The Bubbly Bitcoin Thread -- Merged Threads

[Darby Ram]

2 hours ago, dgul said:

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.

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'.

[frederico]

5 minutes ago, evetsm said:

Think Bittorrent.

They are petrified.

Yeah 

[evetsm]

2 hours ago, kudukid said:

What has bittorrent got to do with evading tax?

 

Ffs it's even illegal to barter!! 

How hard is to for them to shutdown exchanges for example?  Block websites? Yes there will always be ways around things but of the government, any government don't want you to do it, it will become very hard to do it, which sort of makes the whole premise null and void.

 

Unless they control it, then it's a goer.

 

Take them rose tinted specs off ffs

 

 

You cannot prevent people from doing exchanges between each other in a person to person way. One to one. That what bittorrent showed. In that case it is swapping files, here it is swapping goods and services for money.

And who says every crypto exchange is out to evade tax ? Many, maybe most, want to work within the tax laws.

I'd say most people in bitcoin only want the control of the supply of money out of the hands of monopolists. Other than that they want the rule of law applied to all commerce.

[evetsm]

9 minutes ago, frederico said:

Yeah 

As he adds another gem to the debate.

Wipe his mouth, he dribbling on the floor

 

[dgul]

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.

[dgul]

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.

[markyh]

2 hours ago, dgul said:

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'.

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

[goldbug9999]

3 hours ago, Traktion said:

You don't wait for state blessing. You use a technology that they can't manipulate. Bitcoin promised this originally, but at some point, money took over the original ideology.

Tbh, a more robust solution is probably needed anyway. I am a big fan of maidsafe for this reason, as they are attempting something pretty much unstoppable. It remains to be seen whether they pull it off, but a distributed, autonomous, data network will have huge utility. It.may make blockchains look a bit like one trick ponies, IMO. 

Oh come on just say "maidsafe" you know you want to.

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

9 hours ago, Darby Ram said:

Bullish for Bitcoin as an asset class, as dim-witted market commentators are now wheeled out to talk absolute nonsense about price movements for newspapers:

Neil, with skills like that, you could have worked as economist for Nationwide.

If some of the people I know are anything to go by, there is a way to run. I have several colleagues desperate for Coins, but who have been unable to get their ID docs through due to the processing delays.

 

[guest_northshore]

12 minutes ago, markyh said:

... You realise it's legel tender in Japan right?

No. It's a legal form of payment, not legal tender.

[dgul]

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.

[adamLancs]

I find it hard to imagine people selling out of anything other than sheer blind panic...

ie. Let's go back to  0.5% interest in bank account. At least it'll exist next year, although -5-10% in housing annually for the last 15 years means it'll steadily go down in value relative to one of the most basic necessities of life and I'll never be able to buy what I want with it anyway.

ie. Let's put it in S&S and pray that my business acumen in choosing which bank is going to make the most profit this year pays off and Carney keeps pumping failing businesses full of his lead. It doesn't matter that as long as central banks are using "relief funds" and supporting companies in the housing sector my wages will never keep up with theirs.

ie. Let's pass up the one opportunity we might get in our lifetime to take the reigns of our own financial future and store money in a way that stops non-jobbers in a suit from dipping their hand in the till whenever the economy hits dire straits and giving it to the most incompetent.

ie. Let's not protect ourselves from the inflation monster that has made living standards drop the most since records began because let's face it, what matters is that Jaffa Cakes are down 20%.

After the greed and after the panic and after the selling, the people that will left in crypto are the ones who are ultimately fed up with being thrown scraps by a system which is designed to keep them "at bay"; one designed to pilfer slowly from their pocket and steal their earnings by deception, by stealth and by taking advantage of vulnerable members of society ie. those with little financial literacy, those who cannot see the erosion of their earnings and their livelihood by the gougers and the troughers in the top 1%, many of whom don't even pay tax now. Where is the justice for those people? Where is the IRS and government warnings for money laundering and tax evasion for those filthy dodgers? They deal in cash, in fiat. Their choice of monopoly money made to suit them, made to serve their interests, continually and forever.

No thanks. There 's a new game in town now, this circus is coming to an end. It's gone on way too long already.

In b4 "you're confused", "the system always wins", "they'll never let it happen", "i can get 3% in a savings acct if i play musical chairs with it", "most people are only in to speculate" (they got cleaned off the plates today btw)

This is happening. Quote me, 5 years. Buy & hold, 10% in alts. DO NOT FALTER.

[Darby Ram]

31 minutes ago, dgul said:

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.

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.

23 minutes ago, dgul said:

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.

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.

[frederico]

52 minutes ago, evetsm said:

As he adds another gem to the debate.

Wipe his mouth, he dribbling on the floor

 

You're rude

[Pitchfork]

7 hours ago, goldbug9999 said:

Hey thanks we were waiting for someone like you come onto this thread and tell us how to behave, I dont know how we managed this last 5 years all on our own honest.

And since you ask ...

This is completely on topic for HPC, because its about how we recapture the wealth that is being stolen from us by the banking system and fiat currency manipulation, which includes loose lending and all that other stuff.

You see prior to crypto the flow of wealth looked like this:

pleb earning a wage -> asset owners -> banks

But we've now invented this new thing which means that at some point in the future it will be:

pleb earning a wage -> asset owners -> banks -> cypto

Hence by owning cypto the wage earning pleb (us) will be able to recapture the wealth that is being stolen from them.

Wish this site had a like button.

It's a once in a lifetime opportunity for redistribution of wealth.

[Pitchfork]

1 minute ago, Pitchfork said:

Wish this site had a like button.

It's a once in a lifetime opportunity for redistribution of wealth.

Well, bugger me, I should pay more attention, there is a like button there. Ignore that post.

[adamLancs]

https://news.bitcoin.com/belarus-legalizes-cryptocurrencies-icos-tax-free/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-belarus-cryptocurrency/belarus-adopts-crypto-currency-law-to-woo-foreign-investors-idUSKBN1EG0XO?il=0

I see the new army of crypto businesses flocking to relocate to Belarus now. Whatcha gonna do?

The world's a big place. There's no stopping this.

[doomed]

[Kosmin]

32 minutes ago, adamLancs said:

I find it hard to imagine people selling out of anything other than sheer blind panic...

ie. Let's go back to  0.5% interest in bank account. At least it'll exist next year, although -5-10% in housing annually for the last 15 years means it'll steadily go down in value relative to one of the most basic necessities of life and I'll never be able to buy what I want with it anyway.

ie. Let's put it in S&S and pray that my business acumen in choosing which bank is going to make the most profit this year pays off and Carney keeps pumping failing businesses full of his lead. It doesn't matter that as long as central banks are using "relief funds" and supporting companies in the housing sector my wages will never keep up with theirs.

Is there really any reason to believe any one type of seller is dominant at the moment?

It could be people who bought recently selling for a loss. It could be people who bought a few weeks ago worried their paper profit will turn to a loss. It could be people who think it may go higher but aren't sure. It could be people have made gains of thousands of percent. They might be selling just some of their bitcoins. They might have become a lot more risk averse at a higher level of wealth (it's not that their view of likely price increases has changed, but the difference in utility from rich to super-rich is less than poor to rich, so it doesn't seem worth holding to them). They might want to spend it now (they might expect the price to go higher, but perhaps not as soon as they'd like. If it's a purchase that can't be put off for long they may have to sell for less if they wait, even if the price will likely be higher eventually).

If you did have enough to buy what you want would you be tempted to sell now?

[markyh]

1 hour ago, dgul said:

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.

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?

[dgul]

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'.

[dgul]

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]

 

[doomed]

Bitcoin Cash can and will scale on chain. The technology advance within the next decade will allow it to happen with ease and always remain ahead of demand. What Core have done to Bitcoin is criminal as well as all the useful idiots who cheer them on.

[markyh]

5 minutes ago, dgul said:

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]

 

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. 

[adamLancs]

26 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

Is there really any reason to believe any one type of seller is dominant at the moment?

It could be people who bought recently selling for a loss. It could be people who bought a few weeks ago worried their paper profit will turn to a loss. It could be people who think it may go higher but aren't sure. It could be people have made gains of thousands of percent. They might be selling just some of their bitcoins. They might have become a lot more risk averse at a higher level of wealth (it's not that their view of likely price increases has changed, but the difference in utility from rich to super-rich is less than poor to rich, so it doesn't seem worth holding to them). They might want to spend it now (they might expect the price to go higher, but perhaps not as soon as they'd like. If it's a purchase that can't be put off for long they may have to sell for less if they wait, even if the price will likely be higher eventually).

If you did have enough to buy what you want would you be tempted to sell now?

Nope, just instinct from reading various places. Kids getting on who have never seen a -5% in their money let alone 50%. The bankers made a mint from people selling their crypto to them for peanuts today. Peanuts. When will people learn? If you trade then the sharks are playing you, if you hold then it's you who's ultimately playing them.

If people buy & hold then the bankers are out of a job. It's as simple as that. Store of value. Store of value. STORE