Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

dgul

Members
  • Posts

    2,742
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by dgul

  1. 55 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

    But anyway, you carry on believing that a business that accounts for £1.5tn of EU bound transactions a day would not generate a sizeable sum for the treasury and I'll continue to laugh at people like you, who bury their heads in the sand at the chance they're very wrong.

    We lose passporting, we lose, if we include income tax and bumped on taxes from businesses that have relied on their business, the restaurants, shops, dry cleaners, etc, etc, etc, we closing on *£100bn loss to the treasury, which, of course, you think is nothing.  Worth it.  

    *Now this IS a figure I have come to, not the £60bn + in tax take from passporting.

     

    That number is irrelevant.  Like all the nonsense about netting up derivatives.

    The UK exports about £20bln financial services to the EU pa, about 1/3rd of the total worth of FS exports, and is worth about £180 billion in total (so EU export component is ~ 10% of the industry).  If we lost all the EU work it would have a significant impact, but it wouldn't take everything to zero.

    [The contribution to GDP is also an interesting point.  There are serious questions regarding the value of FS to the UK -- or, at least, the value over-and-above a minimum quantity of FS that is required to grease the economy with cash.  A smaller, more efficient FS (in targeting money where required, rather than acting as a massive de-facto tax on commercial activity) might result in lower headline GDP but could actually give the result of the median person being more 'wealthy'.  There is also the impact of the 'greatest and best' being attracted into FS (because of the cash); they'd offer more to society if they were being brilliant in making new medicines or technology, rather than making more brilliant tools in quantitative analysis.  But this is a secondary point -- we can worry about how parasitic the FS industry is after we've worked out the impact of Brexit.]

  2. 11 minutes ago, goldbug9999 said:

    You only have a single version of truth in a blockchain because of PoW consensus,  otherwise you wouldnt know which version of the chain you were looking at in the event of  malicious or out of order transaction. Yes you could implement some sort of non-PoW voting system in a proprietary blockchain but there are already systems that provide data replication with voting, the most obvious being http://docs.datastax.com/en/archived/cassandra/2.0/cassandra/dml/dml_config_consistency_c.html  - a very mature technology that would massively outperform any blockchain type solution.

    Okay -- I'll put it a different way.

    In a normal SOTA robust distributed database setup, how often does it go down (obviously not often -- but never?)

    Then ask, how often does the Bitcoin blockchain go down.

  3. 5 minutes ago, goldbug9999 said:

    Using deltas to synchronise distributed data stores is event sourcing and there are many extremely high performance and robusts tools available to do this., some look like databases others are stream or queue based  The novel aspect of blockchain is that to is designed to withstand malicious attempts to rewrite history and for that you need value backed by proof of work.

    Any non adversarial IT system is a set of CAP tradeoffs, blockchains dont provide any additional value here.

    But that makes it sound easy.  The reality is robust distributed data is still difficult to do, and companies spend vast amounts of time and money getting reliability up from 99.99% to 99.9999%.  Blockchain does this quite readily. 

  4. 42 minutes ago, markyh said:

    So you are saying any repatriated funds from any non uk country  would have to be vetted by a crypto-trust team with a high fee? Why don't they do this now for all capital inflows under drug dealing and terrorism funding excuses? Because the public and business would go nuts! This is a HMRC issue to investigate.

    All this is Stazi type fantasy stuff that would stiffle trade more than anything else. I'm sure as HSBC love helping laundering drug money for a fat fees they will help out with crypto.

    More likely they will strengthen up the tax regime of crypto for their piece of the pie, with lower tax to encourage people to just pay it. 

    No. 

    What I'm saying is that there are avenues that governments could take it they wanted.  I'm not saying it is going to happen.  I'm not saying it is likely to happen. I'm not saying that it would be necessary, or that it would be proportionate given what they allow in other financial areas.

    But people said 'they' couldn't do anything about Bitcoin.  I gave an example of how 'they' could.  Don't like it?  Tough.  Don't think it is going to happen -- well, there are plenty of other avenues that 'they' could take if they wanted.

    What I'm definitely saying that if 'they' wanted to do something, for whatever reason, they could.  

  5. 3 minutes ago, markyh said:

    The £££ came from exchanging Yen in to £££ from the sale of a property on Tokyo I have owned for a few years. Here is the japanease bill of sale. Any more questions?

    The point I was trying to make is that if they wanted to make it difficult your bank would just say 'ah, we need to put that through our dedicated crypto-trust team.  The background checks will be £500.  That okay?'  Then you'd say 'But it is obvious, it is just from this sale', and they'd smile and say 'yes, but we need to put it through our dedicated crypto-trust team.'

    No problem with a property sale.  Less good for a £1k transaction.  Much more complex when it came from a pile of transactions where your diverse group of mates* payed you back after you continuously stumped up for the cab.

    I'm not saying this is going to happen.  I'm saying that you can't just say 'that's not going to happen'.

    [* including that dodgy mate of Phil's.  No-one really knows where he makes his money.  Kate says it's drugs, but I just don't know.  etc]

     

  6. 1 hour ago, Darby Ram said:

    Right, but blockchains are miles away from being scalable, production-ready systems. The public Ethereum network almost keeled over due to Cryptokitties. Making a private blockchain doesn't solve the scalability and stability problems that huge legacy systems have. It's magical thinking to just say "use a blockchain instead" because, right now, nobody can. Unless there is a compelling reason to switch, people won't do it.

    For data storage, I think Swarm and IPFS inter-operability are probably the long-term solutions. Storing data on-chain is going to be very expensive for a long time.

    Blockchain is, right now, a very workable alternative to many lock-propagate-unlock database problems.  There is absolutely a compelling reason to change -- it is much more robust against damage.  It is a bit like early networks vs IP -- the automatic rerouting inherent in IP resulted in networks that were vastly more robust.

    On chain data storage is fundamentally the same price as any journalled database (with the same number of nodes)

    See, the problem is you're just thinking of 'blockchain is like Ethereum' or 'blockchain needs proof-of-work' or 'blockchain is fundamentally public access'.

  7. 20 minutes ago, markyh said:

    Ummm, who are "they"? You realise it's legel tender in Japan right? Like you could by a flat in Tokyo in BTC. 

    I was responding to Errol who first used 'they'.  I'd assumed he'd be referring to states that might like to constrain crypto.

    Legal tender status is not relevant.  'They' could stop you using £s if they wanted to -- just demand that any deposit in a bank worth more than £100 (or whatever) was accompanied by receipts etc showing where it came from.  Obviously, they're not going to do that (as it would upset voters), but they really don't care about a relatively small number of bitcoin enthusiasts.

  8. 27 minutes ago, Darby Ram said:

    I think you are missing the benefit of public chains, and hence 'currencies', here. On Ethereum, the data storage fee would be Ether. And private chains only have a genuine advantage over databases if they allow distributed parties to take actions independently and trustlessly; the real gains come when neither party has any knowledge of the other and thus the system couldn't be created with either a database or a federated blockchain. That means that you need a public chain linking private systems together to provide a framework for transactions and contracts that neither party can rollback. (Note that parties could roll-back transactions, under pre-defined circumstances, but these would be new transactions that de facto reversed the old ones, rather than deleted the previous actions.)

    In your example of flight-ticketing, say, there could be a semi-anonymised flight record issued alongside the ticket that any insurance company could combine with an person ID to create a one-trip insurance policy, without knowing anything else about the transactions or parties involved.  

    There is a separate question of whether the public chain needs to be a private commons, which is what we have now, or whether the state/a coalition of states will create their own version and call that 'the blockchain'.

    But I agree about Ethereum.  It is currently the only useful public blockchain.  I intend to use it on a project that I'm putting together.

    My main problem with it is that even though the data storage costs (write) are meant to be independent of the Eth spot (or, at least, it is supposed to scale linearly, so same effect), the storage costs have been increasing recently.  I've found this a bit concerning -- if they can't keep the write costs under control then it will become a bit of a risk for me.  If it gets any worse I think someone will release a competing blockchain that can stay sensible, as there is clearly a demand for it.

  9. 19 minutes ago, Darby Ram said:

    I think you are missing the benefit of public chains, and hence 'currencies', here. On Ethereum, the data storage fee would be Ether. And private chains only have a genuine advantage over databases if they allow distributed parties to take actions independently and trustlessly; the real gains come when neither party has any knowledge of the other and thus the system couldn't be created with either a database or a federated blockchain. That means that you need a public chain linking private systems together to provide a framework for transactions and contracts that neither party can rollback. (Note that parties could roll-back transactions, under pre-defined circumstances, but these would be new transactions that de facto reversed the old ones, rather than deleted the previous actions.)

    In your example of flight-ticketing, say, there could be a semi-anonymised flight record issued alongside the ticket that any insurance company could combine with an person ID to create a one-trip insurance policy, without knowing anything else about the transactions or parties involved.  

    There is a separate question of whether the public chain needs to be a private commons, which is what we have now, or whether the state/a coalition of states will create their own version and call that 'the blockchain'.

    No.  You're missing the potential of blockchain.  You're stuck with thinking of it like a public transaction record keeping system.

    For the ticketing application -- BA went down earlier this year because their database wasn't sufficiently robust.  A blockchain approach would pretty much resolve this potential problem.  This is of massive benefit to the airlines.  All that mucking about with helping insurance companies is just fluff.

  10. 5 minutes ago, guest_northshore said:

    No idea if regulated futures were a catalyst, but insitutional changes an aspect of the price dynamic. ie. I wouldn't trade on margin with my money, and definitely not outright short. But given a shot with other people's money...?

    People have been saying for the last month that Bitcoin has been pumped up specifically for people to make money shorting futures while they dump.  They've also been saying that it has been setting up for at least 6 months. If the regulated futures were a catalyst, it was for the massive rise in prices since early Summer -- any crash is just a side-effect.

  11. 13 minutes ago, Errol said:

    They could certainly put various things in place to try and stop but I just don't seem them doing it.

    Obviously they could make dealing, trading, holding or using bitcoin punishable with 10 years in prison but I just don't see it happening.

    If they actually wanted to stop it they'd just shove a layer of money-laundering requirements on top.  Say, you'd have to submit records to the bank dealing with the £ side of the transaction detailing where all the elements had come from, perhaps going back in the chain to show that there'd never been any 'where's that come from' money.

    That would remove all the high street banks from taking money from the exchanges, and you'd be left with a handful of specialist banks with suitably specialist fees.

    Result -- they effectively eliminate crypto without actually 'banning it'.

  12. 2 hours ago, evetsm said:

    How do you secure the decentralized blockchain if not with crypto ? Players must be rewarded with the coin that they toil so hard to secure. Fiat won't do.

    Banks have been trying to get that right for years with no success. See the failed R3 project for details.

    Blockchain is just a robust distributed database (with journal).  I'd imagine that for most applications all the crunching would be done on company owned (but distributed) servers.  I'm thinking things like share records, flight ticketing, that sort of thing.  Note -- you (the user) won't touch (or be able to see) the blockchain.  It is all for the company providing the service.

    For smaller players, there will be a role of blockchain in providing public accessible data services but where there also a requirement for the data to be certain to live beyond the entity creating the data (eg, document signing).  For this purpose you've got things like Ether.  However, for this purpose you don't actually need the currency part -- a data storage fee would do.

    For some smaller players it might even be sensible to actually outsource your database to an independent blockchain -- it isn't a particularly cheap way to store data, but, then, it isn't particularly cheap to run your own (robust) databases.

    And, right at the end of the chain, a niche of a niche, is the 'blockchain to record peer to peer transactions'.  Sure, you might need it to have the form of 'currency' -- but even then I'm not convinced about its necessity.

  13. 1 hour ago, canbuywontbuy said:

    Well, it's you who seems upset that one single thread out of thousands on this forum talks about cryptocurrencies.  If you don't think think the blockchain is breakthrough technology, then yes, I can say with confidence that you don't understand the implications of a trustless, immutable and decentralised database.  These will just appear as abstract and meaningless concepts to you.  To those that matter - developers, entrepreneurs, banks, business owners and consumers - the benefits of this new technology have become / will become clear as time passes.  Citing just one real-world example, cryptocurrencies will become the bridge currency for all cross-border settlements in a matter of a year or two.  No more vostro or nostro accounts, no more 2 to 3 day wait for an international payment to be settled, and all done at a fraction of a penny, opening up the reality of micropayments being made internationally bank to bank at near-zero cost, settled in under 5 seconds - that alone is revolutionary and will influence how money is circulated.  Anyway, as you were - shall we just get back to talking about the tulip-bubble-thing again?

    You're both linking blockchain to crypto too strongly.

    Blockchain is a revolutionary technology.  It'll be everywhere soon.

    Cryptocurrency?  An interestinging/academic application of blockchain.

  14. 1 hour ago, markyh said:

    After yesterday’s fees discussion these people panic selling must be paying a fortune if fees to get their btc from wallet to exchange to sell for Fiat? The miners must be banditing it the fees department overnight with demand. 

    I see actual blockchain transactions down a bit -- If there's panic selling it's all off-chain.

    Anyway, transactions fees appear stable at about $130 per.  

    I'd say all the action will be at the exchange level; they'll also be making income from the spread.

  15. 15 hours ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

    Well, it's 20 past 5 so only 3 hours to go.

     

    It'l be gone by the summer I expect.

     

    Plenty time to spend those vouchers...

    Sounds likely to me.  Frankly I thought this whole thing was just so they could get the residual Christmas trade (this weekend is likely to be busy) and then stiff up their landlords (and the pension fund) come Feb.

  16. 1 hour ago, Maximus Skepticus said:

    Right -- so the antiquated slowness of the financial system is a positive feature...

    Anyway, if the BoE did their job properly there'd never actually be a run on any bank.

    And the important bit in that?  That the BoE was looking into creating its own digital currency.  That is where the future lies (or, at least, that is the future they'll force us to go in).

  17. 41 minutes ago, markyh said:

    Well it looks like I will have to try mythbusting again. My Ledger Nano S is in my grubby hands, to start with I will import my full blockchain.info balance on there using the seed phrase, so I can easily split out my Bitcoin Gold.  But after that I will open a new blockchain.info wallet as I want at least 1 BTC to be there for ease of access as the ledger hardware wallet will be locked away hidden.

    So I will start small by transferring from Ledger to blockchain wallets £1000 worth and will set my own fee to £2.50 , 0.25% , and see how long it takes.

    I will post a picture when it is sent and post a blockchain.info screenshot when it arrives. I'm not bothered if it take s a week or a month.

    So we can see how long it really takes with low fees. Absolutely no way i'm paying £22.50 ($30) to send £1k of BTC. 

    However, if I am moving 1 BTC plus which is $15000+ I don't mind paying $30 to move it quickly, as that's 0.2% fee. 

    Could it be that miners a ransoming large amounts by not moving them without a bigger fee by ignoring large value BTC transactions with small fees, until the fees are upped in desperation by the sender, but process smaller amounts with a reasonable small % fee as they want the fee.  so they are in fact enforcing almost a fixed % fee structure? 

    E.G.  Send 1 BTC ($150000) with $1.50 fee,  transaction ignored as free % is 0.01% ,  but send 0.075 BTC with $1.50 fee they process it as its 0.2% (acceptable). 

    So to get your 1 BTC moved you need to up you fees from $1.50 to $30 which is 0.2%? 

    If I was a big enough miner of BTC, I would be tempted to try and enforce this. Make sense? Hence some are reporting small amounts move for fee free because the miners are charging on a "ability to pay" basis? 

     

    I think you might be right.

    Also, it is possible that the current high fees are occurring because most people (well, late entry inexperienced people) are just accepting the software/exchange's recommended/default/advised fee, and they're setting it high (don't know why they'd do this, though).

    Difficult to know for sure, though, so we'll wait on the result.

  18. 27 minutes ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

    Are going to get an XRP thread? 

    At the moment this is where the action seems to be.

    XRP may well end up standing for eXtremely Rich People, as I can see it running for quite a while having just smashed the $1 level. It is now measured in Dollars  and not Cents, so still cheap

    How can you say this nonsense.  You'll next be advising that Japan would be a cheap place to visit because you can get a Yen for a penny, unlike those nasty Dollars that nearly cost a whole Pound.

    All that matters is the market cap and the potential for advancement.  Sure, Ripple is lower than Bitcoin, but it is still at 1/5th the cap of Bitcoin, so if it took over the mantle the potential gains are IRO 500%; it wouldn't go to $10k (for the same cap).  I could agree that there might be a future in Ripple*, but the cost per coin isn't what makes it a better investment compared with other alts.

    [* there won't be]

  19. 26 minutes ago, evetsm said:

    Satoshi says:

     

    Nick Szabo
    @NickSzabo4
    Bitcoin has or is evolving through several stages of value transfer:
    1. small value transfers at layer 1 when Bitcoin was a tiny niche (10,000 BTC for a pizza)
    2. larger value txs as wealth flow increases and small txs get priced out of layer 1
    3. small value txs at layer 2

    Who are you?

    There is no current fundamental value transfer.

    The steps are:

    1. Hardly anyone has heard of it, let alone think it might be worth something in the future. 

    2. Some people think it might be worth something in the future

    3. Quite a few people think it might be worth something in the future

    4. Many people think it might be worth something in the future

    5. Everyone things it is worth something right now.  But it isn't really used for transactions

    6. Everyone thinks it is worth something right now and it is used for many transactions.

    I'd say we're at level 2 at the moment.  I'm not sure we'll get to 3.

     

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.