Blockchain Revolution: from the internet of information to the internet of value

[kneehighs]

On 9/5/2017 at 9:52 PM, meganiwish said:

No.  It just needs to be backed by genuine wealth.  Things that have an intrinsic value.

That would eliminate fiat currency like the US Dollar, the British Pound, and the Euro.    Curious what currency you use?

[Shyheels]

Other than copper pennies and twopence coins - and only when the fluctuating copper price is high - there is not a currency left on this earth anymore that has intrinsic vale. 

[meganiwish]

There's never been a (money) currency that has intrinsic value.  Money is a token of a share in a body of wealth, hence its value is always extrinsic.

Kneehighs, the three currencies you mention are indeed backed by genuine wealth: oil, coal, fisheries, agriculture, forestry.  My preferred currency, though, is the flutter of eyelashes

[Shyheels]

Gold most certainly has intrinsic value. Silver also. Both were used in coinage well into the 20th century.

In terms of paper money, the US government used to issue - back in the days of gold and silver - gold and silver certificates; paper currency that could be redeemed for the face value in gold or silver, should the bearer so desire

Edited September 7, 2017 by Shyheels

[meganiwish]

Well, only recently, mostly so in the case of gold.  Silver had high intrinsic value in the days of photographic film.  Gold has intrinsic value now in that it's used in lots of devices.  Before that its value was entire extrinsic.  You can't make a workable blade with gold, nor a hammer head, nor even a reliable key.  Your dictionary is your friend. 

[Shyheels]

You can't make a workable blade, or a hammer head or a reliable key out of glass either. Or does glass also have no intrinsic value?

Gold has long been used for to make many things besides coinage. Look up "goldsmith". For that matter look up dentistry - gold has been used for fillings since 700BC.

The dictionary is your friend.

Ditto silver, and long before the age of photography. It continues to have intrinsic value after the age of film as well. It too has a long history in dentistry, in making mirrors as well as in soldering and brazing. My bicycle frames, for example, all handmade, are brazed with silver. 

You are confusing intrinsic value with speculative value

Edited September 8, 2017 by Shyheels

[meganiwish]

You can certainly make a working blade out of obsidian, which is a natural form of glass.  I can't think why you couldn't make a blade of artificial glass.  Yes, you're right about dentistry, but that doesn't alter the fact (!) that gold is less useful than  steel, bronze, tin, copper, aluminium.  Too heavy, too soft.  It makes perfect spoons, apparently, because it's so unreactive and doesn't affect the taste.  It's not been used historically to make anything very functional.  No gold saws or hammers or nails.  No reference anywhere to a golden sword.

[Shyheels]

So you can't drink out of a chalice? And dentistry doesn't count? 

As to glass...Obsidian is not glass, it is extremely fine grained basalt formed by very rapid cooling. It is sometimes referred to as "volcanic glass" as a shorthand reference to its glassy texture, but that does not make it glass. It is not remotely the same artisanal material that is blown, worked into shapes, cups, windows, mirrors, lenses, laptop screens etc. 

Is garlic-and-onions practically the only measure or guide to a material's intrinsic value? Says who? And who determines practicality and function? Is there a table somewhere I've not seen? A consensus that only materials or commodities that can be fashioned into sawblades and ploughshares can have intrinsic value?  Try making either out of rubber. Or glass. Are they valueless?

Are you suggesting "intrinsic" value is situational? Seasonal? Personal? In which case it is no longer "intrinsic".

Scarcity, beauty, malleability, durability, conductivity, and universal desirability all contribute to gold's intrinsic value. It's universal acceptance as a medium of exchange would alone be sufficient to win an argument about whether or not it has intrinsic value, leaving aside the myriad uses for it in jewellery, art, industry and medicine.

Gold is not like paper money which is issued by government fiat, whose value is notional and conceptual, and which can be printed in any quantity at will any time by the issuing authority, and which can be devalued by decree.

Sure, people can and do speculate in gold, which can inflate its value, but then people speculate in wheat, coffee futures, cacao, oil, copper, nickel, uranium...indeed any and all commodities. Do they also have no intrinsic value?

 

Edited September 9, 2017 by Shyheels

[meganiwish]

You're quite right to pull me to task, though you used a lot of words to do it, because I was being slovenly.  My point is, as you well knew, the discrepancy between intrinsic value and economic value.  There is a line, too, between making a point and being a smart-Alec.

[Shyheels]

Moi?

[meganiwish]

Bien sur

[Shyheels]

Honi soit qui mal y pense. 

Edited September 10, 2017 by Shyheels

[Heelster]

Just FYI - - China is putting the clamps on Bitcoin.

Google search gives all the gory details.

[Shyheels]

Kim Jong Un likes Bitcoin

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/12/technology/north-korea-hackers-bitcoin/index.html

 

I'll bet it's not because of its transparency...

[Shyheels]

And this from the boss of JP Morgan this morning:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/13/bitcoin-fraud-jp-morgan-cryptocurrency-drug-dealers

"Honestly, I am just shocked that anyone can't see it for what it is," he said.

Seems I am in good company in my distrust of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency transactions....

Edited September 13, 2017 by Shyheels

[alphax]

Depends on what you want out of cryptocurrency.

If you're looking for an investment that will hold or gain in value, then Dimon is probably right.

If you're looking for some means of making anonymous financial transactions, then bitcoin has no equal.

Either way, you can still buy tulip bulbs today, and that's pretty much all that's important.

[Shyheels]

Indeed, Bitcoin is undoubtedly a useful means of making anonymous financial transactions - but it does have an equal, one that is, in fact, far better: cash. With cash you know the value of what you are paying or receiving. Sure, currency markets fluctuate but nothing on the scale of volatility of Bitcoin.

Cash is bulkier, of course, but one an't have everything.

As for cryptocurrency becoming a day-to-day means of settling bills used by honest folk around the world - it ain't happening. 

People who get excited about Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency really ought to read up on the Tulip Mania in the 1630s... 

Edited September 14, 2017 by Shyheels

[kneehighs]

23 hours ago, Shyheels said:

And this from the boss of JP Morgan this morning:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/13/bitcoin-fraud-jp-morgan-cryptocurrency-drug-dealers

"Honestly, I am just shocked that anyone can't see it for what it is," he said.

Seems I am in good company in my distrust of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency transactions....

This is pure market manipulating while Bitcoin is still unregulated.   There's no punishment for exercising his ego.   JP Morgan has a vested interest in Zcash Blockchain and since Feb, 2017 has been part of the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance.  He could've talked about the US 20 Trillion national debt, the impact of the hurricanes on the economy or Trumps debt ceiling.  Instead he chose an asset class with about 150 billion market cap.  To me it's really obvious.

Meanwhile, a developer in London is taking Bitcoin: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/sep/04/london-rental-tenants-deposits-bitcoin-collective-rent

And 10 places in London that take Bitcoin payments: https://wirexapp.com/en-gb/10-places-spend-bitcoins-london/

[Shyheels]

There were lots of good cogent arguments for investors to plump down thousands of guilders for tulip bulbs too, back in the day; the Dutch were hard-headed business types, not given to idle flights of fancy, yet look what happened. Anyone sounding a warning gong in the early 1630s would have been laughed at. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/culture/story/20160419-tulip-mania-the-flowers-that-cost-more-than-houses

 

[kneehighs]

While Tulip mania and bitcoin can be compared, the contrasts outweigh the comparisons in terms of pragmatic impact. 

Comparison wise, both are stateless, enjoyed price spikes, and popular in the media.

Yet, tulips never met the requirements for currency, which admittedly I left out one key trait: imperishability.  

Tulips perish, crypto's don't.  

Tulips aren't highly divisible, crypto is.  

Tulips aren't really fungible, crypto is.  

Further differences include but not limited to:

Tulip mania was caused by the invention of FUTURES CONTRACTS (a type of derivative), crypto value doesn't depend on futures valuations.

Tulip trading wasn't available globally, crypto trading is.

Crypto is revolutionary in power.  Instead of the authority being the Fed, it replaces authority with consensus.  Crypto doesn't need a third party authority, it just needs an algorithm.  One may not trust the Russian's, but one can trust their math.  

Conclusion: Dimon is just market manipulating.

*great discussion, BTW

 

[Shyheels]

The value of tulips and Bitcoin are/were both highly notional. Both are/were highly speculative. Tulip bulbs might not be as durable as, say, gold or a coin but unlike Bitcoin, tulip bulbs are a tangible commodity. It is not an algorithm. 

Neither tulips nor Bitcoin enjoy any backing or official status. That alone makes them both dangerous as "investments" and would seem to buttress Damon's point. 

I still get back to my main point though - there is just no compelling need to adopt  Bitcoin. The present options work perfectly well. Bitcoin seems like a solution in search of a problem. 

I too am enjoying the debate and conversation. I might not agree with you but your arguments and discussion points have registered with me and I find myself noticing and reading articles on Bitcoin and cryptocurrency where I would not have noticed them before.

[kneehighs]

Disagreement here it TOTALLY welcome.  This discussion is nothing but respectful from both sides and very constructive.  Hopefully others are growing as a result.  Shyheels,thanks for your contribution!

 

[kneehighs]

@Shyheels have you heard of Matterport?  It's a camera that creates a 3D/VR experience of a home.   

https://matterport.com/gallery/

I don't own one, but was with a real estate agent last night and pitched her like I did own one.  It's not so far in the future that it seems Star Wars like...

"the most offers, in the least amount of time, for the most money, with the least stress"

•   enables a 24/7 Open House    
•   enables out of country/state online pre-tours
•   reduces stress!  Instead of requiring the seller to leave, clean, pack up the kids...prospects take a tour online first
•   produces better walk through prospects, since they've already pre-qualified their interest with a 3D tour

Edited September 15, 2017 by kneehighs

[Shyheels]

I've not even hears of it. I know Apple have been incorporating 3D features on the camera in its new phone. 

I can well see the advantages of that technology in applications like real estate showings. That works well for everybody. It appears that 3D technology works better for practical purposes than creative ones. Not even a director like James Cameron has been able to make 3D successful in cinema. 

Insuspect it is because cinema viewers bring different expectations and have (literally and metaphorically) different viewpoint when it comes to art and entertainment, but in looking over real estate there is a hard pragmatism in play and the ability to enter a scene as opposed to merely watching makes 3D more desirable.

[Shyheels]

5 hours ago, kneehighs said:

Disagreement here it TOTALLY welcome.  This discussion is nothing but respectful from both sides and very constructive.  Hopefully others are growing as a result.  Shyheels,thanks for your contribution!

 

A rarity on the internet - polite and respectful disagreement! I think that is one of the nice things about HHP,. One can reasonably expect to have such discussions here. I used to contribute to a cycling forum...and good Lord! The daily rancour, trolling and viciousness would be unthinkable here.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Shyheels

[Shyheels]

I see Bitcoin has taken a big hit - down 40% on the month, after China put the skids on trading in them. That kind of volatility would certainly put me off wanting to use them or invest in them. If I want to blow my dough, I can just go play the futures market... That practically seems sane by comparison.

In fairness, I did read where Dimond has been getting some push back even from people within Morgan on his views about Bitcoin and cryptocurrency, with one commentator saying that JP Morgan were themselves working on developing a cryptocurrency called Quorum.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Shyheels

[alphax]

Investing is the wrong attitude towards bitcoin.

Trade your cash for exactly how much bitcoin you need to buy whatever goods or services anonymously.

Not everyone, or not even most people need to buy anything anonymously, but it's still a useful system, and therefore will continue to have some value in the near future.

I say "near future," because the rate of progress towards quantum computing threatens anything that relies on current use of cryptography and can't adapt to quantum-proof their security.

https://medium.com/the-quantum-resistant-ledger/be-prepared-for-quantum-computing-era-bb1a9ec6cd35

 

 

[Shyheels]

One does not have a choice but to look at Bitcoin as an investment, if not yours than somebody else's given that the value of the thing is all over the place. If you are going to use it as a medium of exchange you want to know its worth. That's almost impossible given its wild fluctuations. It might be worth X when you receive payment, but will it be worth that when you go to spend it next week? By its very nature you have to take a view on its future, as you would any investment.

Otherwise if you received them in payment you'd just have to pass it on, get rid of it, as quick as you can, like you were playing pass-the-parcel at an ISIS birthday party. 

Not exactly a stable financial system or medium of exchange.

Edited September 16, 2017 by Shyheels

[kneehighs]

In New York City, there are literally hundreds upon hundreds of companies that accept Bitcoin as payment: http://bit.ly/2h86grV

In the US back during FDR, Executive Order 6102 forced citizens to hand over their gold or get put in prison.  With blockchain, a singular authority is now replaced by consensus.  I couldn't be more excited.

Snooze or lose.  Blockbuster CEO Jim Keyes in 2008 on Netflix “I’ve been frankly confused by this fascination that everybody has with Netflix …Netflix doesn’t really have or do anything that we can’t or don’t already do ourselves.”

Edited September 16, 2017 by kneehighs

[Shyheels]

My mother was a fashion model in the late 40s early 50s and was offered a screen test for a TV show (I forget which one, but it went on to become a 50s classic) She wouldn't touch it - she figured TV was just a silly gadget that would never catch on...