Quote from: 1krona on April 19, 2013, 12:22:25 AM

Quote from: bb113 on April 19, 2013, 12:15:14 AM

Quote from: 1krona on April 18, 2013, 11:58:35 PM

Quote from: gweedo on April 18, 2013, 11:41:04 PM

Quote from: 1krona on April 18, 2013, 11:31:40 PM

Quote from: gweedo on April 18, 2013, 11:02:09 PM

Quote from: 1krona on April 18, 2013, 10:36:01 PM

"The bitcoin is backed by math argument" is kinda silly if you ask me. It´s backed by people who belive in it, but it have no other use than a medium of exchange, therefor it will fail.. In the long run, or short run. It could even be tommorow who knows. The problem is that the source code of bitcoin can be copied to infinity and create infinite new eCoins, you cant do that with physical things like gold.
You can also do something else with physical things like gold rather than use it as a medium of exchange, you cant do that with bitcoin.

Why is the "Backed by math argument silly"? It is true. You can't have a currency back by people cause then you might as well as back it by hope. Math is a way to prove that the coins aren't double spent, are fairly handed out and keep bitcoins rare. So instead of just hoping it works, you can prove it works. So it the best argument is that it is back by math.

Beacause math is an "abstract 'idea' " you cant really touch it or measure how many other identical cryptocurrencies there could be or how much better you could make them, the answer is infinte. I´m just saying that I can create xCoin, yCoin, zCoin with the exact same properties and now the challenge is to get other people to value those as much. This expansion of cryptocurrencies will probably happen. And therefore you will see an "inflation" of all cryptocurrencies so I dont think the deflation argument of bitcoin stand either.

You cant just look at the properties of Gold and then Copy it into existance without putting extreme amount of energy into it, do you see the problem?
Gold = Physical matter that have some real-world properties, Cryptocurrency value= Abstract and Subjective, can be copied to infinity.

But I´m still a cryptocurrency supporter but I dont think it will stand for much long. I wouldnt bet my life on it, thats it.

Math isn't an abstract idea, do you even know what an abstract idea is? If I said I had 2 jelly beans, you can see I have 2 jelly beans, you can feel I have 2 jelly beans. I can prove that I have 2 jelly beans. Math is based on proof, and you can prove everything in bitcoin. Today the dollar is based on debt and that is not the faith we should have.

Also look at how many crypto currencies have failed and never picked up steam, litecoin is the only other bitcoin like currency that is actually being used. We can have a 1 million other currencies I don't see how that will take away from bitcoin, it was the first and probably the one that will be used 50 years from now.

Gold is physical, but it is abstract in that we could go into a deep cave and find a lot of it, then the price would go down even more. It isn't defined that there is a certain amount of gold, we just have a hard time finding so we have proof it is rare. Bitcoin we know how there is, we know how much there will ever be, we can prove which address owns an amount.

Your not betting your life cause you should never do that, and plus you don't understand.

I always get the answer "You just dont understand", but I have studied currencies, economics, finance a lot.. And when youre saying that we will be using it 50 years from now I see your total lack of understanding from my subjective view. 50 years from now I think there is a much greater chance that we will be using some kind of money measured in energy. It is portable, durable, fungible, and you can do shit with it. So no I dont think cryptos like Bitcoin, Litecoin will stand much more than 5-10 maximum 15 years. But I could be wrong, but I have a bunch of ideas that would serve a much better purpose as a medium of exchange than Bitcoin.

I also have big issues with the asymmetric distribution of bitcoin. Some entities are sitting on 1 - 10 % of all Bitcoins just for them self, thats even worse than the Fiat distribution, although this is not an argument for that bitcoin is bad and will fail, I just dont like the asymmetric distribution. Read this: http://eprint.iacr.org/2012/584.pdf Check pg 8 and 9 for distribution of the coins.

Bitcoin is measured in energy... the mining directly ties the value to amount of energy available for processing transactions. It is a self limiting system. The value of transactions cannot sustainably grow beyond some percentage of total energy production.

But I mean that I would like to OWN the energy rather than performing a task with energy to perfom a transaction. I would like to store it so i could use it to what ever i wanted to. I would transfer it over a net without anyone having to confirm it because you could see something physical "realworld"-event occur when you recieve your kW/h´s (or how ever you would like to measure it). And Instead of mining bitcoin into existence you would have solar cells/ wind turbine "mining" energy. Do you see where I´m coming from?

Ah, I'm not sure if the tech for storing large enough value is there yet.