Zin en onzin van cryptovaluta
- Onderwerp starter Herr Sens
- Startdatum
Lievergezond
Well-known member
'A Return to Sound Money
While most discussions of how Bitcoin could fail or get destroyed focus on technical attacks, a far more promising way of attacking Bitcoin is through undermining the economic incentives to its use. To attempt to attack or destroy Bitcoin in any of the ways mentioned earlier is highly unlikely to succeed because it conflicts with the economic incentives that drive the use of Bitcoin. The situation is analogous to trying to ban the wheel or a knife. As long as the technology is useful for people, attempts at banning it will fail as people will continue to find ways of utilizing it, legally or not. The only way that a technology can be stopped is not by banning it, but by inventing a better replacement or by obviating the need for its use. The typewriter could never be banned or legislated out of existence, but the rise of the PC did effectively kill it.'
'The demand for Bitcoin stems from the need of individuals all over the world to carry out transactions that bypass political controls and to have an inflation‐resistant store of value. For as long as political authorities impose restrictions and limitations on individuals transferring money, and for as long as government money is easy money whose supply can be easily expanded according to the whims of politicians, demand for Bitcoin will continue to exist, and its diminishing supply growth is likely to lead to its value appreciating over time, thus attracting ever‐larger numbers of people to use it as a store of value.'
'Hypothetically, if the entire world's banking and monetary systems were replaced with those of the gold standard in the late nineteenth century, where individual freedom and hard money were paramount, the demand for Bitcoin would likely subside significantly. It might just be the case that such a move would cause a large enough reduction in demand for Bitcoin that brings its price significantly down, hurting current holders significantly, increasing the volatility of the currency, and setting it back many years. With the increased volatility and the availability of a reliable and relatively stable hard‐money international monetary standard, the incentive for using Bitcoin drops significantly. In a world in which governments' restrictions and inflationary tendencies are disciplined by the gold standard, it might just be the case that gold's first‐mover advantage and relative purchasing power stability would constitute an insurmountable hurdle for Bitcoin to overcome, by depriving Bitcoin of the fast growth in users and thus preventing it from reaching a large enough size with any semblance of stability in price.'
'In practice, however, the possibility of a global return to sound money and liberal government is extremely unlikely as these concepts are largely alien to the vast majority of politicians and voters worldwide, who have been reared for generations to understand government control of money and morality as necessary for the functioning of any society. Further, even if such a political and monetary transformation were possible, Bitcoin's diminishing supply growth rate is likely to continue to make it an attractive speculative bet for many, which would in itself cause it to grow further and acquire a larger monetary role. In my assessment, a global monetary return to gold might be the most significant threat to Bitcoin, yet it is both unlikely to happen and unlikely to destroy Bitcoin completely.'
'of whom can control it. It was only ever possible to develop one currency based on this design, because once it became obvious that it is workable, any attempt at copying it will have been a top‐down and centrally controlled network which will never escape the control of its creators.'
'So when it comes to Bitcoin's structure and technology, it is highly unlikely that any coin that copies it could replace Bitcoin. A new design and technology for implementing digital cash and hard money might produce such a competitor, although it is not possible to predict the emergence of such a technology before it is created, and a familiarity with the problem of digital cash over the years will make it clear that this is not an invention that would be easy to devise.'
Uittreksel van
The Bitcoin Standard
Saifedean Ammous
Er zijn mogelijk auteursrechten op dit materiaal van toepassing.
While most discussions of how Bitcoin could fail or get destroyed focus on technical attacks, a far more promising way of attacking Bitcoin is through undermining the economic incentives to its use. To attempt to attack or destroy Bitcoin in any of the ways mentioned earlier is highly unlikely to succeed because it conflicts with the economic incentives that drive the use of Bitcoin. The situation is analogous to trying to ban the wheel or a knife. As long as the technology is useful for people, attempts at banning it will fail as people will continue to find ways of utilizing it, legally or not. The only way that a technology can be stopped is not by banning it, but by inventing a better replacement or by obviating the need for its use. The typewriter could never be banned or legislated out of existence, but the rise of the PC did effectively kill it.'
'The demand for Bitcoin stems from the need of individuals all over the world to carry out transactions that bypass political controls and to have an inflation‐resistant store of value. For as long as political authorities impose restrictions and limitations on individuals transferring money, and for as long as government money is easy money whose supply can be easily expanded according to the whims of politicians, demand for Bitcoin will continue to exist, and its diminishing supply growth is likely to lead to its value appreciating over time, thus attracting ever‐larger numbers of people to use it as a store of value.'
'Hypothetically, if the entire world's banking and monetary systems were replaced with those of the gold standard in the late nineteenth century, where individual freedom and hard money were paramount, the demand for Bitcoin would likely subside significantly. It might just be the case that such a move would cause a large enough reduction in demand for Bitcoin that brings its price significantly down, hurting current holders significantly, increasing the volatility of the currency, and setting it back many years. With the increased volatility and the availability of a reliable and relatively stable hard‐money international monetary standard, the incentive for using Bitcoin drops significantly. In a world in which governments' restrictions and inflationary tendencies are disciplined by the gold standard, it might just be the case that gold's first‐mover advantage and relative purchasing power stability would constitute an insurmountable hurdle for Bitcoin to overcome, by depriving Bitcoin of the fast growth in users and thus preventing it from reaching a large enough size with any semblance of stability in price.'
'In practice, however, the possibility of a global return to sound money and liberal government is extremely unlikely as these concepts are largely alien to the vast majority of politicians and voters worldwide, who have been reared for generations to understand government control of money and morality as necessary for the functioning of any society. Further, even if such a political and monetary transformation were possible, Bitcoin's diminishing supply growth rate is likely to continue to make it an attractive speculative bet for many, which would in itself cause it to grow further and acquire a larger monetary role. In my assessment, a global monetary return to gold might be the most significant threat to Bitcoin, yet it is both unlikely to happen and unlikely to destroy Bitcoin completely.'
'of whom can control it. It was only ever possible to develop one currency based on this design, because once it became obvious that it is workable, any attempt at copying it will have been a top‐down and centrally controlled network which will never escape the control of its creators.'
'So when it comes to Bitcoin's structure and technology, it is highly unlikely that any coin that copies it could replace Bitcoin. A new design and technology for implementing digital cash and hard money might produce such a competitor, although it is not possible to predict the emergence of such a technology before it is created, and a familiarity with the problem of digital cash over the years will make it clear that this is not an invention that would be easy to devise.'
Uittreksel van
The Bitcoin Standard
Saifedean Ammous
Er zijn mogelijk auteursrechten op dit materiaal van toepassing.
Lievergezond
Well-known member
Lievergezond
Well-known member
Hij is niet alleen een optimist, maar zijn model heeft de toekomst altijd goed voorspeld tot dusver. Ik heb het schema van zijn laatste tweet maar weer weggehaald, want ik snap het zelf niet. Op de X-as staat ´schaarste´: ik dacht dat het ´tijd´ was. En toen raakte ik het spoor bijster. Dus toen dacht ik: ik haal het maar weer weg voor iemand erover begint haha.PlanB is een onverbeterlijke optimist. Mooi is dat. Ik denk overigens ook dat dat model best aardig kan kloppen. Adak, all models are wrong but some are useful
Het zou mij niet vervelend uitkomen als btc eind dit jaar 288k aantikt, maar dat is een heel ander verhaal.
288k ik dacht dat hij dat pas voor maart 2022 in het verschiet had liggen voor ons. Nog steeds wel ´way to go´. Iedereen die nu instapt is dan spekkoper.
Laatst bewerkt:
Zathras
Well-known member
Met de schaarste geeft het aan dat het steeds moeilijker wordt om de btc te minen. In 22 is de volgende halving waarbij er dus niet 6,25 btc per blok bijkomt maar 3 en een beetje.
Het hele s2f en s2fx model hangt op de halveringen
Lievergezond
Well-known member
Ja btc drukt de dollar de markt uit als ik het goed begrijp: dat krijg ik ook al een beetje mee in het geval van El Salvador: ´dedollarization´
Laatst bewerkt:
Jullie denken fat de tevolutie is begonnen en zijn daar met geen mogelijkheid van af te krijgen. You are sadly mistaken. Ik raad forumleden en -lezers aan wat hier gepost wordt door Zathras en Lievergezond met een flinke korrel zout te nemen, zo niet een hele zak.
Mike
Mike
Zathras
Well-known member
DYOR is ook hier van toepassing
Do Your Own Research. Can't argue with that. Maar dat zeg ik al vanaf het begin van dit forum.
Mike
Mike
Lievergezond
Well-known member
BTC is soms ook een shitcoin:
nl.hardware.info
Britse boer gebruikt koeienmest als energie voor minen cryptovaluta
Een boer uit Denbigshire, Philip Hughes, heeft een mining rig gebouwd die draait op koeienmest. De boer heeft een eigen biogasinstallatie en het vrijgek...
nl.hardware.info
Laatst bewerkt:
BTC ed zullen het in mijn optiek ook niet worden, of voorlopig niet, hoe ga je je pintje betalen ? Met 4.28571429e-5 BTC ?
Transactiekosten van gemiddeld 20euro, dus een telefoonabonement van 15euro (0.000428571429 BTC) +20euro kosten ?
enzovoorts
Dat er voorlopig mee getraded kan worden en geld verdiend of verloren kan worden, dat staat buiten kijf.
Transactiekosten van gemiddeld 20euro, dus een telefoonabonement van 15euro (0.000428571429 BTC) +20euro kosten ?
enzovoorts
Dat er voorlopig mee getraded kan worden en geld verdiend of verloren kan worden, dat staat buiten kijf.
Zathras
Well-known member
Is ook zo natuurlijk, maar anderzijds hebben mijn goud en zilver dingen ook niet echt een handige trade mogelijkheid.
Om te beginnen betaal je extra bovenop de spot prijs en de koers moet best stijgen will je dat eruit krijgen.
Dus voor een biertje enzo houden we gewoon de plantage muntjes aan en voor de barre tijden die gaan komen doen we crypto en PM.
Geen beleggingsadvies, gewoon hoe ik het doe
Zathras
Well-known member
Ik denk wel dat de "revolutie" begonnen is maar dat dat met een Hemingway achtig tempo gaat.... first slowly, then suddenly..
We zitten nu nog in het slowly gedeelte. Ik weet niet hoe lang dat dat gaat duren.
Ik denk dat iedereen het er wel over eens is dat het niet goed gaat op dit moment.
Zathras
Well-known member
Forum statistieken
