BitCoin

ExremelyCautiousSocialist

masonic wrote: »

If the Government was stripped of it's sovereignty over currency, then it could cause any number of issues. Some of those issues can be gleaned from those countries that do not have their own official currency, or whose currency is not preferred by its citizens, except in many of those cases there is either tight integration with other countries using the same currency, or some mechanism to peg their official currency to the de facto currency, or a central bank to print money and afford lines of credit to struggling economies.

If every country preferred a cyrpto currency and all govs of the world lose power borders start to drop, countries no longer exist as before. You probably pay a private company to provide security around a certain perimeter.


Probably have AI take over and teach us something new about life before this scenario anyway. Trade might look completely different.

eskbanker

ExremelyCautiousSocialist wrote: »

If every country preferred a cyrpto currency and all govs of the world lose power borders start to drop, countries no longer exist as before. You probably pay a private company to provide security around a certain perimeter.


Probably have AI take over and teach us something new about life before this scenario anyway. Trade might look completely different.

And crypto advocates wonder why they're regarded with scepticism and/or derision!

masonic

ExremelyCautiousSocialist wrote: »

If every country preferred a cyrpto currency and all govs of the world lose power borders start to drop, countries no longer exist as before. You probably pay a private company to provide security around a certain perimeter.

Probably have AI take over and teach us something new about life before this scenario anyway. Trade might look completely different.

Sounds delightful :rotfl:

Linton

ExremelyCautiousSocialist wrote: »

If every country preferred a cyrpto currency and all govs of the world lose power borders start to drop, countries no longer exist as before. You probably pay a private company to provide security around a certain perimeter.

and pay companies to mend the roads, teach your children, provide health care, ensure you do not starve in your old age, provide body guards in the absence of a police force etc etc. Tough on the bitcoin-poor. Without governments such companies would be untroubled by regulation, consumer safety, environmental protection, employee safety and rights. Sounds like a right-wing paradise.

ExremelyCautiousSocialist

eskbanker wrote: »

And crypto advocates wonder why they're regarded with scepticism and/or derision!

Well i was repying to the possible scenario put foward by ruperts. Again its basic reading skills and following a conversation letting some forum members down. Im not advocating getting rid of fiat, government or putting robots in charge right now in 2019.



Whats your prediction of the future in 50, 100 or 200 years from now?

ExremelyCautiousSocialist

Linton wrote: »

and pay companies to mend the roads, teach your children, provide health care, ensure you do not starve in your old age, provide body guards in the absence of a police force etc etc. Tough on the bitcoin-poor. Without governments such companies would be untroubled by regulation, consumer safety, environmental protection, employee safety and rights. Sounds like a right-wing paradise.

Yeah it sounds harsh but possible scenario if gov lose power. Thats why i think AI could be helpful.

John_G_Jones

ExremelyCautiousSocialist wrote: »

85% discount to the ATHs (all time highs) as was stated in the post. Its basic reading and math skills people come on.

That’s not a discount, and no-one in finance uses that TLA to describe historic highs. We say historic highs.

Why do you think that the historic high means anything, and what do you think it being cheaper now means? Tulips are at a tiny fraction of historic high levels now, as are shares in the South Sea company, and Zimbabwe dollars come to that. By your reckoning all must be a screaming buy now?

What about banking stocks? I was given a very large amount of Citi stocks when they were at $480 and they are now at $65, are you suggesting that I should be buying more?

eskbanker

ExremelyCautiousSocialist wrote: »

Well i was repying to the possible scenario put foward by ruperts. Again its basic reading skills and following a conversation letting some forum members down. Im not advocating getting rid of fiat, government or putting robots in charge right now in 2019.



Whats your prediction of the future in 50, 100 or 200 years from now?

ruperts was postulating crypto becoming more mainstream, not considering it a contender to catalyse the end of the world as we know it! Don't you think it discredits any sensible discussion about crypto if potentially wider use is wildly extrapolated into governments losing power and countries becoming obsolete?

badger09

masonic wrote: »

Not exactly. Earning new bitcoin is one component of the reward for mining and is not related to difficulty. The bitcoin reward for mining is fixed within the algorithm - it halves every 4 years. The difficulty of the proof of work required to mine the next block can go up or down and depends on how quickly miners have been able to mine previous blocks - it therefore scales to technological developments and the popularity of mining.

When you mine a new block it is used to enter new transactions onto the ledger. Those transaction fees go to the miner. At present they will also be awarded new bitcoin, but the amount of bitcoin awarded decreases over time until the maximum amount has been created and miners will need to make a profit from only the transaction fees, with no subsidisation from new bitcoin.

Those making transactions choose what fee they are willing to pay for the transaction. Miners are able to cherry pick those transactions with the highest fees to put onto the next block, so there is a marketplace that effectively determines transaction costs and sets this component of the reward. If those making transactions don't pay enough, then their transaction will take longer to be confirmed and could potentially never be confirmed.

Edit: Coming back to a point made by fwor, if the reward becomes too low and people give up, then the difficulty and hence the cost of mining would decrease until a balance was reached.

Despite understanding the meaning of approx 99% of the words in masonic's post, I have no idea what its telling me.

If I needed validation of my decision to avoid investments (gambles;)) I don't understand - that post provided it.

Thank you masonic:T

masonic

badger09 wrote: »

Despite understanding the meaning of approx 99% of the words in masonic's post, I have no idea what its telling me.

If I needed validation of my decision to avoid investments (gambles;)) I don't understand - that post provided it.

Thank you masonic:T

:rotfl: If only those investing in bitcoin in December 2017 had exercised the same level of restraint.