Quote from: oyvinds on March 23, 2014, 12:30:31 AM

In practice "off-chain" just means "use something else that's better".

Not exclusively. Offchain also includes centralized exchanges such as a Mt.Gox, instead of decentralized ones (which are in development and don't exist yet). Such offchain exchanges lead to fractional reserves, fraud, and thus government regulation and take over.

Eventually these offchains are banks. Then we are no longer using Bitcoin, rather government regulated fractional reserves called "Bitcoin". This is a very likely outcome, because dumb masses will never want to use decentralized exchanges.They prefer Coinbase and a bank to "secure" their coins.

Quote from: rpietila on March 23, 2014, 08:32:54 AM

Then it conflicts with the fundamentals. Bitcoin usage is growing exponentially and the new users/investors need bitcoins. When they buy them, the price rises. Any TA that does not take this into account is harmful for the financial well-being of its user

Assuming no exchange is creating a massive amount of fractional reserves. Fractional reserves are possible when people are not transacting their coins, just buy and hold on the exchange such as Coinbase. But Coinbase is honest (?).

The more valuable Bitcoin becomes, the more incentive to create Bitcoins from thin air. You really don't think the banksters will just sit idle and watch you become $billionaires at their expense do you?

They've been doing this racket for 100s of years, and you expect them to just roll over and play dead?

Quote from: oyvinds on March 22, 2014, 02:33:53 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on March 22, 2014, 02:19:19 PM

The time of BTC is upon us if we accept that the masses will use it if offchain regulated businesses provide fixes to all the useability problems with Bitcoin onchain (e.g. 10 - 60 minute transactions, private keys stolen, etc).

I seriously doubt "offchain regulated businesses" will help Bitcoin or ANYTHING.

I've asked Bitcoin developers why the BTC fees are so high for small transactions. I know some of you will want to argue about this but you might as well admit the truth: Sending big amounts of BTC is cheap, sending small amounts is expensive. It just does not work for micropayments. Bitcoin developers argument is that "but OFFCHAIN TRANSACTIONS!".

Guess what? Fiat cash is a good example of an Offchain Transaction. I know this is what Bitcoin developers mean when they use that term but it's true: Cash transactions are not on the blockchain since they do not involve Bitcoin. Other "offchain" (as in NOT bitcoin) alternatives will come along and win the market for micropayments (where Bitcoin can not compete). Telling people to use "offchain" solutions to problems Bitcoin can not solve is in my opinion the same as saying "don't use Bitcoin, use something else".

I've studied this in technical (not to be confused with chart TA) detail. Zero transactions fees are possible in a properly designed altcoin but not in Bitcoin's design. There are crucial things that can never change in Bitcoin's design any more.

Offchain can improve other things such as the 10 - 60 minute transaction delay for Bitcoin. It is also possible to design an altcoin without such a significant delay so "nearly instant" online micropayments can remain decentralized and on chain.

There will be serious competitors to Bitcoin, but see below...

Quote from: cAPSLOCK on March 23, 2014, 02:22:44 PM

Quote from: rpietila on March 23, 2014, 08:32:54 AM

Then it conflicts with the fundamentals. Bitcoin usage is growing exponentially and the new users/investors need bitcoins. When they buy them, the price rises. Any TA that does not take this into account is harmful for the financial well-being of its user

This is so super important. Bitcoin's fundamentals are very compelling. Until something comes along that solves nearly ALL of bitcoin's problems and overtakes it's growing network effect bitcoin continues to have a lot of built in fundamental propulsive power. Considering that many solutions to bicoin's shortcomings will be layers on top of bitcoin, there is also a possibility, in my opinion, that within bitcoin itself and its community is the solution to it's own problems.

The solution to the capital gains problem is Bitcoin becomes fiat. This could happen eventually and investors could pile now in under that assumption.

I see the mainstream crypto-currency has to be the government sanctioned one. There is no other way around that. Might as well just accept it, and think about the implications for yourself as an investor, specifically the witchhunt against all wealth coming as the governments tax+confiscate into oblivion and the lack of anonymity in Bitcoin as compared to gold or some hypothetical altcoin (apparently not DarkCoin nor CoinJoin though).

Some have argued they don't care if society confiscates (taxes) 90% if their gains are 1000X. That is still 100X gains.

Then again if there is an anonymous coin that gives you 10,000X (because it is smaller and you are earlier to invest), and you don't face taxes nor confiscation, those investors are going to be 100X higher on the totem pole, e.g. $billionaires versus $10 millionaires. Think private jets instead of old manors.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-22/imfs-property-tax-hike-proposal-comes-true-uk-imposing-mansion-tax-soon-year

Quote from: aminorex on March 22, 2014, 08:23:25 PM

It's very easy - I have often done it myself - to get so caught up into advocating one's position that one fails to see the incoherencies in ones own case. An old saying is apposite: There are none so blind as those who will not see.

When you are making a case to a broad audience as well as to a correspondent -- as is typical in a forum post -- your case is not well served if you refuse to see what all the other readers can easily see. Denial is not an effective strategy, either logically or rhetorically.

I see very clearly why you support the mainstream crypto-currency and normally that is the correct move (also you probably have no deep programming or technical skills so you couldn't change the situation if you were so inclined, you are reliant on the trend for your stored monetary capital, i.e. No Money Exists Without the Majority). I also see very clearly that every 80 years or so, the mainstream goes in chaos with confiscation and war.

So I see failure of the mainstream 2016ish. Why should I board the Titantic?

Should Google have never improved upon Yahoo? Should Facebook have not taken over from Friendster and Myspace? Can you be sure Bitcoin is an exception to the usual rule that the first one is almost never the winning one.

Groupthink
Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome.

group·think
ˈgro͞opˌTHiNGk/
noun
noun: groupthink; noun: group-think

1.
the practice of thinking or making decisions as a group in a way that discourages creativity or individual responsibility.