3 ms·

If the crypto currency community was serious about its technology, it would engineer it with a proper monetary policy as the original article suggests, one wher

If the crypto currency community was serious about its technology, it would engineer it with a proper monetary policy as the original article suggests, one where the coins gradually and predictably lose value with time. They could have fixed this problem a long time ago. Could bitcoin's popularity stand on its own with just its net benefits as a transaction medium after the allure of ponzi investment has been removed? Right now it's mostly just the digital equivalent of gold but with even less intrinsic fallback value.

52-6F-62 9y ago
I appreciate your response, it helped me understand your prior point a little better. You seem to be making a pretty large assumption, I have to contest. You're assuming that the end goal is for cryptocurrency to posture as a classical token of exchange of value. This has been put forward before, and continues to be put forward. With Bitcoin alone, I understand that its a valid assumption. Looking at Ethereum I see something different. It's possible to use ETH as an exchange of value, but that is not the sole limit of its use. It, by the nature of smart contracts, seems to run counter to the basis of classical business: trust. Using the system to validate contracts prevents the inherent need for trust amongst parties because the system will handle the terms regardless of whether or not you care to abide by the terms. In these cases, a programmer will take on a bit of a pseudo-attorney role, having each side reliant on the aptitude of their programmer to be able to determine if the terms will be carried out as described by the originator of the contract. "Will it do what they say it will?" If so, carry on. The other side can represent every inscrutable characteristic in a person, but if the contract is laid out properly you can safely do business with them. What I described can surely be the basis for a new variety of scandal, but that is the next bridge to cross. I'm not an economist, but I don't see the need for monetary policy of it isn't supposed to just be money. I'd like to hear any further thoughts you have, given the alternative context I provided. I'd also like to recommend having a quick look at the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance. It boasts a large range of members, with some of the founding members including giants of tech as it is: Intel & Microsoft. A few large financial players have also joined up: JP Morgan, ING, Credit Suisse, BNY Mellon. I can't speak for the motivations of any of these organizations, but they see enough value to have launched an organization to spur development on and of the technology. https://entethalliance.org/about/ https://entethalliance.org/about/ https://entethalliance.org/members/ https://entethalliance.org/members/ edit: Also just came across this in the news, for yet another approach http://www.reuters.com/article/us-thomsonreuters-blockchain-idUSKBN1950RZ http://www.reuters.com/article/us-thomsonreuters-blockchain-...

52-6F-62 9y ago

I appreciate your response, it helped me understand your prior point a little better. You seem to be making a pretty large assumption, I have to contest. You're assuming that the end goal is for cryptocurrency to posture as a classical token of exchange of value. This has been put forward before, and continues to be put forward. With Bitcoin alone, I understand that its a valid assumption. Looking at Ethereum I see something different. It's possible to use ETH as an exchange of value, but that is not the sole limit of its use. It, by the nature of smart contracts, seems to run counter to the basis of classical business: trust. Using the system to validate contracts prevents the inherent need for trust amongst parties because the system will handle the terms regardless of whether or not you care to abide by the terms. In these cases, a programmer will take on a bit of a pseudo-attorney role, having each side reliant on the aptitude of their programmer to be able to determine if the terms will be carried out as described by the originator of the contract. "Will it do what they say it will?" If so, carry on. The other side can represent every inscrutable characteristic in a person, but if the contract is laid out properly you can safely do business with them. What I described can surely be the basis for a new variety of scandal, but that is the next bridge to cross. I'm not an economist, but I don't see the need for monetary policy of it isn't supposed to just be money. I'd like to hear any further thoughts you have, given the alternative context I provided. I'd also like to recommend having a quick look at the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance. It boasts a large range of members, with some of the founding members including giants of tech as it is: Intel & Microsoft. A few large financial players have also joined up: JP Morgan, ING, Credit Suisse, BNY Mellon. I can't speak for the motivations of any of these organizations, but they see enough value to have launched an organization to spur development on and of the technology. https://entethalliance.org/about/ https://entethalliance.org/about/ https://entethalliance.org/members/ https://entethalliance.org/members/ edit: Also just came across this in the news, for yet another approach http://www.reuters.com/article/us-thomsonreuters-blockchain-idUSKBN1950RZ http://www.reuters.com/article/us-thomsonreuters-blockchain-...