Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

sackot

New Members
  • Posts

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About sackot

  • Rank
    Newbie
    Newbie
  1. Thanks, I dearly hope you're right.
  2. You're a proper Manxman then, and I really am a comeover, although we've been here a bit now (stayovers). The thread is interesting because in possibly the worst decision ever I STR'd years ago, only to watch prices here grind slowly upwards and my cash in the bank devalueing. I can't bring myself to buy anything I could afford, the moreso because our rented cottage is in a beautiful spot and we couldn't afford anything like it. Unfortunately getting any information here about the state of the market seems impossible. I used to watch the listings, and the columns in the paper which list sales, but never in years did I catch the correspondence between a known asking and sale price. I've been advised to find something I like and simply offer what I can afford, but one serial property buyer I know just said avoid estate agents altogether, anything good value will be kept for their mates, the rest is kite flying.
  3. I'm a little nervous about what the new owners will exude.
  4. I believe that the scripting changes associated with taproot (coming November) will allow you to squirrel funds in an address (actually, script) with conditions like multisig required, unless the funds don't move for a specified period, in which case it decays to single key. You would keep two private keys yourself, enabling you access at any time, but give one to a solicitor/trusted family member, which they could use after X years if you died. Don't know if that was the kind of thing you were thinking of.
  5. https://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/56788620/?search_identifier=e8d2755e48a08dff1c8a791e30773aed This will be our next-door neighbour. I'm told it's finally sold, after half a dozen years on the market. It's an absolute eyesore in its location. We're unlikely to find out what it went for.
  6. No problem. You are effectively sending a message via the blockchain to the electoral authority, and your signing the transaction with the private key corresponding to your registered public key (keys possibly provided to you by the authority) proves that you were the sender. The message itself could be encrypted. You would send the message "Candidate3", encrypted with the public key of the electoral authority. They can decrypt it, no one else can. The use of the blockchain is just to ensure that once you had voted, there was a permanent and provable record of the fact for any later audit. There would be no chance of multiple voting, and no one could impersonate you. I think I might remember that some Baltic state (Latvia, maybe) has already been trialling such a system.
  7. It's not a matter of you just asserting on the blockchain, I was suggesting that the contract hash transferring title was placed by the previous owner, in the form of a transaction which could only be unlocked by you, whereafter you could always prove that he knowingly did so. The blockchain in this case is acting as a trusted notary. Enforcing your title is a distinct and real problem, but so it is with the land registry. The registry confirm you own the property, but you have to go to courts to deal with any infringement. I picked this to illustrate blockchain as an ownership notary/register. The initial proof of ownership would be by some conventional means, but thereafter a chain of ownership would be established (you would sell on the property in exactly the same way as the previous owner did to you). Schemes like this are being considered and I believe also implemented for share ownership. All sorts of things could be tokenised and the ownership tracked. I wasn't really meaning to claim expertise or advance a complete solution, anyway, just to argue that bitcoin/blockchain have real and concrete use cases which confer value independent of what Elon Musk happens to think that week.
  8. It's really hard to talk about intrinsic value because in every discussion I've seen it descends into semantics, and that notwithstanding the fact that there is a substantive issue to discuss and goodwill on both sides. Allow me to sidestep some of your points and try to bring clarity with an example. Starting off from your paragraph above: They do that, yes. I remember when some troll was inserting links to kiddie-porn to try to get downloading of the blockchain banned in countries where the link would be illegal to disseminate. I mentioned insertion of quaint messages just to make the point that non-monetary use was here, now, and paid for, but this is nothing compared to what's coming. Jamie Dimon et al. used to wail "Blockchain, not bitcoin". They could see the value of little packets of data on a public immutable blockchain, but did not want to be associated with vile drug dealers. They probably didn't understand that for a blockchain, a valuable token is an inherent part of the mechanism involved, but they were right about the fantastic value of those data packets. Here is an HPC-centric, totally synthetic example to illustrate the possibilities. Forgive any loose ends, it's just to show the general idea. You want to buy a house, and be secure in the possession of the title. To that end, you pay a large chunk of cash as fees to conveyancer, solicitor, land registry and bank. You are buying something intangible, trust. You trust the solicitor because he is registered, the land registry because it has a royal charter, or whatever. Once they agree the house is yours, it's yours. Bitcoin is a method for creating trust with a distributed trustless system. The bitcoin version could go like this. Seller A agrees to transfer title to Buyer B. They write a contract which says "A transfers title of the property situate at 39 Cormorant Rise blah blah blah". They make a hash of the contract. Seller A transmits a transaction where the input is a nominal sum he signs for and the output is locked by the public key of buyer B, and which also contains the hash. If there is ever any question of ownership, B brings out the contract, shows it has the right hash, that A signed the input and that he can sign a message using his public key. I would argue that this has the same value as the traditional mechanism, so you should be willing to pay a similar sum as a transaction fee. In the UK, people might say "why bother, I'm perfectly happy with the land registry", but imagine you lived somewhere (San Salvador??) where your title could evaporate because someone paid a backhander to a corrupt official. In that case, not having to trust your local institutions would be very valuable. There are many, many other potential uses for those little packets. One of the first was shippers tracking shipments through global transit centres. There are proposals for voting systems. Several players are looking into global ID verification. There will be more that we've not thought of yet. If you think transaction fees are high now, just wait until all these uses are competing for the limited space and transaction rate of bitcoin. It will be vital to move as much as possible onto second layer solutions. Those fees for little packets of data represent a valuation of the system which is independent of any arbitrary value for bitcoin existing in the minds of speculators or savers. That's why, however we decide to define "intrinsic", I would still disagree with the view that I understand you to have of a bitcoin value which is just the result of investor psychology. Bitcoin is more than gold2.0, fashionable though that view might be just now.
  9. Non-speculative demand for bitcoin is already here, just you don't recognize it as such. IMO it will be the dominating factor in price in the future (though I realize most don't agree). When you pay a miner a transaction fee, you are paying for a tiny bit of space on an immutable, permanent, and secure database. You may use it to say that you paid Starbucks two dollars, or maybe to say "Chancellor on brink of second bailout...", but either way it's not speculative, you can't reuse or resell the space. You are also begging the question a little in the way you set your terminology. Speculative and utility don't have a hard boundary, and savings medium should be there somewhere in between. Take gold, where you say that 37% is jewelry and so not speculative. Indians buy gold jewelry both as a display of wealth, a store of value, and a thing of beauty. Only the buyer knows the weighting of each in their decision.
  10. I think it was "doomed", who was not by any means a salty noob. I'm sure it was a sincere opinion, but I note that it was also necessary for the use case of BCH. Not long after (Jan 2018) I topped up my mobile phone with lightning.
  11. There's a difference between required and desirable. Strictly speaking, only a few computers are required, otherwise the network could never have got started. More and more pile in so long as they can make a profit. Once all coins have been mined, the total profit available will be limited to what can be obtained from user fees. This change does not happen overnight, it's being phased in progressively. It's desirable to have a significant effort and cost expended by miners because that is what makes the network secure.
  12. Only in the short term. The miners are not charities, they have to make a profit. They are paid with a combination of the coinbase and transaction fees. The former halves every four years, so the system is transitioning from being paid via inflation to being paid by the users. Once the latter dominates, a transaction will only cost what the user feels it's worth. Regarding Musk and his type, I doubt from comments he's made that he understands bitcoin in any depth. I've met people like him who are detail merchants, but many more who just listen to their peers and judge which way the wind is blowing.
×
×
  • 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.