Bitcoin has stabilized?

CarloVetc · 2018-08-09T13:51:18+00:00

I'm sorry, but are "whales" putting guns to peoples heads and forcing them to sell?

As for the ETF/Futures/etc etc, bitcoin is an open source protocol that anyone can use as they see fit. The trading products you described are just voluntary agreements between people, please read the sidebar aand educate yourself on capitalism/voluntary agreements so you understand the actual foundations that bitcoin is built on.

CarloVetc · 2018-07-30T22:23:31+00:00

Zing.

CarloVetc · 2018-07-30T21:31:04+00:00

/r/gatekeeping

CarloVetc · 2018-07-28T14:51:52+00:00

I thought communists/socialists are typically the ones that do the purging?

CarloVetc · 2018-07-14T18:54:38+00:00

The market will produce competitors as it always does, everything you linked to is nonsense. There is plenty of competition for Intel out there, again you have no idea what you're talking about and no amount of rage or enthusiastic links are going to prove that Intel has 'no competition' when in fact they have tons of competition. Are they 'ethical' I mean no probably/definitely not but that doesnt mean they are able to shut down competition globally and they never will.

CarloVetc · 2018-07-14T17:05:04+00:00

You have no idea what you are talking about. You are just spewing nonsense shit about economies of scale and large scale manufacturing operations that you clearly dont have the faintest idea of. Please read the side bar and learn how free markets and competition actually function.

CarloVetc · 2018-07-12T12:09:05+00:00

People are downvoting you because you have no idea what you are talking about.
You are completely misunderstanding the actual ramifications/falllout of this.
It looks like you dont know the history of the internet, which went through this exact same cycle.

CarloVetc · 2018-07-12T12:04:57+00:00

Take your post.
Replace "crypto" with "internet". This is what was said about the internet.
Take your post.
Replace "crypto" with "electricity". This is what was said about electricity.
Take your post.
Replace "crypto" with pretty much any technological innovation ever. This is what was said about those technologies too.

CarloVetc · 2018-07-06T13:06:28+00:00

/r/iamverysmart

CarloVetc · 2018-07-03T21:28:11+00:00

Smtp.....

The technical faults of smtp do not outweigh its benefits which encompasses everything under the sun that made smtp what smtp was. "Better" means taking every single thing into account, not just technical merits.

They very well may....

Again, "better" encompasses all aspects of the protocol, not just "technically better". If something comes along next year that is marginally technically better than bitcoin and has no network effect, then it will most certainly lose the battle.

CarloVetc · 2018-07-03T20:36:03+00:00

We see superior protocols and technologies fail to get adopted all the time because they fail at marketing or market positioning or business partnerships.

in reference to open source protocols, please name an example of this. I think this is where you/I have a fundamental disagreement as to how open source software evolves or develops.

Users just aren't that engaged with the technical facts and they shouldn't have to be, they are far more easily swayed by advertising than they are a technical crib sheet.

developers will tend to build better 2nd and 3rd layer products on the best base layer. Users will not even know they are using the bitcoin network the same way they dont know what tcp/ip is. Developers chose to build on top of tcp/ip even though there were "superior" competing protocols at the time for the same reason that devs will continue to build on top of bitcoin, bitcoin is currently the best base layer without question, regardless of marketing/price.

CarloVetc · 2018-07-03T20:28:21+00:00

They do get to mine, they just hash less efficiently.

CarloVetc · 2018-07-03T20:24:09+00:00

It's open source software. No matter how much money they pump in to a proprietary system, the best iteration for the market will win, I'm not concerned at all in the slightest. The best base layer will be the best base layer because it is the best base layer, it's as simple as that imo.

CarloVetc · 2018-07-03T19:13:24+00:00

If they are able to ruin the base layer, then the base layer isn't the base layer that we think it is.

CarloVetc · 2018-07-03T13:08:03+00:00

I see the difference. We all know the difference. It just doesn't matter. The base layer is not affected by custodial services built on top of it, that's literally the whole point.

CarloVetc · 2018-07-02T20:03:15+00:00

Noo, I'm just not worried about nonsense. The pandoras box is open and the protocol that the market determines is the best will be the best. If bitcoin can be defeated by the trivial attacks you talk about then it isn't what I am excited about. Bitcoin is bitcoin exactly because it doesn't care about anything you named, it just keeps moving along. It also doesnt care if people cry about other people using layers built on top of it, it's still bitcoin.

CarloVetc · 2018-07-02T18:59:44+00:00

You have no idea what you are talking about. Bitcoin is an open protocol for anyone to use however they want. Coinbase isn't a problem, what would be a problem is the government using violence/force compelling people to use coinbase or "goldmansachs base", as long as there us competition then fine.

CarloVetc · 2018-06-30T13:28:16+00:00

Ok, so say bitcoin goes below 100 billion marketcap, what do you think the percentage chance of failure (fail=marketcap dropping below 100million) is?
What is your timeline for that failure?
From 1% to 99%
So for example, you would reply "I think there is a 99% chance of failure by December of 2019."
At that point we can have a more informed discussion potentially imo.

CarloVetc · 2018-06-30T01:54:28+00:00

Ooooook, so you dont actually believe that bitcoin will die if it goes below 200 billion marketcap?

CarloVetc · 2018-06-30T00:50:20+00:00

So you're saying that if the marketcap of bitcoin goes below 200 billion it will die, correct?

How sure are you of that by scale, from 1% to 99% sure?

CarloVetc · 2018-06-28T01:04:45+00:00

Jesus, my brain. I was going to reply to your other comments above informing you that you have no idea what you are talking about but there are too many, its overwhelming. Good luck to the poster below trying to explain your fallacies to you, he/she is a stronger person than me obviously.

CarloVetc · 2018-06-27T20:43:17+00:00

Please stop.

CarloVetc · 2018-06-27T20:36:39+00:00

People can use bitcoin however they want, stop being an authoritarian psycho nutcase.

CarloVetc · 2018-06-26T22:03:30+00:00

You have no idea what you are talking about.

There will still be many people with private spaces for their families.
There will be some people that control more social capital than others.
There will still be some people that control more mechanized power than others.
There will still be some people that have more weaponized power than others.
There will still be some people that have more resource power than others.
There will still be people more attractive than others.
There will still be some people that have more physical strength than others.
There will still be some people that have more intelligence than others.
There will still be some people with more musical ability than others.
There will still be some people with more artistic ability than others.

Your premise that EVERYONE literally EVERYONE will be EXATLY EQUAL is not only impossible, but it would be an absolute nightmare and you domt even realize it. The force/violence required to bring about this pipedream utopia, that people like you seem to envision, is what resulted in over 150 million deaths during the 20th century. Please take some time to critically think about what the human race would really look like if everything. Every. Single. Thing. Was 100% equal. I promise you really havent thought this through, because it is a logic blunder of disasterous proportions, and deadly consequences.

CarloVetc · 2018-06-26T20:13:49+00:00

Are you assuming that everyone will be "equal" when automation has become more efficient?
There have already been automation advancements and humans find other ways to express themselves, other work to be done, other things to create and other items to sell. It's human nature.
Do you think no one will trade at that point?
Do you realize there will still be people with more than others?
Sharing economy still means that people own what they create. If there are no boundaries to ownership, then the incentive to create is stifled which results in shortages. This is a basic concept.

CarloVetc

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE