Search content
Sort by
Showing 19 of 19 results by Lagartijo
Re: New self-proclaimed Satoshi Nakamoto's reveal is a complete epic fail?
I think this is a good question to ask.
I seem to be a rare individual in giving people the benefit of the doubt, especially when they have put forward an argument and I have not been able to refute it. I have been looking around to see if anyone at all who has an opinion on the matter has a refutation of that numerology-based proof. The idea is certainly is akin to the way Bitcoin works and it seems difficult to arrive at the equivalences he has shown. (Yes, choosing the right lowercase letters helps, but still.)
Perhaps I am not very intelligent but I find it strange that all I can find is educated guesses, at best. I feel this relates to how people dismiss the personal aspects of these accounts (including Wright's). Say these people are right and they're Satoshi; you have just insulted someone who has opened up in public from your position of safety or anonymity (congratulations).
At the moment, the only reasonable hypothesis I have of the claim that this is a fraud is to imagine that someone with great literary skills has come up with this personal story, with numerology to boot, and then picked the random guy who registered thebcci.net back in 2008 as the main character. Any better ideas?
I seem to be a rare individual in giving people the benefit of the doubt, especially when they have put forward an argument and I have not been able to refute it. I have been looking around to see if anyone at all who has an opinion on the matter has a refutation of that numerology-based proof. The idea is certainly is akin to the way Bitcoin works and it seems difficult to arrive at the equivalences he has shown. (Yes, choosing the right lowercase letters helps, but still.)
Perhaps I am not very intelligent but I find it strange that all I can find is educated guesses, at best. I feel this relates to how people dismiss the personal aspects of these accounts (including Wright's). Say these people are right and they're Satoshi; you have just insulted someone who has opened up in public from your position of safety or anonymity (congratulations).
At the moment, the only reasonable hypothesis I have of the claim that this is a fraud is to imagine that someone with great literary skills has come up with this personal story, with numerology to boot, and then picked the random guy who registered thebcci.net back in 2008 as the main character. Any better ideas?
It's entirely up to us whether we decide to use crypto currency or not. Maybe in the future, if the government thinks that crypto currency is becoming a threat to the regulated fiat, they'd come up rules to combat this. They could ban the use of other forms of currency altogether, but where is the progress in that?
They are not going to ban Bitcoin. Bitcoin will "ban itself" because governments reflect the people and the value of money depends on the majority, as this essay discusses. Thus whatever populist computer code that can compete with Bitcoin as a store of value will be favoured over Bitcoin, and its execution will be coordinated by governments. It is all too sad, but who cares; the freedom and the lesson heralded by Bitcoin is here to stay.
Like his invention, Dr. Craig Wright cannot win:
"I believed that I could do this. I believed that I could put the years of anonymity and hiding behind me. But, as the events of this week unfolded and I prepared to publish the proof of access to the earliest keys, I broke. I do not have the courage. I cannot. "
"I believed that I could do this. I believed that I could put the years of anonymity and hiding behind me. But, as the events of this week unfolded and I prepared to publish the proof of access to the earliest keys, I broke. I do not have the courage. I cannot. "
Banks cannot be Bitcoin, but they can get close enough for the majority of mortals...
http://www.coindesk.com/meet-the-25-banks-working-with-distributed-ledger-startup-r3/
http://www.coindesk.com/meet-the-25-banks-working-with-distributed-ledger-startup-r3/
Almost three quarters of financial pros think the blockchain can thrive without Bitcoin, because they are just applying their empirical knowledge and common sense in agreement with this essay.
http://www.coindesk.com/73-of-finance-pros-think-the-blockchain-can-thrive-without-bitcoin/
http://www.coindesk.com/73-of-finance-pros-think-the-blockchain-can-thrive-without-bitcoin/
Appreciate your corrections, but the "goose that lays the gold eggs" central banks are referring to, which they will allow to live, is Bitcoin.
Once all these "revolutionary" geeks have done the work, put out the software for anyone to use (a la Linux), and got all the developing world dependent on cryptocurrencies, all they have to do is change over and release their proprietary, legal system.
FTFY
Once all these "revolutionary" geeks have done the work, put out the software for anyone to use (a la Linux), and got all the developing world dependent on cryptocurrencies, all they have to do is change over and release their proprietary, legal system.
Guys this technology has the potential of including all the poor people in the favelas of Brazil into the banking system. When we regulate this with the Central Bank, we should not restrict it but promote it. Lets not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs
http://cointelegraph.com/news/115056/how-3-central-banks-the-financial-elite-embraced-bitcoin-for-one-day?ref=2604&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twit&utm_campaign=alx
http://cointelegraph.com/news/115056/how-3-central-banks-the-financial-elite-embraced-bitcoin-for-one-day?ref=2604&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twit&utm_campaign=alx
FTFY
"The primary requirement for anything to function as money is that of being accepted by people. Bitcoin is designed to avoid relying on central authorities, which increases its function as a store of value. "
That being said, it is perfectly possible for Bitcoin to win. It is the perfect store of value against corrupt Governments trying to snoop around their citizens finances.
I seriously believe this can make the difference...
That being said, it is perfectly possible for Bitcoin to win. It is the perfect store of value against corrupt Governments trying to snoop around their citizens finances.
I seriously believe this can make the difference...
The essay defines "winning" as being a dominant currency (highest price), while acknowledging Bitcoin's value and function as a substitute currency.
"New York Times technology and finance reporter Nathaniel Popper, author of Digital Gold: Bitcoin and the Inside Story of the Misfits and Millionaires Trying to Reinvent Money, noted that a permissioned blockchain could be jointly run by the computers of the largest banks and serve as the backbone for a new, instant payment system without a single point of failure. The new blockchain, decentralized but closed, would offer the benefits of the current Bitcoin network without relying on end-users for its operations."
www.coindesk.com/bbva-blockchain-tech-could-replace-centralised-finance-system/
Note that a "permissioned blockchain" is just about what it means to have a Bitcoin protocol and client.
www.coindesk.com/bbva-blockchain-tech-could-replace-centralised-finance-system/
Note that a "permissioned blockchain" is just about what it means to have a Bitcoin protocol and client.
"Blockchain technology could be used to bypass today's centralised financial infrastructure entirely, according to a report by BBVA Research US."
www.coindesk.com/bbva-blockchain-tech-could-replace-centralised-finance-system/
And there's a reason they're not worried.
www.coindesk.com/bbva-blockchain-tech-could-replace-centralised-finance-system/
And there's a reason they're not worried.
"The power of the people"? The "needs of the people"... "People want to be free"? "They're coming to take our freedoms"? ... Where have you heard these ones before?
Governments of course are made up of people. You are the state. And that's why Bitcoin isn't changing anything.
Governments of course are made up of people. You are the state. And that's why Bitcoin isn't changing anything.
I'm pretty sure that all extinct currencies were once based upon their then modern society, e.g., the Romans weren't using nor accepting fish bones or seashells to or for trade. That said, what ever argument that's presented, US dollars, et al., could easily be added to the list of why--cannot-win.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque
EDIT: Joining you with the coffee.
"The primary requirement for anything to function as money is that of being accepted by people. Bitcoin is designed to avoid relying on central authorities, which increases its function as a store of value. However, the acceptance of money (adoption) is ultimately determined by central authorities in any foreseeable socio-economic context, as has always been the case throughout history. All the desirable features of cryptocurrencies can be easily implemented by governments in their competition with Bitcoin to the extent that will preserve their monetary dominance. The belief in Bitcoin becoming a world currency in an increasingly interconnected world is therefore based on a mistaken worldview."
They show more interest in blockchain because blockchain is good and you can copy blockchain. And because Bitcoin cannot copy adoption.
http://moraluniversal.com/en/why-bitcoin-cannot-win/
http://moraluniversal.com/en/why-bitcoin-cannot-win/
This is the third story today by someone who asserts their brilliance by saying: "we are interested in blockchain; bitcoin not so much". It is meant to show you are a bigshot if you can put forth another version of this over-used line.
Here is one: http://www.cityam.com/220231/why-i-chose-float-fintech-business-london
Here is another: c-touts-blockchain-tech-for-trade-finance/
It reminds me of the time an English man was explaining to his son on an airplane that: 'it is the wings that makes the airplane fly'. I immediately thought - it's the fucking engine that makes it fly - and the rudder too, and the cockpit too, and the pilot too. Even the landing gear - although I'd have to argue the landing gear makes it fly again.
There isn't such thing as Bitcoin or blockchain. Bitcoin includes a blockchain and a bunch of other stuff. Go ahead, try to make your blockchain without some bitcoin behind it. Let's see where that will get you.
People need to quit showing how smart they are by expressing their keen interest in the 'blockchain' while at the same time saying 'bitcoin' isn't so interesting. All this really does is show you don't understand cryptocurrency. There is not blockchain without bitcoin.
Here is one: http://www.cityam.com/220231/why-i-chose-float-fintech-business-london
Here is another: c-touts-blockchain-tech-for-trade-finance/
It reminds me of the time an English man was explaining to his son on an airplane that: 'it is the wings that makes the airplane fly'. I immediately thought - it's the fucking engine that makes it fly - and the rudder too, and the cockpit too, and the pilot too. Even the landing gear - although I'd have to argue the landing gear makes it fly again.
There isn't such thing as Bitcoin or blockchain. Bitcoin includes a blockchain and a bunch of other stuff. Go ahead, try to make your blockchain without some bitcoin behind it. Let's see where that will get you.
People need to quit showing how smart they are by expressing their keen interest in the 'blockchain' while at the same time saying 'bitcoin' isn't so interesting. All this really does is show you don't understand cryptocurrency. There is not blockchain without bitcoin.
It is clear that people don't flock to whatever makes more sense, and never have done.
Banks and firms can tinker with blockchains as much as they want, but ultimately it's governments/politics that decides what will be used as money because they are the greatest network, which is what money needs. Everything else that can be done with blockchain, like contracts and whatnot, depends on adoption too. The case has been made pretty solidly here: http://moraluniversal.com/en/why-bitcoin-cannot-win/
Banks and firms can tinker with blockchains as much as they want, but ultimately it's governments/politics that decides what will be used as money because they are the greatest network, which is what money needs. Everything else that can be done with blockchain, like contracts and whatnot, depends on adoption too. The case has been made pretty solidly here: http://moraluniversal.com/en/why-bitcoin-cannot-win/
Guys this technology has the potential of including all the poor people in the favelas of Brazil into the banking system. When we regulate this with the Central Bank, we should not restrict it but promote it. Lets not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
http://cointelegraph.com/news/115056/how-3-central-banks-the-financial-elite-embraced-bitcoin-for-one-day?ref=2604&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twit&utm_campaign=alx
http://cointelegraph.com/news/115056/how-3-central-banks-the-financial-elite-embraced-bitcoin-for-one-day?ref=2604&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twit&utm_campaign=alx
The essay is very clear and careful to value Bitcoin as sound money. It's obviously a lot easier to get a badge on here than do some comprehensive reading.
This is what happens when you remove the newbie jail that we have in place. These threads are very common in this section and in economics.
This is what happens when you remove the newbie jail that we have in place. These threads are very common in this section and in economics.
"For any currency to succeed ultimately, it needs to be accepted by government as good for payment of debt and taxes. Bitcoin is anathema to the bankers, and these financial terrorists will cause pain and death in any country that attempts to adopt it, and blame it on the currency extremists. They don't need governments to kiss and make up."
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3f6947/why_bitcoin_cannot_win_when_states_across_the/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3f6947/why_bitcoin_cannot_win_when_states_across_the/
Re: How would banks take advantage from the blockchain technology?
The technological challenge is obviously not big, when anyone can make a coin. Besides, banks have the greatest monetary network, needed to make any blockchain valuable as a database at all: http://moraluniversal.com/en/why-bitcoin-cannot-win/
Some powerful economic and historical arguments here, and what governments could do to defeat Bitcoin...
http://moraluniversal.com/en/why-bitcoin-cannot-win/
"Money is the product of society, just as Bitcoin is the product of a society of computers. Money needs the greatest human network to succeed, just as the Bitcoin blockchain needs the greatest computer consensus. This network and consensus, however imperfect, is ultimately provided by the state in modern societies, just as it was the case in the many cases of recoinage and remonetization throughout history. For as long as we have states that strong and accepted by people, for better or worse, Bitcoin will remain a substitute currency."
http://moraluniversal.com/en/why-bitcoin-cannot-win/
"Money is the product of society, just as Bitcoin is the product of a society of computers. Money needs the greatest human network to succeed, just as the Bitcoin blockchain needs the greatest computer consensus. This network and consensus, however imperfect, is ultimately provided by the state in modern societies, just as it was the case in the many cases of recoinage and remonetization throughout history. For as long as we have states that strong and accepted by people, for better or worse, Bitcoin will remain a substitute currency."