4 ms·

Why do you see the large number of cryptocurrencies an argument supporting their value going to zero? This is like saying that the number of websites is still g

Why do you see the large number of cryptocurrencies an argument supporting their value going to zero? This is like saying that the number of websites is still going up, therefore the value of the internet will go to zero. A more charitable analysis would look at the number of users of cryptocurrency, and especially the number of users of the most prevalent cryptocurrencies, which is indisputably rising.

jqpabc123 5y ago
Why do you see the large number of cryptocurrencies an argument supporting theoretical value going to zero? If too many people can easily make the product, the market quickly becomes saturated and the value starts to tend toward zero and people losing interest in it. Also, in this particular case the product is defective. It doesn't actually function as stated --- as a currency that is widely accepted to buy a huge variety of things both large and small with minimal fees, high transaction volume and low wait times? These are basically just instruments for speculation and fraud. History shows that such schemes can't and won't be sustained over time.
- datadata 5y ago
  > If anyone can make it, the market quickly becomes saturated and the value tends toward zero and people losing interest in it. You just restated your previous claim, you still didn't give any reason why the value must go to zero-- By the same logic, the market for websites is also saturated, therefore the value of the internet is going to zero.
  - jqpabc123 5y ago
    Don't look now but the market value of most web sites is zero. People pay nothing to use them.
    - datadata 5y ago
      And stocks also? There are more than 10,000 stocks, therefore the value of stocks much also must go to zero as the market is saturated.
      - jqpabc123 5y ago
        Now you're just making up ever more absurd analogies by ignoring most of the context. You don't have 10,000 companies all producing the same type of product. If you did, the value of most of them would go to zero really fast. Also, you can't easily clone most listed companies at no cost. There are significant barriers to entry in the stock market --- which explains why you don't have 10,000 companies all doing the same thing.
        datadata 5y ago
        I'm making analogies so that you have to substantiate your argument. It isn't clear that just because there is a large number of something, the entire ecosystem must be worthless, which is what you originally said. You can't clone bitcoin at no cost. To clone bitcoin you would have to invest the same amount of energy that has been expended thus far to proof of work.
        jqpabc123 5y ago
        It isn't clear that just because there is a large number of something, the entire ecosystem must be worthless, which is what you originally said. You're misinterpreting my original statement and ignoring my explanation. If too many people can easily make the product, the market quickly becomes saturated ... There are not 10,000 companies listed in the stock market all producing the same type of product.
        datadata 5y ago
        My point is that the number of cryptos/websites/stocks doesn't matter at all. A saturated market does not lead to a failed market, a saturated market just means there is demand for something. Sure, most cryptos are probably going to become worthless, but all it takes is one to work, and one that isn't easy to copy. In the stock example, maybe 9999 companies go bankrupt, but there is still a market, and whoever survives is going to make money. You are basically saying that there can't ever be consensus because there isn't yet a consensus. That's a possible and maybe even likely outcome, but it doesn't obviously follow.
- _9omd 5y ago
  You're missing the idea of network effects. Yes, you an easily make a clone of Bitcoin (or other cryptos), but you cannot easily clone the network effect it has. The value of a crypto is in the network, not the code, and this value grows exponentially with the number of the people using the network (Metcalf's Law[0]). Despite the increase in total number of cryptocurrencies, the number of people using the big networks (Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc.) is growing, and thus their network values are growing. This really shouldn't be surprising to anyone familiar with the growth of the web. Just like cloning a crypo, it'd be trivial to make a new Twitter, but extremely difficult to gain the same level of network effect. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law
  - jqpabc123 5y ago
    Just like cloning a crypo, it'd be trivial to make a new Twitter, but extremely difficult to gain the same level of network effect. If Elon Musk wanted to make "MuskCoin", he could and instantly have a huge number of people jump on board. He has already proven this just by meddling in the current crypto market for his own amusement. Lots of other companies/individuals with clout and name recognition could easily do the same. The only reason they don't --- they recognize the ultimate futility of it. Musk has even poked fun at the absurdity of it all. https://futurism.com/elon-musk-mocks-dogecoin-crypto-scams https://futurism.com/elon-musk-mocks-dogecoin-crypto-scams
    - _9omd 5y ago
      And likewise, if Elon Musk wanted to make a Twitter clone with better free speech he could get a lot of users. What's your point, that's literally the opposite of low barrier to entry. Being Elon Musk is NOT a low barrier to entry. Anything you say can be re-framed to the web, so if your point is valid then how can websites like Twitter be so valueable?
      - jqpabc123 5y ago
        What's your point, that's literally the opposite of low barrier to entry. It's just one example of how your "network effect" could be overcome very quickly. Any individual or company with market presence and name recognition could do this if they were so inclined. You could easily have ChaseCoin, FordCoin, FidelityCoin, NFLCoin and 10,000 more if they thought it was practical and profitable and would be successful over the long term. But allowing anyone to "mint" their own money is really an argument *against* the basic concept of a "currency". The world has already been there, seen that and done that. And most "smart people" (and companies) recognize that this is not in the best long term interests of themselves or the overall economy.

jqpabc123 5y ago

Why do you see the large number of cryptocurrencies an argument supporting theoretical value going to zero? If too many people can easily make the product, the market quickly becomes saturated and the value starts to tend toward zero and people losing interest in it. Also, in this particular case the product is defective. It doesn't actually function as stated --- as a currency that is widely accepted to buy a huge variety of things both large and small with minimal fees, high transaction volume and low wait times? These are basically just instruments for speculation and fraud. History shows that such schemes can't and won't be sustained over time.

datadata 5y ago
> If anyone can make it, the market quickly becomes saturated and the value tends toward zero and people losing interest in it. You just restated your previous claim, you still didn't give any reason why the value must go to zero-- By the same logic, the market for websites is also saturated, therefore the value of the internet is going to zero.
- jqpabc123 5y ago
  Don't look now but the market value of most web sites is zero. People pay nothing to use them.
  - datadata 5y ago
    And stocks also? There are more than 10,000 stocks, therefore the value of stocks much also must go to zero as the market is saturated.
    - jqpabc123 5y ago
      Now you're just making up ever more absurd analogies by ignoring most of the context. You don't have 10,000 companies all producing the same type of product. If you did, the value of most of them would go to zero really fast. Also, you can't easily clone most listed companies at no cost. There are significant barriers to entry in the stock market --- which explains why you don't have 10,000 companies all doing the same thing.
      - datadata 5y ago
        I'm making analogies so that you have to substantiate your argument. It isn't clear that just because there is a large number of something, the entire ecosystem must be worthless, which is what you originally said. You can't clone bitcoin at no cost. To clone bitcoin you would have to invest the same amount of energy that has been expended thus far to proof of work.
        jqpabc123 5y ago
        It isn't clear that just because there is a large number of something, the entire ecosystem must be worthless, which is what you originally said. You're misinterpreting my original statement and ignoring my explanation. If too many people can easily make the product, the market quickly becomes saturated ... There are not 10,000 companies listed in the stock market all producing the same type of product.
        datadata 5y ago
        My point is that the number of cryptos/websites/stocks doesn't matter at all. A saturated market does not lead to a failed market, a saturated market just means there is demand for something. Sure, most cryptos are probably going to become worthless, but all it takes is one to work, and one that isn't easy to copy. In the stock example, maybe 9999 companies go bankrupt, but there is still a market, and whoever survives is going to make money. You are basically saying that there can't ever be consensus because there isn't yet a consensus. That's a possible and maybe even likely outcome, but it doesn't obviously follow.
_9omd 5y ago
You're missing the idea of network effects. Yes, you an easily make a clone of Bitcoin (or other cryptos), but you cannot easily clone the network effect it has. The value of a crypto is in the network, not the code, and this value grows exponentially with the number of the people using the network (Metcalf's Law[0]). Despite the increase in total number of cryptocurrencies, the number of people using the big networks (Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc.) is growing, and thus their network values are growing. This really shouldn't be surprising to anyone familiar with the growth of the web. Just like cloning a crypo, it'd be trivial to make a new Twitter, but extremely difficult to gain the same level of network effect. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law
- jqpabc123 5y ago
  Just like cloning a crypo, it'd be trivial to make a new Twitter, but extremely difficult to gain the same level of network effect. If Elon Musk wanted to make "MuskCoin", he could and instantly have a huge number of people jump on board. He has already proven this just by meddling in the current crypto market for his own amusement. Lots of other companies/individuals with clout and name recognition could easily do the same. The only reason they don't --- they recognize the ultimate futility of it. Musk has even poked fun at the absurdity of it all. https://futurism.com/elon-musk-mocks-dogecoin-crypto-scams https://futurism.com/elon-musk-mocks-dogecoin-crypto-scams
  - _9omd 5y ago
    And likewise, if Elon Musk wanted to make a Twitter clone with better free speech he could get a lot of users. What's your point, that's literally the opposite of low barrier to entry. Being Elon Musk is NOT a low barrier to entry. Anything you say can be re-framed to the web, so if your point is valid then how can websites like Twitter be so valueable?
    - jqpabc123 5y ago
      What's your point, that's literally the opposite of low barrier to entry. It's just one example of how your "network effect" could be overcome very quickly. Any individual or company with market presence and name recognition could do this if they were so inclined. You could easily have ChaseCoin, FordCoin, FidelityCoin, NFLCoin and 10,000 more if they thought it was practical and profitable and would be successful over the long term. But allowing anyone to "mint" their own money is really an argument *against* the basic concept of a "currency". The world has already been there, seen that and done that. And most "smart people" (and companies) recognize that this is not in the best long term interests of themselves or the overall economy.