pay a ton of real money for diamonds. Diamonds have value because we all have agreed that they have value. That's a really powerful concept to internalize. Similarly why does Gold have any value? Why does the American Constitution have any power?

Ologn 9y ago

> Why are you so dismissive of this new technology? I'm skeptical of the idea that Bitcoins have value in the way commodities and other things which can be traded and exchanged have value. People might find some use for blockchain technology, but the speculation around the value of Bitcoins is ridiculous. It's a bubble like any other bubble. The notion that a Bitcoin can remain at a $2000 value is absurd. The current top comment says "Internet companies during the dotcom bubble had market value of several trillion dollars. The total market cap of crypto-currency is still only ~$70 billion. I agree with the principle, but this boom is still pretty modest." Well there you go. I have an old worn sock with a hole in it that I am throwing away. It is worth $500. It is worth $500 because I am willing to pay $500 for it. I am capable of creating a bubble of that size. Even a $70 billion bubble can be created apparently. Once it reaches a certain point it will pop. Your point about Mooncoins points to it - as a Bitcoin is worthless, clones like Mooncoins can be created as speculative bubbles. Eventually it will no longer be a micro-economic oddity like my $500 sock, but will bump up against the market as a whole and collapse like every other speculative bubble. It's not blockchain technology, which may or may not have worth at some point. It's the speculative bubble on cryptocoin choice. As I said, Pets.com and Webvan made sense on some level. Just not the valuations they had at the time. And Bitcoins valuation is even sillier than theirs, since Webvan was not a bad idea, it just had a few problems including being ahead of its time.

dageshi 9y ago
I have no personal position in bitcoins or any other cryptocurrency but it seems to me bitcoin is the first internet native "money like thing". Based on how powerful and distruptive the internet has been to various industries in the past few decades I'm not sure I would bet against an internet native version of "money".
FabHK 9y ago
I agree with your skeptical sentiment, for the most part. However, dismissing Bitcoin as a bad commodity (because it cannot be used for anything) misses the mark. Instead, look at Bitcoin not as a commodity, but as money. Money (particularly paper money) has no intrinsic worth. What makes it valuable are its properties, and functions bestowed on it by consensus: counterfeiting resistance, fungibility, medium of exchange for payments, storage of value, unit of account. Can Bitcoin fulfil those functions? That remains to be seen, and I'm skeptical on storage of value (too volatile) and unit of account (too volatile, nothing is denominated in it), but it works to an extent as a payment mechanism (though worse and worse now, with the increasing transaction fees).
- Ologn 9y ago
  If we look at the past 10,000 years of history - commodities are useful things, objects with utility. Currencies are commodities which people begin to favor for use in trading. Currencies are commodities which have properties that make them good currencies - they have properties such as uniformity, durability, divisibility, portability. This is why precious metals like gold have been favored as currencies through history - gold is uniform, durable, divisible and portable. The paper dollar bill is, and always has been, completely worthless in and of itself. It is just a piece of paper. Just like Confederate bills were and are pieces of paper, just like the Papiermark was and is a piece of paper. US bills have a history, just as German bills do. In 1914, the German Mark, or "Goldmark" was redeemable for gold. The Mark/gold link was broken in 1914 and the Mark became the "Papiermark". By 1923, hyperinflation had made the Papiermark near worthless and it was replaced by the Rentenmark and then in the next year this was replaced by the Reichsmark. Swinging back to the USA, the words "redeemable in gold" were removed from the hundred dollar bill in 1934, and then by 1971 Nixon had closed the gold window entirely. Sort of. Because if he really had, he could have just taken the thousands of tons of gold in Fort Knox and paid down the US debt. But he couldn't. Because that gold still backs the dollar. The dollar was an abstraction of gold before 1934 and 1971, a promise. Then it became an abstraction of the abstraction. It's still on some level backed by the gold in Fort Knox, Trump and the Fed chair could just reopen gold/dollar reconversion if need be, and a hard floor would suddenly appear under the dollar. Bitcoin has no such floor. There are no thousands of tons of gold waiting in the wings for Bitcoin, no nuclear armed #1 (going on #2) world economy with the power to tax and receive tax payments backing it. We don't even know who created Bitcoin. It's an odd argument - the only commodity people can find which has no apparent value is the dollar (or euro), so that's what people compare it to. If this was 1917, you might be asking me why the Papiermark had worth when it was not backed by something, and thus Bitcoins must have value. What people found out was that the Papiermark unhooked from gold did not have value, as the German government of the time didn't give a damn about its value. It's kind of the same argument - Papiermarks in 1917 had value, so Bitcoins must have value. People found out in the 1920s that Papiermarks didn't have value as the implicit promise of government gold conversion went away.
stult 9y ago
I think you're right mostly but missing a key point. Crypto's value is inversely proportional to faith in government backed currencies in places with high internet penetration. So in the US, it's actual value is quite low because we have an extremely strong currency and well developed payment systems. In China, faith in the government-backed currency (renminbi) and the investment options available in that denomination are relatively low. Coupled with reasonably high access to internet connections and government restrictions on expatriating capital, crypto becomes a valuable alternative denomination. Crypto has no inherent value except as a policy failure. At least so far. I have yet to see a large scale proof, but potentially at least block chain tech has value for reducing transaction costs in shipping or other fields.
- Ologn 9y ago
  > China...government restrictions on expatriating capital, crypto becomes a valuable alternative denomination Money is expatriated via Bitcoin from the PRC to, say, Vancouver. The point is that with a currency, people would be comfortable leaving it as Canadian dollars or US dollars. This is not what happens though, the Bitcoin is converted to Canadian dollars, and is then perhaps converted into other things, such as real estate. It is more like a concert ticket or gallon of milk in this case - something which might be valuable for a time, but then loses its value. The Papiermark in the early 20s could be used to move money around as well.
  - stult 9y ago
    >Money is expatriated via Bitcoin from the PRC to, say, Vancouver. The point is that with a currency, people would be comfortable leaving it as Canadian dollars or US dollars. No one is OK leaving their money in hard currency. That's why we invest it, or put it in interest bearing accounts. Leaving it under your mattress leads to losses to inflation. In that sense, currency is very much like a gallon of milk or a concert ticket, though it loses its value much more slowly in a healthy economy. With BTC, we actually have the opposite problem, deflation. It is increasing in value every day, whereas with a normal fiat currency it is more efficient to have a low, stable rate of inflation (where the individual unit of currency loses its value over time). So I don't disagree with you completely. You're right that BTC should be more like a concert ticket than it is. The important question is why it isn't.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
askafriend 9y ago
Why do diamonds have value then? They have no intrinsic value. They are not a scarce resource. They don't have many industrial applications. Labs can grow diamonds that look pretty much identical to the real thing. Yet people still pay a ton of real money for diamonds. Diamonds have value because we all have agreed that they have value. That's a really powerful concept to internalize. Similarly why does Gold have any value? Why does the American Constitution have any power?