Quote from: okthen on March 16, 2015, 04:08:06 PM

Quote from: Wandererfromthenorth on March 16, 2015, 03:12:41 PM

Suppose we have a technology at our disposal where we can move fiat currencies or anything else of value (that is not supposed to be double spent) using a distributed ledger system (allowing cheap, instant, global trust-less transfers) that is not dependent on the price of a native cryptotoken (that in this case you would not need) and using this distributed ledger system for smart contracts. In this case, should bitcoin be valuable?

What do you think? Yes? No?
Why?

VC money in the crypto space is more interested in the blockchain that in bitcoin, as any statement from these entities clearly shows. They all agree that "the blockchain is the main innovation".

So far the criticisms to the "it's about the blockchain, not bitcoin, stupid" way of thinking (http://www.miscmagazine.com/its-the-block-chain-stupid/) consists in saying that the blockchain is dependent on bitcoin (the miners need an incentive to keep the network running, the price of the token needs to be sufficiently high because security etc).
Therefore no bitcoin = no blockchain (https://twitter.com/nvk/status/522115773918359552)

But what if we had a system that works with decent security that doesn't rely on that cryptotoken? Wouldn't that make all cryptocurrencies themselves pretty much useless (unless they have a specific purpose that is not just a necessary security mechanism)?

Then sure, you might simply consider bitcoin to be valuable because it can be a store of value/new currency/replacement of fiat. But the world might not find these use cases to be useful, compromising bitcoin's high valuation scenarios.

Those who pledge for bitcoin do so not only because it is faster, easier and all the advantages that the blockchain brings us, but also due to it's decentralization and gold-like properties.

It can be finally the way to retreive the real ownership of money, that we had before gold pattern was discontinued.

Ok, that's the "Bitcoin will be the new gold 2.0 store of value" scenario. I might have doubts about gold bugs switching to bitcoin or adding it to their portfolio but fair enough.
The problem with this idea is that a lot of people that are bullish on bitcoin long term are arguing that bitcoin or cryptocurrencies are great because they can be used for remittances, to cut billions in fees, to allow the unbanked to have access to financial services, smart contracts etc.
The problem with that is that if a distributed ledger system that works without a cryptocurrency exists, these native tokens are not needed, and that would deplete the value of any crypto.

So a lot or reasons why your cryptocurrency should be valuable suddenly disappear.

Quote from: inca on March 16, 2015, 04:17:46 PM

Quote from: Wandererfromthenorth on March 16, 2015, 03:12:41 PM

Suppose we have a technology at our disposal where we can move fiat currencies or anything else of value (that is not supposed to be double spent) using a distributed ledger system (allowing cheap, instant, global trust-less transfers) that is not dependent on the price of a native cryptotoken (that in this case you would not need) and using this distributed ledger system for smart contracts. In this case, should bitcoin be valuable?

What do you think? Yes? No?
Why?

VC money in the crypto space is more interested in the blockchain that in bitcoin, as any statement from these entities clearly shows. They all agree that "the blockchain is the main innovation".

So far the criticisms to the "it's about the blockchain, not bitcoin, stupid" way of thinking (http://www.miscmagazine.com/its-the-block-chain-stupid/) consists in saying that the blockchain is dependent on bitcoin (the miners need an incentive to keep the network running, the price of the token needs to be sufficiently high because security etc).
Therefore no bitcoin = no blockchain (https://twitter.com/nvk/status/522115773918359552)

But what if we had a system that works with decent security that doesn't rely on that cryptotoken? Wouldn't that make all cryptocurrencies themselves pretty much useless (unless they have a specific purpose that is not just a necessary security mechanism)?

Then sure, you might simply consider bitcoin to be valuable because it can be a store of value/new currency/replacement of fiat. But the world might not find these use cases to be useful, compromising bitcoin's high valuation scenarios.

How do you secure this mythical distributed blockchain allowing frictionless transfer of any assets?

I am not sure why you cannot see the value in the bitcoin blockchain. There are literally hundreds of other chains out there and the vast majority are worthless. The btc chain has value because people give it value. It had value with virtually no utility - simply as a transferable digital asset. Now its utility is going through the roof and the original monetary fundamentals of the currency remain as valid today at 300 dollars as they were two years ago at 30 dollars. Algorithmically limited by design.

I see a future with many digital chains which can interact, but there will always be a place for a digital gold-like asset such as bitcoin. I hope you aren't caught shorting bitcoin right now.

You are referring to its "monetary fundamentals", so about the "gold 2.0" scenario I was talking about. I personally don't agree with it, but as I said, fair enough.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Ethereum and Ripple and not dependent on their native cryptotokens for their network to work. The price of their tokens (ether and XRP) could be a fraction of a cent and the distributed ledgers/blockchains would remain intact. They are not even necessary to be effectively used in order to benefit from the respective networks ledgers to move fiat currencies around/smart contracts.
With bitcoin this is not the case.

Also, recently Eris industries is going ballistic on twitter talking about how they try to get away with the problem of needing a native token for a blockchain.

https://twitter.com/Eris_Ltd
https://twitter.com/prestonjbyrne/status/576456037466767360
https://twitter.com/eris_ltd/status/577235397891219456

I'm not necessarily a proponent of these technologies yet, I'm just saying that they are being built.

The point of my original question is that technology advances pretty fast and the possibility of the existence of an alternative blockchain/consensus ledger where a cryptotoken is not needed NEEDS to be considered, because that scenario would severely deplete any cryptocurrency of its possible inherent value/utility (or would it? that was my question).

Quote from: podyx on March 16, 2015, 04:47:56 PM

Eventually, we're gonna need a new currency and it's gonna, most definately, be a cryptocurrency.

But why? A cryptocurrency is inherently volatile. Something that starts at a few million/billion marketcap and it's supposed to be a global currency is NOT gonna get stable anytime soon. For decades and decades it would still be too volatile and unusable as a currency.

Why a cryptocurrency? Why do we need another currency?
Are you using bitcoin as a currency yourself or just to hodl it to dump it higher? Grin

Quote from: michaelGedi on March 16, 2015, 05:28:22 PM

OP - I see your point, and I believe it is possible that it would deplete the value of bitcoin. I'm guessing this would be due to less exposure for bitcoin (less participants), less transactions through bitcoin network, and less people holding the currency for it's use in these blockchain based products.

I'm sure other incentive based decentralised asset transfer systems can exist in the future, whether they get used or not can all depend on how they are developed and marketed.

The thing with bitcoin is that there is not central PR company with all the money and the clout to get things moving. Advertising etc...

When Joe B discovers a cool and easy way to send stuff online with a slick and secure looking front end, he won't care if it's bitcoin or some other mechanism if they are doing the same job.

Good post, agreed.
The PR thing is the other side of the "decentralization" coin I guess Grin