Ok, as usual, as big players and whale antic's go...I don't get the current LARGE upsurge in Whale games and interest in very big mining operations and expectations,
Me thinks they understand a SegWit donations booty is coming...[1]Stock to flow is irrelevant for LTC.
You people are the most dishonest, retarded, fucking scammers I've ever seen in my entire life. It's not possible for this 'stock to flow' nonsense to be completely invalid for Litecoin and every other coin and work ONLY for Bitcoin. They're all the same 'asset' class - I use the term "asset" extremely loosely because imaginary timestamps are not an asset - so it either has to work for all of them or none of them. It obviously works for none of them because a stock to flow model only works on physical commodity resources humans actually need with some type of inelastic demand.
Forced to reply as you are calling me in a way I don't like.
If only you would use some of your time to actually read about the model (plenty of places to do that, one of those being
here), instead of repeating the same old story, you would understand
why this model is not applicable to Litecoin.
What is your rationale for why 'stock to flow' would work on Bitcoin when it doesn't work on ANY other digital crapcoin? You don't have one. You're either required to be a dishonest scammer or negro-level IQ to not be able to realize scarcity in vacuum for scarcity's sake is meaningless. The idea of stock to flow requires pairing scarcity with inelastic demand. To have inelastic demand requires being an actual physical resource humans need, not an IMAGINARY timestamp. TIMESTAMPS are not in short supply ANYWHERE.
Bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency with
unforgeable costliness,
What the fuck. You have GOT TO BE SHITTING ME. That's an entirely made up, bullshit word salad like blue hair feminists fabricate out of thin air to try and bamboozle people. I don't know why you people even quote Nick Szabo when he's an Ethereum shill. It was obvious it was a Wolf of Wall Street IPO scam before it was even released, with the system itself incapable of even functioning at a drawing board level.
When he's bullshitting you in things like that, it's obvious he's bullshitting you in lots of other places too. He makes numerous leaps of illogic like concluding the only reason humans value something like gold is because it has large amounts of sunk cost fallacy to produce, then tries to claim that PoW aka "unforgeable costliness" replicates that sunk cost fallacy making Bitcoin equal to gold LOL. This whole simpleton train of logic is so stupid it hurts. If Bitcoin had "unforgeable costliness", the 51% attack would not even exist for fucks sake.
And producing gold isn't even sunk cost fallacy in the first place since you're producing an actual resource, while Bitcoin REALLY IS sunk cost fallacy producing nothing. So it's a complete apples to Toyota Corollas comparison. Then factor in absolutely none of the other million traits of physical metals and Bitcoin are comparable either with one being an imaginary object and all.
The decentralized Nash equilibrium exists because the utility of Bitcoin is greater than any extant decentralized alternative (e.g. gold). Thus theres no Schelling point to reach for alternative forks which have less consensus and thus less utility. Other examples of cryptocurrency utility which gold lacks, include the ability to be transported instantly as information and the fact that the tangible mass of Bitcoin (which is all the mining hardware) is disconnected from the intangible store of the transportable asset. Note the theoretical ideal proof-of-work is 100% efficient and thus burns no electricity (as heat) and burns only the depreciation of the hardware. Proof-of-work is an epochal technological shift which will transform human civilization. Proof-of-stake does not burn a tangible resource, so thus has no unforgeable costliness in which to base a Nash equilibrium.
The properties of gold which give it utility that older forms of money and later which fiat money lack, have thus historically been a Nash equilibrium, because there was no Schelling point to reach for metals with inferior properties, except that gold was too rare to be used as the transactional currency which gave rise to silver as a medium-of-exchange (aka the poor mans money). Yet gold was in tension with social scalability (e.g. the soon-to-be, deprecated need for debt financing in the former fixed capital age) and thus the Nash equilibrium for gold could not prevent the rise of fiat money which was an imperfect yet more socially scalable form of money.
The huge problem for gold now is that proof-of-work replaces virtually all its utility while adding superior utility.They will throw their silver into the streets,
and their gold will be treated as a thing unclean.
Their silver and gold
will not be able to deliver them
in the day of the Lords wrath.
The only remaining utility for gold is the illogical and unjustified fear that decentralized mining can be disrupted or the possibly justified fear that mining can be monopolized. If the latter technological problem is justified and can be solved, a Bitcoin killer may still be on the horizon. However bear in mind social scalability. It may be the case that the illusion of decentralization combined with the lack of extremely potent anonymity technology, may be more socially scalable than some other ideal.
My belief is that the historical bifurcation of the world into gold versus fiat money will be replicated with a bifurcation of Bitcoin (as the reserve asset backing the new monetary system which may include Libra as a global 666 transaction coin) versus an underground, dark web, completely anonymous more provably decentralized proof-of-work altcoin. Note how my perspective differs from the one held by those who incorrectly (c.f. also) believe HTLCs such as Lightning Networks will be the transactional system.
Litecoin has unforgeable costliness only if it provides sufficiently unique and compelling utility that Bitcoin and other altcoins lack. The confusion over whether it does or will, is why altcoins have had some value over the short-term, but just look at their charts paired against BTC and it is clear they are losing leverage over time (i.e. the illusion of their utility is dying). Significant deadcat rallies in leverage relative to BTC are likely along the way to their eventual death (with one such rally already underway with GRS/BTC as I predicted in my private discussion group and likely LTC/BTC preparing to launch also).[1] Btw, this is why Bitcoin Core (aka omnibus SegWit at al mutations of Satoshis protocol since Satoshi exited the
crime scene) is an impostor soft fork and
will be eventually destroyed when a hard fork (aka fuck-off) is forced (and I believe
probably at the May 2020 halving) by a SegWit protocol violation that enforces said unforgeable costliness to protect the said Nash equilibrium which gives Bitcoin its durable value.
Bitcoin is a derivative of the US dollar and various other fiats and is in no way free floating whatsoever, nor the unit of account of anything.
That will be falsified when Libra replaces the US dollar with (legacy) Bitcoin as the reserve sometime later in this decade and the U.S. dollar collapses whilst (legacy) Bitcoin continues to the moon.For inflation? If there was a Venezeulan-style melt up, people then lose faith in the current unit of account (Jewish Federal Reserve note), and all pile into the base of Exter's Pyramid to try and retain value (physical gold and silver). Bitcoin is located nowhere near the base of Exter's Pyramid so in a rush to the exits will not be the benefactor of becoming the new unit of account.
Empirically thats already been falsified recently in Venezuela. The Venezuelans werent walking across the border to Colombia with bits of gold in their pockets. That would have been too dangerous. Interest in cryptocurrencies has been significant and rising according to anecdotal reports. Ditto Argentina.
Heck Venezuela even had the threat of their gold being confiscated by the bankers in London. Gold has declining utility because the transferrable asset is attached to its physical mass, unlike proof-of-work where the physical mass (the mining equipment) is detached from the transferable value.
Face the facts.
Libra and Chinas competitor shitcoin ultimately must back their centralized, no Nash equilibrium proof-of-stake shitcoins with Bitcoin reserves, otherwise theyll be replaced by a transactional medium-of-exchange that does. Because Bitcoin is the only monetary asset other than precious metals which has a decentralized Nash equilibrium due to unforgeable costliness.
However, what happens if someone creates a cryptocurrency that effectively has decentralized (i.e. cant be BSV nor BCH which only increase block sizes via the ruse of centralized mining) transactional volume scaling and a Nash equilibrium with unforgeable costliness? HTLCs such as Lightning Networks cant succeed and besides Bitcoin has a poison pill game theory which will destroy all the mutations to the protocol since Satoshi left the building.