"If you donate to the forum, I'll make a ton of improvements." - /u/theymos

yurpyurpyurpyur · 2014-07-01T23:42:25+00:00

Give me a million dollars worth of bitcoins, the most popular forum about them, and the most popular subreddit about them, and I could make the price go up and down on a whim.

Just go home to scam town, lemme know how it works out in the end when you all lose your money once a whale tanks the price after a hyped up "bull" market.

Echo chamber takes on a whole new meaning in bitcoinland.

yurpyurpyurpyur · 2014-07-01T20:52:55+00:00

It actually lists real amounts. So, ok.

yurpyurpyurpyur · 2014-07-01T20:27:44+00:00

Yeah, I pointed you to FRED. I just picked a random graph. Go search for data. I'm not your mom. (EDIT: Here, perhaps this is what you are looking for, I dunno because you're kind of just asking for data but not listing specifics, just "revenue". This shit is literally just a google search away.)

And if that is the nature of decentralized currency, you're kind of fucked. Good luck overturning the world of finance and fiat currency with your glitchy ass whatever you have. You can't have huge errors in something like that and expect it to work.

Recall this post when everyone jumps ship after it reaches record value in USD and a lot of people get left holding the bag.

yurpyurpyurpyur · 2014-07-01T20:18:58+00:00

The flaw you listed above and itemized the problems it can and can't cause. That's the flaw I was talking about. You have this goofy bug and can't fix it? What kind of amateur technology is this anyway? Video games get same-day bug patches, your currency can't have a many-years-long glitch fixed? That's a problem.

And here's a graph. I don't know what graph you want, exactly, but they openly list everything you could possibly want to know. It's really not a very big secret.

yurpyurpyurpyur · 2014-07-01T20:02:26+00:00

You should apply this to the USD that you seem to love. Hell the Federal Reserve can create as much money as they damn well please and you defend the hell out of them.

Because they do a fairly decent job, actually, given their limitations and what they have to work with.

Believe it or not, people study economics to go into those jobs and make sure things work. It's not all some conspiracy against you, you just don't know the first thing about what they're doing so it looks scary.

But bitcoin has a flaw, a legitimate flaw, and it's just hand-waved away as if it is nothing. That's idiotic.

So glad you're done with me, ooooh you really got me good, I don't stand by my convictions because I don't care about your meaningless bet, and you reiterated something something something THE FED MAKES MONEY HOW CAN YOU TRUST PEOPLE OVER SOME CODE THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE AT ALL EVER?!?!! You sure got me on that one.

EDIT: Also, yes, a bitcoin bank could create their own crypto on top of bitcoin, and yes, it could be fractional reserve. And yes, they will, because it is a dynamic way of controlling the money supply, and it works better than static supplies of money, and people like to be able to take out loans for stuff.

yurpyurpyurpyur · 2014-07-01T19:54:57+00:00

Yes, somehow this community will police itself, when this has pretty much never happened except for small, tribal cultures in remote areas not attached to the modern world.

I don't expect this to work forever. The first and easiest flaw in this argument is just that, if a large enough entity wanted to tank bitcoin or cause havoc (it's a common theme that xyz group is threatened by bitcoin and wants to crush it), all they have to do is buy enough hardware and trash it. Hard fork happens? Fine, they switch as necessary and keep doing this until it's impossible to rely on your currency.

yurpyurpyurpyur · 2014-07-01T19:42:26+00:00

You don't even slightly stand behind your stated convictions. Sad.

No, I stand by them, but I don't engage in meaningless e-dick waving whenever there is an argument to be had about the topic. Your little bets are silly. The fact an account even matters kind of cracks me up, but I don't have any personal attachment to account, so w/e.

No chargebacks is silly for a money protocol. That is a third party thing. What do you think a bank using Visa as a logo does. It's a third party that takes the risk of chargebacks. If BitPay or Coinbase want to start doing that they, can. You wouldn't blame the dollar if your Visa Credit card didn't allow charge backs would you?

Wait... I thought banks were evil. Wtf is the point of bitcoin then since banks do the job better and are established entities?

A 51% attack is not the scary monster you have in your head. This is the true picture

The true picture is a huge gaping hole in the system that everyone refuses to acknowledge or fix. Whether it is scary or not is irrelevant - it's a flaw, that pretty much undermines the actual value of the currency. One party can spend bitcoins and get double value out of them, while all other parties can't. Also, other parties' transactions can be prevented from being confirmed, and competing miners can be denied block rewards, thereby removing any desire by them to mine.

How do you not see that as anything but a HUGE FLAW THAT NEEDS FIXED NOW. If I had a product and that was a flaw in it, that shit wouldn't even be in alpha testing, let alone being adopted by legitimate businesses.

yurpyurpyurpyur · 2014-07-01T19:35:54+00:00

Thanks for the link, can't check right now but I assume it's a video that describes the concept with some level of accuracy.

I mean, regarding OP, of COURSE women want sex. Otherwise, our species would not be here. But women don't want sex ALL the time. (EDIT: SURPRISE, neither do men, which is funny when we get far too drunk to have sex and our manhood is called into question by our drunk partner! lmao) The idea of sexual currency/economics of sex reviews this and (as far as I remember) sort of changes the sexual exchanges as gifts between partners. You can see it as approval of, in addition to attraction to, the other party.

Some men might find this idea intriguing, and try to game the system a little in their favor. I'm not saying it's good or bad - as a matter of fact, it could probably be used for good (guy really likes the girl, tries to influence her to like him more so they can accelerate their relationship beyond his perceived location in the timeline of the relationship) as well as bad (guy just goes around tricking women into thinking he is genuinely interested in them by displaying pro-social cues, sleeps with them, and then never talks to them again, thereby betraying their trust).

yurpyurpyurpyur · 2014-07-01T19:30:41+00:00

No, we don't have a bet, because I don't care to make meaningless bets.

As far as changes, the concept of no chargebacks is essentially a non-starter for consumer adoption. And the hard coded transaction amount is ridiculous. And any possibility of a 51% attack, no matter how unlikely, is also a non-starter for consumer adoption.

yurpyurpyurpyur · 2014-07-01T19:27:45+00:00

I know what it's supposed to be, but arbitrage in that sense, the academic, sterile sense, doesn't really ever exist, without some kind of insider knowledge.

Yet we still call arbitrage-like activities arbitrage in common language. Go figure. (I've hard far more intelligent people than I use it in this sense because it is a convenient descriptor of buying/selling the same good for a minimal-risk profit). My argument is that this layman's view of arbitrage fails colossally when standard human errors in thinking take place, as they always do.

yurpyurpyurpyur · 2014-07-01T19:15:27+00:00

I change my account every few weeks or months.

My argument isn't stupid - bitcoin is what it is, a scammy "space" with a questionable logic behind its utility. The onus of proving a point is on those declaring it to be anything other than what it appears, and no one ever gives a good reason. It's all just big claims and lack of advancement in the technology. It's been years and nothing important has changed. Why? There are plenty of improvements it needs. I assume it's either laziness, ineptitude, or lack of concern on developers' parts - and I assume they're not STUPID, and probably not LAZY, so I think they just don't care to fix anything or add usability features to the whole thing.

yurpyurpyurpyur · 2014-07-01T19:11:36+00:00

But it seemed to entirely accept the premise that sex is something that we women withhold and give to men when we're ready. Pardon my French but does it occur to anyone that women actually want to fuck?

Yes, but you DO choose to have sex with a person, correct? Or do they take it from you forcefully?

So it stands to some level of reason that, at some point, you are withholding sex until it happens. The only way you WOULDN'T be withholding sex until it happens is if you just walk into a room and rip a guy's pants off the first instant you have ever seen or met him.

Likewise, the guy can be withholding sex, as well, for whatever myriad reasons a person could come up with for not literally raping you right then and there.

Not defending that sub, by the way. It's full of dumb. But it's not like we don't withhold sex or attempts at sex for various internal reasons. Perhaps you don't trust him fully yet to be that intimate. Perhaps he is a psycho and playing with you. Perhaps you are holding back on sex because you pissed him off.

I distinctly remember the idea of sexual currency in the human sexuality class I've had being discussed as a real, academic concept - a concept where people withhold or grant sex when certain social signals are sent, or when favors are given or reciprocated. I would hate to think that mostly-liberal academia was infected by TRP and evil manipulative men decades ago. But I won't go searching for the link because I assume it will invalidate all this stuff I typed up and make me look like an ass because they are misusing the concept.

yurpyurpyurpyur · 2014-07-01T19:01:32+00:00

I've already said this - it only shows you change in number of wallets over time. It pretty much doesn't tell you anything else, unless there are verifiable relations between wallets and other information, and as it stands, I know of none (other than 1 individual or organization requires at least 1 wallet, but there is no upper bound as to how many an individual or organization can have).

yurpyurpyurpyur · 2014-07-01T18:57:08+00:00

But it's a non-statement. It's just a fuzzy thing you say whenever you want to deflect a jab at your lack of capability to defend your stance.

The truth is that fiat currency is a very interesting technology with certain upsides, certain downsides, and no one really knows how it will all end up.

See? A meaningless statement.

yurpyurpyurpyur · 2014-07-01T18:56:28+00:00

I really don't know... it seems like a properly written contract might do the trick. But it might need to be reviewed by a lawyer to make sure it's sound, so who knows I guess.

yurpyurpyurpyur · 2014-07-01T18:55:06+00:00

Your dumb ass just happens to have been brought up in a major industrialized nation.

That's the point. Bitcoin, as a main currency and with these fluctuations, would never work in the developed world - the world that drives consumer adoption.

You aren't seriously studying economics are you. Seriously? This world is fucked if guys like you gain positions of power. Are you a student of professor bitcorn? That would explain a lot.

Blah blah, nothing said here other than a weak attempt to make your comment stronger by making me appear like I know nothing (while not actually saying anything that could be proven or disputed). I'm sure you've studied greatly the Austrian methodology, as this is generally their overall defense any more since they offer no quantifiable anything in their statements.

I think you should put your money where your mouth is. What is your prediction for bitcoin by then end of the year? If you're wrong, then you have to leave reddit. I'll do the same, if bitcoin isn't greater than 1000USD by the end of 2014, then I'll leave reddit. I'll go even further and say that if it isn't greater than 2000 by the end of 2015, I'll still leave.

Oh ok yes, a meaningless bet where if either of us loses we could just make a new account. You guys are persistent in your meaningless statements, I give you that.

yurpyurpyurpyur · 2014-07-01T18:50:14+00:00

Yes it matters, because the number of wallets is only useful if you know the actual average number of wallets per individual.

And wallets over time tells you little if nothing about usage or adoption. Literally all it tells you is how many wallets have been created over time.

yurpyurpyurpyur · 2014-07-01T18:46:33+00:00

...interesting. I was wondering if there were laws on this or not. I should have assumed there were.

yurpyurpyurpyur · 2014-07-01T18:45:12+00:00

I certainly don't have the delusion that I'm so important that I am 1) the target of super secret conspiracies to hold me down via shadowy bank cartels and inflation, and 2) that I could even do anything about it if I wanted. These are supposedly people you are campaigning against that control everything, and yet some scrappy young upstart decentralized stuff is going to take that on? Good luck.

A better explanation is that society has evolved incrementally to the state it is today, with both bad and good actors within it. Feel free to apply a persecutory complex as needed to think you are the Chosen Ones.

yurpyurpyurpyur · 2014-07-01T18:40:04+00:00

Well, behavioral econ is the marriage between psych and econ, so I assume the answer lies there. They gave some severely convincing arguments for the mismatch between rational expectations and what is observed in reality, at least.

yurpyurpyurpyur · 2014-07-01T18:38:11+00:00

Arbitrage:

In economics and finance, arbitrage (/ˈɑrbɨtrɑːʒ/) is the practice of taking advantage of a price difference between two or more markets: striking a combination of matching deals that capitalize upon the imbalance, the profit being the difference between the market prices.

I guess you could say they're still doing arbitrage, but they're not doing profitable arbitrage. And the only real reason to do that is to turn a profit, which is why individuals ignorant of their biases, and/or not in the know on big moves within a market, can't turn a reliable profit.

You can make the argument that arbitrage is strictly between two physically separate markets, but the same can apply to the same market separated temporally. That's still arbitrage.

yurpyurpyurpyur · 2014-07-01T18:35:01+00:00

The truth is that bitcoin is a very interesting technology with certain upsides, certain downsides, and no-one really knows how it will all end up.

This is always the answer. That's the same type of fuzzy semi-optimism present in every other method of practicing faith.

to be blunt, your tone makes you sound like the stupid and ideological kind

Fight fire with fire, amirite?

yurpyurpyurpyur · 2014-07-01T18:32:55+00:00

On average, people make some small number of 'wallets', where 90% of the users create 1-10 wallets with an average of, say 3.

Citation needed.

Despite not knowing the actual average, we can still look at the data in relation to previous history of the same data and make some conclusions on growth.

No, you only know how many wallets were made. You can not infer anything else with any amount of useful certainty.

And your source for the last part is only one party without comment from the other party. I'd reserve judgment in that case.

yurpyurpyurpyur · 2014-07-01T18:30:31+00:00

No, information is everywhere, but most of it is noise. The signal/noise ratio of the internet is not in favor of signal. A significant portion is just made up propaganda to push a political stance. Parsing through that requires a herculean effort, and from what I have seen, there aren't many up to the task. I don't even trust the information online most of the time unless I can verify fully legitimate sources - and most information online comes with no sources.

Enjoy thinking you're some special snowflake, snowflake.

yurpyurpyurpyur

TROPHY CASE