Quote from: MatTheCat on April 26, 2016, 07:43:14 PM

Quote from: r0ach on April 26, 2016, 01:01:20 PM

You think this because you don't understand what the words Nash equilbrium means and how it applies to currency, international trade, and governments. If a country like China and the US trade and both have their own currency, they both constantly do currency wars, devaluing to export, etc. The person on the losing side of the trades would eventually demand the Nash equilibrium option and force the other into it if such an option existed. The only way such a Nash equilibrium can be formed is if no single nation has a monopoly on the currency and it's accessible to all. The only options for this on the planet are Bitcoin and gold (not closed entropy proof of stake systems).

The fact that I don't have to send a barge of gold to China over a time span of weeks to do a payment to utilize such a Nash equilibrium means it is fundamentally an extremely valuable system when the market cap of gold is trillions and less efficient in most ways. You do not have the computer science background to do fundamental and cost benefit analysis of these systems.

I may not understand what Nash equilibrium means, but you perhaps don't understand what money is.

It is not hard to see why little bits of shiny attractive, and rare metals might have become used as 'money', because little pieces of these metal were desirable to own, just for the sake of having them. Even in the modern era of more sophisticated forms of entertainment, I myself still enjoy owning the little bits of gold and silver that I have in my possession, and it will be kind of sad when the day comes to cash them in. But even gold and silver don't really become money, until some authority states that little metal pieces with a kings head stamped upon them, are indeed money, and that the populace better start offering up goods and services in exchange for these little pieces of metal, because the king expects taxes to be paid by every subject, using these very same coins, which his treasury has minted, and will exchange for goods and services.

Money has always required some kind of authority behind it. If that 'authority' is some Indian chief with a penchant for giant rare kinds of feathers to put in his headdress, then large fine eagle feathers are money. If some Pharoah has a hard-on for gold and silver, with which he can adourn his palace, then gold and silver is money. Money is whatever unit of exchange, a ruling authority will accept as tribute from it's subjects. In the modern day, that ultimate unit of exchange is the US Dollar. Bitcoins value, is entirely derived from it's rate of convertibility into either the USD, or any number of other fiat currencies which are ultimately backed by the US dollar. If the USD value of BTC is going up, everyone wants to be holding BTC, if it is going down, nobody wants to be holding BTC. I understand that there is value in Bitcoin in terms of the potential ease with which value (in USD) can be transferred around the world, without the need for any of the conventional banking system, and/or clearing houses, but without that convertibility into USD, Bitcoin is worthless.

Arguably, if Bitcoin grows and becomes stable enough in value, it may be passed around as a substitute for USD, and business may gladly hold any BTC they may receive (as opposed to converting it immediately to USD b4 they even recognise payment). But consider the 'Money as Debt' allegory of the goldsmith who issued claim cheques on gold stored in his vaults, only to find the towns people were making payments to each other with the claim cheques as though they were the gold itself. Under those circumstances, the goldsmith's claim cheques, were as good as gold. They were money. However, should it become known that the goldsmith's vaults are empty cos he handed it all to a foreign trader in exchange for luxurious goods, then these claim cheques become worthless. In Bitcoin's case, it won't be a lack of gold in the goldsmiths cellar, but a loss of confidence in the Fiat currencies which give Bitcoin it's value to begin with. As sick as it may sound, collapsing currencies will prove fucking great for Bitcoin, but only so long as the USD stands. Should the USD go down (and I am not that sure that it will anytime soon, but who knows), then the goldsmith's vault is truly empty, and the good townsfolk are going to have to ask themselves the question, "what really is wealth?" Could anyone expect the poultry farmer to exchange his eggs in return for some claim cheques on wealth that is no longer in the vault? Under a USD collapse scenario, is some large oil company going to deliver oil to a customer in exchange for a number of digital tokens with no tangible value, and with no powerful entity enforcing their use? No fucking way! Only chance Bitcoin has of becoming 'money' is if turns out some entity who control a sufficient volume of raw materials, production capacity, and military might, turn around and say, "ok, don't panic! We have the bread, we have the fuel, and we have the guns, and we will see you all alright, providing you pay us with these digital tokens, which we also own 90% off, and can set the value off, and decide how many Satoshi's to give your sorry arse for your hours of daily toil".....

But whilst it is all well n good reminding myself of Bitcoin's glaring limitations that all you Bitcoin Nutters don't want to acknowledge, that don't mean that Bitcoin aint gonna pump, and dump, and then pump again, to who really knows what limits. I suspect that the upper limits of this pump will ultimately be somewhere between $850-$1000. Has Bitcoin broken out it's range, is it now once again, a trending bull? For sure! But will it come back down to flush out all the weak hands and the too late to the party leveraged longs? I sure fkn hope so, otherwise the train has left the station, and I aint on it.

lol.