Quote from: iamnotback on June 09, 2016, 08:01:04 AM

Well you all have a diversity of valid points (except for r0ach who is just butthurt that he missed the 10 and 100 baggers and is failing miserably to make me feel jealous when in fact I was never invested in Bitcoin, rather I was only using it to hold some fiat cash flow... and he was told that numerous times), although my own prediction of what will happen differs from yours.

The wide divergence between the posts in this thread and my own view, is good evidence supporting my theory that we can't know a priori which technological and marketing view point is correct:

Quote from: iamnotback on June 09, 2016, 06:22:05 AM

Quote from: DecentralizeEconomics on June 09, 2016, 03:27:44 AM

I've always believed in quality over quantity.

That is because you still don't understand Physics, i.e. you don't understand that 'quality' can't be distinguished a priori, because the Butterfly Effect is unpredictable, i.e. there is no top-down omniscience (you two clowns still haven't grasped the underlying entropic theory and that the reversibility of time/entropy[1] would only be possible if the speed-of-light was not finite, which is why you continue babbling nonsense about some impossible nirvana where you want to be the regulating top dick sergeants):

Quote from: iamnotback on June 03, 2016, 06:05:36 PM

From this cesspool can rise a ~~Bitcoin~~TrojanHorse killer. Processes aren't noise free because there can't exist omniscience on which is the noise and which is the signal a priori (it can only be known in retrospect and even then perspectives will differ on the account of history).

It isn't usually possible to throw the bath water out independently of the baby when the baby is a decentralized market. You say you want decentralized markets, yet you are unwilling to accept their imperfection. Imperfection is required to have any dynamic system. Otherwise you have top-down control, which is the antithesis of existence, because the speed-of-light is necessarily finite (otherwise past and future would collapse into an infinitesimal nothingness) and thus a top-down observer can't anneal distributed processes in real-time.

Nature is simultaneously ugly and fabulously diverse and interesting. I wouldn't prefer the disinfected nirvana of absolutely no possibilities.

Yeah HODL some Bitcoin. It is the most stable CC so far. HODL your nose and realize the altcoin cesspool is necessary.

[1]

http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html#Entropic_derivation (AnonyMint's blog)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg14270820#msg14270820
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg14286635#msg14286635
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg11218201#msg11218201 (from 2015 when AnonyMint got CoinCube interested in the entropic force)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365141.msg9885459#msg9885459 (from 2014 when AnonyMint aka contagion got CoinCube interested in the entropic force)

I think there are disrupters planted within the alt section. When you keep hearing, "all alts are scams," you have to wonder why the person is even here. That said, there isn't a big enough user pool for Bitcoin to carry out a maximalist strategy, it was too much of a demand, too early and by too small of a contingent to ever have any real effect--think the British in India. Wallstreet will determine how this plays out in the near term. Do they keep investing in Bitcoin start-ups that have yet to make in roads to mass adoption? Do they invest in promise makers like Eth? Or do they keep learning about cryptocurrencies and make better choices as those better choices are made available? My guess is that the proliferation of classes and books on the cryptocurrency and blockchain subject coupled with the research of big names like IBM illustrates that wallstreet is closing the learning curve and will be up to speed enough to make better choices as they are revealed or made available.