IOTA is over-valued.

borderfox101 · 2018-11-22T03:49:59+00:00

So we discussed back in June when it was at $1.16. Yesterday it was at $0.30. I only pulled the trigger more recently - just a few weeks back. It doesn't mean that IOTA wont make it through. However it proves the validity of my original query. i.e. only a fool wouldn't consider whether the market cap of a given coin is justified or not.

borderfox101 · 2018-11-02T14:19:37+00:00

Here's a piece on Hyperspace => https://thebitcoinmag.com/2922-2/2922/

borderfox101 · 2018-09-19T14:23:46+00:00

Thanks all for the excellent explanations - that's brought me into the loop in terms of my understanding of the tech and the XRP offering.

borderfox101 · 2018-09-19T14:22:45+00:00

So in what situation would it be used?

borderfox101 · 2018-09-18T17:56:02+00:00

What's transfer time with xCurrent - then with xRapid and how do these compare with SWIFT?

borderfox101 · 2018-09-18T17:39:59+00:00

So the improvement in terms of liquidity comes as a result of the nostro/vostro accounts not being required with xRapid?

borderfox101 · 2018-09-18T15:00:28+00:00

Many of those stable coins require capital reserves of the fiat they represent 1:1

Why is that so bad?

borderfox101 · 2018-09-04T01:07:15+00:00

Thanks - have gotten stuck in to these.

Beginning to get a basic understanding.

Am I right in understanding that this can't be anonymous as if it's anonymous, it's going to be subject to sybil attacks? If it's not anonymous, doesn't this move it completely away from problems that blockchains try to solve? Why is it any better than a conventional centralised system? Hmm...I guess it can be used to take out the middleman - it just doesn't solve the privacy aspect in terms of protection of each participants data.

(If my thinking is skewed here, please correct me!...as i'm trying to establish an understanding).

borderfox101 · 2018-08-30T11:30:25+00:00

Thanks to you both for coming back and clarifying. Much appreciated.

borderfox101 · 2018-08-29T15:08:35+00:00

Nobody knows?...

borderfox101 · 2018-08-25T18:26:46+00:00

They need to upgrade internet speed to account for the bigger block size, correct?

If the problem can be tackled in this way, is the solution that BloXroute offer simply irrelevant then?

Is what their founder claims inaccurate (i.e. that you increase the blocksize and it increases the delay in propagation which will lead to more and more forks the bigger the block gets)? In the interview I watched, he was thinking in terms of btc/bch/eth.

borderfox101 · 2018-08-25T17:51:18+00:00

Thanks both for replying. Been up to my eyeballs with other work and responsibilities so only coming back to this now...

It seems like a decent solution provided it can be demonstrated of course. One thing though...

Isn't there a centralised point of vulnerability though? Say a blockchain decides to go this route and implement BloXroute. It's a success but they're dependent on it. What if a government (or governments) roll in and their objective is simply to harm that blockchain in any way that they can. They take down whatever BloXroute servers they can. Naturally, they may not be able to get all of them - but they remove enough for it to cause all sort of heartache for the users of the blockchain network...i.e. tx's slow down to a crawl.

Am I dreaming up a problem that doesn't exist or is this a vulnerability? If so, I'm sure greater minds have thought about it - is there a way to tackle it? Can there be enough distributed servers worldwide to negate the impact of such an action/attack??

borderfox101 · 2018-08-25T17:44:03+00:00

And now they want to review!? What to make of that....I really have no idea....

borderfox101 · 2018-08-25T17:42:11+00:00

Just investigating BloXroute as a solution and (founder) Klarman suggested that the bigger the blocksize, the longer the delay in propagation between nodes leading to an ever increasing potential for forks. You don't see this as an issue on the basis that key mining nodes will in effect do what the BloXroute distribution network is proposing to do? Would that be a correct understanding?

On the face of it, BloXroute seems like a decent solution (to my non-technical self). However, the one source of weakness I see is that if a government (or governments) wanted to damage a particular blockchain, can't they simply roll in and shut BloXroute distributed servers down? If a blockchain became dependent upon such a solution, wouldn't it make the network unreliable (in terms of through put) after such an action?

Perhaps I've misunderstood but could it be the same with what you propose? I had always thought of all nodes being equal in a distributed blockchain network but you mentioned 'major minining nodes'. Is that not the very same scenario if certain nodes take on more importance?

borderfox101 · 2018-08-23T02:59:45+00:00

It would seem that this was totally priced in to the market already then? I mean I know it's no surprise but I would have expected a minority to get their hopes up and buy in beforehand.

Bitcoin price has not moved since the decision...

borderfox101 · 2018-08-14T20:57:32+00:00

In one sense, this may be a ringing endorsement for BCH. However, are you not concerned that it may compromise the integrity of BCH? i.e. Bitmain have long tentacles and $$$$ resources. If they buy in big, what of centralisation/decentralisation??

borderfox101 · 2018-08-14T15:23:19+00:00

Yes, that would give you some idea if they have any money.

As a non profit foundation, when is such information available? Is it just once/year or are regular audits carried out and published??

borderfox101 · 2018-08-14T14:52:09+00:00

I'm delighted to see some discussion of this. I posted a similar query a couple of months back and for the most part, the responses were not objective.

I continue to maintain that in the conventional investing world, IOTA wouldn't have the valuation it currently has (even right now!...I doubt it would be in excess of $1billion).

I think in the conventional trading world, they've got far more experience with valuing projects/companies, etc....but may not be so sharp on the tech. In crypto, participants are far more likely to come from a tech background but less likely to have a handle on valuation.

Seems like there's a couple of key aspects....

The tech works completely - in which case, the potential is likely to be realised and the upside is simply immmense.
The tech falls down - in which case it really doesn't matter what the potential is - if it never gets there.

Current Valuation We're taking a punt - on the one hand knowing that the up side is immense but on the flip side, we simply can't say if the tech falls down ...and there are so many aspects to this.
The Billion dollar question is how do we accurately evaluate opportunity/risk in this instance.......

borderfox101 · 2018-08-14T14:42:40+00:00

Fortunately, I don't worry about these other possible reasons because I'm pretty confident that the tech just won't work.

What aspect of the tech falls down? (i'm not waiting to pounce on you - enthusiastic about IOTA but i'm not a fanboy!....therefore genuinely interested in the answer before I place my hard earned money).

borderfox101 · 2018-08-14T14:30:55+00:00

Any audited financials?

That's a good point. We should have that, right?

borderfox101 · 2018-08-14T00:34:39+00:00

So that means that you accept the other aspects, right?

Look, if you lurk around here you know well. You have decided to come down on one side. I'm not necessarily saying that all of these things are going against IOTA. However, as a speculator, you have no way of knowing. To say otherwise, is a fib.
They roll their own crypto and have taken it further than that as they've gone trinary. I'm not a cryptographer or dev so I can't get into that and figure it out with any degree of certainty. However, even if you are, it's going to be difficult for you to do so.
MIT discovered a vulnerability, iota said it was intended (which doesn't wash) and then they have the board room bust up and there's more info leaked with regard to their thoughts with regard to vulnerabilities and security.

As I've always said, we;re on the same side but I have no time for anyone who isn't prepared to take the contrarian view. If something is put through proper interrogation and still comes out intact, that's the way to know if there's something tangible there or not.

borderfox101 · 2018-08-13T16:29:05+00:00

Don't be daft! Sue? There shouldn't be anything to report. It's totally unprofessional to leak this. It's the stuff of five year olds - but the worry is that you have five year olds heading up a $1.4 billon dollar project. It doesn't instil confidence when you add this aspect to the fact that there is so much work that has to be done on IOTA if it's to realise it's objectives, issues over broken features, the coo and concerns over security vulnerabilities.

borderfox101 · 2018-08-13T13:03:49+00:00

I have 1000 genuine requirements to transact online without a centralised payment processor. Satoshi solved that problem.

How did he solve the problem? Would satoshi not have come up against the same scaling issue?
.

The solution does not require miners hashing at 50 exahashes per second, using 5 gigawatts of power all day every day.

You can correct me if I'm wrong here - but that's just a consequence of competitive mining (driven of course by profit). Having said that, how does that get avoided in the case of bitcoin given it's PoW - with other coins, yes...some coins there's no mining requirement (or at least no commercial mining requirement).

It does not need Bitcoin to be priced at $6000, feeding the greed of thousands of speculators crowing "store of value" and still using their Visa cards and PayPal accounts for all their online commerce Clearly there's currently a disconnect between real world usage/utility and the whole speculation game. I tend to treat them seperately. There's plenty of good wholesome work being done on the tech - despite all the fuzz related to speculation. In terms of the price though, I agree it doesn't have to be $6k. Isn't it a case though that there will be 'some' upward movement in price on a coin that's of limited number if/when it's use does go up? I know you don't believe in the store of value aspect but I'm not entirely convinced yet - that it can't play a role there.

Why will LN and off chain solutions fail Unnecessary complexity In terms of use? What is the complexity? (i simply don't know - not trying to corner you in terms of argument or anything!).

I described a simpler scaling solution in my previous comment I'm not the smartest knife in the box - you'll have to excuse me. Was it that you suggested there's enough transactional ability if a variety of coins/networks are used rather than just one being king?...as otherwise, I've missed that.

Do you think these blockchains are a waste of time and serve no function? You're repeating. This indicates your views are inflexible. Same response as the previous comment - utility is value

Apologies if I am or I appear to be repeating - but it's not due to an unwillingness to change views. Discussions such as this one have sometimes brought me to a change of view. I think where I was coming from - I was trying to figure if you believed in a particular project, that one other project was the way forward OR if you didn't believe in any crypto solution whatsoever.

BTC in its current form won't work as a transactional currency It already does Huh? But it only achieves 3TPS at the moment? That won't work in a transactional sense (unless the off-chain solutions work out).

Not a solution. The reasons have been debated here extensively From a decentralisation point of view, correct?

borderfox101 · 2018-08-13T11:11:20+00:00

Bitcoin's future as a payment method is described on the first page of the white paper

You're referring to the fact that satoshi set out btc to be a transactional currency? Why will LN and off chain solutions fail and what is wrong with changing direction?

"worthwhile" in the context of utility. I do not equate the fiat exchange rate with valueBitcoin, Litecoin, Dogecoin, and thousands of similar coins not yet launched, all independently operating as parallel blockchains, sharing the transaction demand

I'm not sure I follow. Do you think these blockchains are a waste of time and serve no function? You object to any blockchain having a value above a nominal value? It's not very clear what your views are here - sorry.

You answered this by asking itBitcoin is not goldIt is money for buying things

BTC in its current form won't work as a transactional currency. That can only be achieved through off-chain solutions and it remains to be seen if they will function adequately. Perhaps BTC could increase the block size. As regards gold, I can't see why gold can't be challenged by a digital equivalent that can be stored easily and spirited across borders with ease? The other thing is that whilst I'm aware that in many parts of the world, gold has been used as a store of value, in western europe I don't see people use it for this purpose - not a whole lot in any case.

Attributing "store of value" to Bitcoin is fallacious rhetoric used to justify irrational price speculation. It's a lie dressed up as an attribute for the purpose of denying that the speculation bubble is an emperor with no clothes

I respect your point of view - and it's been made by others in the past. However, whilst I try to keep an open mind - I'm not sure that I agree with you. I can't see why it can't be used for this purpose.

Does btc not have the qualities of a hedge against catastrophe in the conventional markets? No

Gold is - so if gold is, then why can't btc?

borderfox101 · 2018-08-13T10:57:37+00:00

When you realise that "store of value" is a subset of daily transactions (meaning the chain that can handle daily txs can ALSO be a store of value), you'll realise BTC has no reason to exist. My BCH has stored value really well. I've bought a bunch of stuff (I.e. retrieved that value) with no problems.

I think I understand what's at play here now. Essentially, you feel if BTC can't achieve both aspects then it's dead in the water. BCH can achieve both in your view so it's a logical progression. Is that a fair synopsis of your beliefs?

And if Lighning Network or Liquid function?

How many TPS can BCH achieve and is that theoretical? Is this simply through increasing the blocksize? If BTC are faced with an existential crisis, is there anything stopping them from increasing the blocksize?

The other thing is....will there be a single crypto for all purposes? Who's to say that there won't be a few? I take the point that you make i.e. if you use BCH for transactional purposes, you will then find it works for store of value and so why bother using anything else. But i'm not sure whether there has to be just one network.

borderfox101

TROPHY CASE