Is anyone else starting to become a bit worried? mod note in first post

smacl

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

I put in a savage session myself on Friday night, Paddy. Drank 13 pints on Guinness. Still not right.
'
'
Like I said, I’m as thick as two short planks

Fair enough, sounds like one thing is leading to another. Maybe yourself and Paddy are on the wrong forum, this one might suit better. Bit bizarre showing faux concern for those here wasting money when you píss that much against the wall to the obvious detriment of your health.

JohnnyFlash

smacl wrote: »

Fair enough, sounds like one thing is leading to another. Maybe yourself and Paddy are on the wrong forum, this one might suit better. Bit bizarre showing faux concern for those here wasting money when you píss that much against the wall to the obvious detriment of your health.

Showing a bit of faux concern there yourself, Smacl. Ara, I’ve plenty of money to waste. Too much of it to be honest. Not enough for a lambo mind you. A rattle of pints every so often is good for a lad. Stops them being so serious.

GarIT

I don't know about the many others reading this thread but I'm getting sick of the nonsense, two pages of posts now and not a sentence worth reading between them.

grindle

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Must be why I’m still struggling to get the idea behind coin ownership and what it gives the investor. Say some bunch of Chinese buckos create Livercoin. The white paper is a bit vague, but they say this coin will become the main way on the planet for applying for a liver transplant. I have a savage few days on the drink, and decide I better stick me name on a list for a new liver. The blockchain has been decided as the extremely inefficient way to store me application.

So I log into some website, fill out the application form, and hit submit. Good stuff. The world now has a completely non refutable record of my application for a new liver. But the part I don’t get is what benefit that gives to shrewd and canny investors who bought these coins belonging to this company, and why holding on to them so they increase in value would be of benefit to them. Like what relationship has my application for a new liver have to them being able to buy a Lambo at some stage? Why would the coin increase in value because I made a new liver application?

I'll try my best to make this as layman friendly as possible.

We'll have to presume that there's some great market for liver transplants, not really sure how the economy of liver transplants looks but we'll have to imagine a world where black market untraceable livers are a serious threat to the liver transplant economy, possibly by already being diseased livers like your own. And my own, I'm fond of a tipple.

Seeing this threat, the liver transplant businesses of the world need a solution for tracing good livers and come across this blockchain liver-tracer! They do a cost analysis and see that using this platform which allows the tracing of livers will save money versus the lawsuit fallout and future health costs of giving people dodgy livers. Every time a tokenised liver passes through the system (I'm not designing this single-faceted shítcoin for you so don't expect an actual profitable idea if we're only sticking with livers) is a time when that token or multiples of that token are bought to verify the liver's authenticity (this LiverToken team is going to have to know the cost of authenticating livers in the current system and they'll want to undercut any competitor).
The cost of using the service is always the same but depending on the liquid supply of LiverToken your health provider will either be buying more of the token or less of the token - doesn't matter to them, they get the same product for the same price unless they're extremely supportive of the idea and got in early and it was a success, in which case their hoarding of LiverTokens will enable them to gain cheaper access to this liver authentification service while the price is rising.

For the average speculator if they bought LiverToken and it fails they get fúck all, or they lose money when they sell. If LiverToken takes off and there's a constant demand (I really don't understand how you guys don't get this - it's supply and demand, very basic concept) which outstrips liquid supply then it's price rises in the marketplace and you can start selling for profit. No harm done to anybody, you believed in an idea early on, believed it would gain traction, some company that's apparently professional enough to count every hospital as it's customer gets to develop their platform and cut costs for an industry that milks profits like no other, it gains traction, demand outstrips supply and you get to sell into that demand.

You should probably make your LiverToken slightly less narrow in scope, even OrganToken isn't wide enough of an umbrella imo.

The bolded part of your comment - I can't fathom why you think holding onto a scarce in demand asset wouldn't be worthwhile. This is probably the millionth time I've had to post this but if you own something which is in demand and low liquid supply it's price goes higher. Are you aware that in-demand products and services get higher in price? Vinyl? Concert tickets? Hotel prices, AirBnB? Uber? Restaurants? Property - oh my god especially property on this island.
The main difference being that when you're paying a higher price for those things the consumer is actively being scalped, with LiverToken whomever's buying it at the time is paying the same amount in fiat for the service whether they're buying 100 LVT @ $1 a piece or 1000 @ $0.10 a piece, but an early buyer benefits from widespread utilisation driving the price up.
My mind boggles that you can't grasp this concept. Consider my flabber fully gasted.

JohnnyFlash

grindle wrote: »

I'll try my best to make this as layman friendly as possible.

We'll have to presume that there's some great market for liver transplants, not really sure how the economy of liver transplants looks but we'll have to imagine a world where black market untraceable livers are a serious threat to the liver transplant economy, possibly by already being diseased livers like your own. And my own, I'm fond of a tipple.

Seeing this threat, the liver transplant businesses of the world need a solution for tracing good livers and come across this blockchain liver-tracer! They do a cost analysis and see that using this platform which allows the tracing of livers will save money versus the lawsuit fallout and future health costs of giving people dodgy livers. Every time a tokenised liver passes through the system (I'm not designing this single-faceted shítcoin for you so don't expect an actual profitable idea if we're only sticking with livers) is a time when that token or multiples of that token are bought to verify the liver's authenticity (this LiverToken team is going to have to know the cost of authenticating livers in the current system and they'll want to undercut any competitor).
The cost of using the service is always the same but depending on the liquid supply of LiverToken your health provider will either be buying more of the token or less of the token - doesn't matter to them, they get the same product for the same price unless they're extremely supportive of the idea and got in early and it was a success, in which case their hoarding of LiverTokens will enable them to gain cheaper access to this liver authentification service while the price is rising.

For the average speculator if they bought LiverToken and it fails they get fúck all, or they lose money when they sell. If LiverToken takes off and there's a constant demand (I really don't understand how you guys don't get this - it's supply and demand, very basic concept) which outstrips liquid supply then it's price rises in the marketplace and you can start selling for profit. No harm done to anybody, you believed in an idea early on, believed it would gain traction, some company that's apparently professional enough to count every hospital as it's customer gets to develop their platform and cut costs for an industry that milks profits like no other, it gains traction, demand outstrips supply and you get to sell into that demand.

You should probably make your LiverToken slightly less narrow in scope, even OrganToken isn't wide enough of an umbrella imo.

The bolded part of your comment - I can't fathom why you think holding onto a scarce in demand asset wouldn't be worthwhile. This is probably the millionth time I've had to post this but if you own something which is in demand and low liquid supply it's price goes higher. Are you aware that in-demand products and services get higher in price? Vinyl? Concert ticy kets? Hotel prices, AirBnB? Uber? Restaurants? Property - oh my god especially property on this island.
The main difference being that when you're paying a higher price for those things the consumer is actively being scalped, with LiverToken whomever's buying it at the time is paying the same amount in fiat for the service whether they're buying 100 LVT @ $1 a piece or 1000 @ $0.10 a piece, but an early buyer benefits from widespread utilisation driving the price up.
My mind boggles that you can't grasp this concept. Consider my flabber fully gasted.

That's a very honest reply. And I genuinely tried to understand it. Good man. My value is with me liver though. That's the commodity in some terrible libertarian economy. Or socialist economy. :eek:



The value is my liver. Not the coin associated with me logging onto a website and suggesting I'd like to pay more for a new one. I own Livercoin. What's the narrative here?

makeorbrake

@grindle : I was slow to heed the warning of others on this - but eventually I got there. Just ignore.

I actively welcome the contrarian view - it's healthy. However, that doesn't mean we have to entertain podge and rodge.

grindle

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

My value is with me liver though. That's the commodity in some terrible libertarian economy. Or socialist economy. :eek:

The value is my liver. Not the coin associated with me logging onto a website and suggesting I'd like to pay more for a new one. I own Livercoin. What's the narrative here?

Not sure what you're on about here - if you're applying for a new liver it means your old liver is fúcked and virtually valueless. Try to express yourself more clearly. Libertarian economy? Socialist economy? Both seem negative to you but they're opposites. Where abouts in the middle of those two economies do you suppose that your old useless liver suddenly has a value? What's the narrative here? Are you expecting an entire economy to start throwing all the good livers at everybody who hasn't taken care of their bad liver without trying to trace where the liver is coming from or going to? Because that's what this service would do but you make it sound like there's no value in making sure livers are properly traced - they are currently traced btw, I'm not sure if that's a surprise to you or not but it seems like something that would disgust you and start making words like socialism or libertarianism pop out of your mouth like you have a verbal tic.

If you're interacting with some health service who thinks LiverToken improves some situation and makes it cheaper, it'll be used. If you own that token outside of the health service then you've place a bet on this idea gaining traction. If you're right and it gets used by everybody and the token economics allow for it then the price will rise. This doesn't affect your old dying liver nor your shiny, new, soon to be wasted liver, this shítcoin of yours is literally a liver-tracker. It's not a great idea but it's the best you could come up with and I admire that you were brave in the attempt.

makeorbrake wrote: »

@grindle : I was slow to heed the warning of others on this - but eventually I got there. Just ignore.

I actively welcome the contrarian view - it's healthy. However, that doesn't mean we have to entertain podge and rodge.

Lurkers who never interact make up the majority of every community & I'm hoping lurkers with half a brain can see there's no attempt being made to understand, only attempts to tar with populist bullshíttery - how socialist and libertarian economies sprang into the argument and as negatives I'll never know, the terrible state of the current health system or economy is thanks to socialising capitalist's problems, purely socialist or libertarian economies would never have provided that soft landing to the leech-like capitalists who stole tens of billions from just one single country. For as long as the mods don't consider it trolling I'll try to do my best to consider their odd mumblings, surprise conflations and further coincidental (surely?) evasion of arguments as being genuine.
Patience is a virtue and all that. #FeelingSoVirtuous

JohnnyFlash

makeorbrake wrote: »

@grindle : I was slow to heed the warning of others on this - but eventually I got there. Just ignore.

I actively welcome the contrarian view - it's healthy. However, that doesn't mean we have to entertain podge and rodge.

It’s that sort of head-in-the-sand attitude that has crypto investors lose over 90% of their money since December. Insurmountable evidence that crypto is a scam, not an investment, a shïtty business model. Tether, the environment, the EOS fiasco, not a single scalable business so far, exit scams, SEC investigations, Nobel prize winning economists telling you it’s a scam, nvidia saying it’s dead as a business for them, Harvard CS professor saying blockchain is the worst concept he has seen in 40 years of research into the scene.

The whole thing is a mess. Listen, people lost money. It’s only money. Continuing to suggest people invest in it is fundamentally dishonest though. That’s not right. It’s not nice being a bagholder, but I’ll continue to do ma ting around here in getting readers not to invest in stupid coins that conmen magicked out of thin air. Being greedy and of below average intelligence is no excuse for wanting to lure new people in to this horrific pyramid scheme.

Grumpypants

Yawn

JohnnyFlash

grindle wrote: »

It's not a great idea but it's the best you could come up with and I admire that you were brave in the attempt

Thanks Grindle. I’m as thick as two short planks so it’s mighty to get a vote of confidence like that from a smart bucko such as yourself. I might change my mind about this crypto stuff when I see a single viable business using it. In the interim I’m very happy I didn’t get caught up in the hype around this and suffered >90% loss on investment as a result. What would I know though! New paradigm I suppose. A really slow database that uses massive amounts of electricity is going to change the world.

rapul

This

Grumpypants wrote: »

Yawn

SteelyDanJalapeno

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Thanks Grindle. I’m as thick as two short planks so it’s mighty to get a vote of confidence like that from a smart bucko such as yourself. I might change my mind about this crypto stuff when I see a single viable business using it. In the interim I’m very happy I didn’t get caught up in the hype around this and suffered >90% loss on investment as a result. What would I know though! New paradigm I suppose. A really slow database that uses massive amounts of electricity is going to change the world.

This "I'm thick" narrative is getting very tiresome, it's a means to try get posters to dumb it down for you in the hope that you can prove that it ultimately still doesn't make sense.

I'm not buying it, especially when every 2nd post is supposed to be trying to get people no to invest and save their money based on all your research, very conflicting mindsets.

smacl

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

I’m as thick as two short planks.

Your words, regularly repeated, and starting to gain some traction.

I might change my mind about this crypto stuff when I see a single viable business using it.

Not that you haven't been given plenty of examples already, but last time I checked MasterCard were a viable business using blockchain. I see Europe's first IOTA based car charging station was unveiled a short while back too, though I guess you reckon this whole electric car thing won't ever take off either, hey Johnny? Meanwhile, Dell keep a page dedicated to blockchain advocacy, and AFAIK they're viable too. In fact just about every major organisation on the planet is getting involved in this 'really slow database that uses massive amounts of electricity' fad. Clearly they don't have the refined intellect and insight of one such as yourself. Either that, or maybe they've got a few people on board that aren't as thick as two short planks.

Dohnjoe

smacl wrote: »

In fact just about every major organisation on the planet is getting involved in this 'really slow database that uses massive amounts of electricity' fad.

Yup, can confirm for the financial industry, either via their own current projects and/or in conjunction with crypto projects especially with smart contracts and distributed ledger tech

Whelo79

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Thanks Grindle. I’m as thick as two short planks so it’s mighty to get a vote of confidence like that from a smart bucko such as yourself. I might change my mind about this crypto stuff when I see a single viable business using it. In the interim I’m very happy I didn’t get caught up in the hype around this and suffered >90% loss on investment as a result. What would I know though! New paradigm I suppose. A really slow database that uses massive amounts of electricity is going to change the world.

Surely any MOD monitoring this forum has to flag this as trolling at this stage? It's getting beyond ridiculous.

sexmag

smacl wrote: »

Your words, regularly repeated, and starting to gain some traction.



Not that you haven't been given plenty of examples already, but last time I checked MasterCard were a viable business using blockchain. I see Europe's first IOTA based car charging station was unveiled a short while back too, though I guess you reckon this whole electric car thing won't ever take off either, hey Johnny? Meanwhile, Dell keep a page dedicated to blockchain advocacy, and AFAIK they're viable too. In fact just about every major organisation on the planet is getting involved in this 'really slow database that uses massive amounts of electricity' fad. Clearly they don't have the refined intellect and insight of one such as yourself. Either that, or maybe they've got a few people on board that aren't as thick as two short planks.

Not to mention the biggest car making company in the world is going to be using IOTA by next year

https://ethereumworldnews.com/iota-volkswagen-2019-release/

makeorbrake

Grumpypants wrote: »

Yawn

This.

Bob24

GarIT wrote: »

I don't know about the many others reading this thread but I'm getting sick of the nonsense, two pages of posts now and not a sentence worth reading between them.

24h laters, this statement still holds true :-/

makeorbrake

Podge_n_Rodge wrote:

This is Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman calling it a Ponzi scheme:

https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/bitcoin-is-basically-a-ponzi-scheme/

Now it seems that Mr. Krugman's views are changing. He now believes that Bitcoin has more utility than gold.


LINK

JohnnyFlash

makeorbrake wrote: »

Now it seems that Mr. Krugman's views are changing. He now believes that Bitcoin has more utility than gold.


LINK

This is what happens when you read puff pieces from barely literate crypto ‘journalists’. Confirmation bias. That isn’t what Krugman said. He’s a noted gold bug sceptic, and suggest bitcoin has more utility that it - bitcoin can be used for criminality.

This is a far more accurate article about the conference.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/paul-krugman-questions-cryptocurrencies-at-chainxchange-las-vegas/

makeorbrake

BS! Far more accurate how? Because it fits into his world view? I didn't say that Krugman had turned pro-crypto - he says his biggest issue with bitcoin is transaction cost - and that he remains crypto-skeptic.

He (Podge/Rodge) would have you believe that because Krugman isn't a great believer in Gold, then the point is lessened. Given the role that Gold has played in the world, I would say it's worthy of note and far from the 'ponzi scheme' alluded to...

JohnnyFlash

makeorbrake wrote: »

BS! Far more accurate how? Because it fits into his world view? I didn't say that Krugman had turned pro-crypto - he says his biggest issue with bitcoin is transaction cost - and that he remains crypto-skeptic.

He (Podge/Rodge) would have you believe that because Krugman isn't a great believer in Gold, then the point is lessened. Given the role that Gold has played in the world, I would say it's worthy of note and far from the 'ponzi scheme' alluded to...

You posted a badly written article by someone called Princess Ogono on a website dedicated to writing positive pro-crypto click bait articles. It took about 15 seconds on google to see that the article fundamentally misrepresented what Krugman said. They twisted his words to make it look like he was changing his mind about crypto. He isn’t. This is actually a really perfect example of the spin, smoke and mirrors, and bad actors that make up so much of the crypto scene.

Krugman isn’t even the most negative economist either. I’d suggest you stay away from the twitter account of Nouriel Roubini is you want to keep your blood pressure down. He’s a professor of economics at NYU so he’s a smart bucko.

grindle

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

...bitcoin can be used for criminality.

As opposed to:


Also: TIL less direct quotes from a speaker's mouth = more accuracy. You teach me so much JF, I'd say there might be a third plank somewhere in that noggin.

makeorbrake

He would have you believe that the article he links to is somehow superior - it's not. If a transcript of the conference can be produced, then it can be settled. Otherwise, both articles stand (because it was never stated that Krugman has become pro-crypto - just that he now positions it above gold in terms of utility).

LoLth

mod note:
I really want to accommodate both side of discussion in this forum as I believe it is healthy to question, even things you believe wholeheartedly.

JohnnyFlash, I've had words with you before about your conduct here. From this latest spurt of posting you have displayed some very "troll-like" posting traits, you are NOT discussing, you are soapboxing and deliberately misleading.

Now, SMACL posted a response to your request for examples of viable organisations using blockchain technology. You have ignored that in favour of attacking another poster for daring to have an opinion that differs from your own.

DO NOT POST HERE AGAIN UNTIL YOU HAVE ADRESSED SMACL'S POST THAT YOU CAN FIND HERE: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107838257&postcount=1755

and discuss the contrarian point of view but drop the smart arse "I dont know much but...." . Its not helping the discussion at all.

RoboRat

I have been monitoring crypto for a few years now, I think that around 90 - 95% of the coins are destined for failure but as a technology, it will succeed.

If you went back 15 years and told people they would be able to do pretty much everything they can do on a computer and more, but on a phone, you would have been laughed at.

People said that electric cars would never be a viable alternative, they are now and given a few years, they will take over.

People would have laughed at the concept of not carrying cash 10 years ago, it's the norm now... so how exactly is a digital currency a bad thing? Being realistic, fiat currency is digital, except with large bank fees and long transaction times. Yes you can physically get some, but it's no different from a token.

If you can't understand the benefits of crypto, take my own personal experience as an example of how it would benefit: I have to buy my goods from Pakistan. Each time I pay via BACS I pay a €12 transaction fee - I only pay 50% upfront to protect myself from being swindled and to also make sure they deliver in a timely manner (if they have all the money, they take their sweet time). My seller also has to pay a transaction fee (which makes my goods cost more as he isn't taking the hit) and the transfer takes between 3-5 days. My supplier won't ship until they have been paid so this often leads to delays and being out of stock - if you are out of stock you can loose up to 40% of potential business. When I sell my goods, I have to pay Realex/ Stripe a fee per transaction, around 1.5% - 2%, higher if I use paypal. I also have to wait for the funds to clear before they are accessible.

So, on a whole, I am paying through the nose on bank fees and I also have to forecast further out to compensate for bank delays, plus have to wait longer to access the proceeds of my sales to pay for my stock. Add to that the currency exchange market and how one week I could be getting $1.17 to €1 and the next week $1.13 to €1. When you are trying to forecast and buy stock, all these extra factors make life very difficult. With a stable crypto, the cost would be the cost, it would be done in seconds and the transfer fees would be minimal.... the only analogy I can think which comes close is the comparison of dial up 1mbs wired connection versus 500mb wireless connection.

Now scale this up for a company with multiple suppliers in multiple jurisdictions, so for example they are making 50 transactions a day at a cost of €600 per day (€12 per transfer), that's a weekly cost of €4,200 and annual cost of €218,400. If they are then doing 500 transactions per day online with an average order value of €80 and commission of 1.5%, they are paying €600 per day in transaction fees and €219,000 per year.

This also doesn't take into account the time lost due to bank transfers, sale processing fees, currency exchange fluctuations and the delay in being able to access their funds post sale. It also doesn't take into account scamming and money lost due to fraudulent orders. It also requires a whole lot of extra manpower to manage all of this.

Crytpo could easily save a business like that hundreds of thousands a year, even millions (a prime example being Amazon, hence why they are working on a crypto). The only things holding it back is mass adoption, the volatility of the market and what to bench mark the value against as they can't bench mark against fiat in the long term as mass adoption would seriously devalue fiat.

Once the banks accept this is happening, they will have to adopt it and then it's a case of starting from scratch and being years behind established crypto's or using the existing technology. It will be a race for adoption and hence, they will choose to use the existing technology. It's no different to vaping and the big tobacco, originally they went all out to rubbish it, but once they realised this was happening, they started buying up the existing companies.

smacl

I think for crypto, as oppose to blockchain more generally, to really enter the mainstream it needs an open, highly transparent, regulatory mechanism to keep it roughly in check with other mainstream currencies. Something like tether, but glass box with respect to backing assets and operators. Mainstream users, as opposed to investors or gamblers, really want stability at a similar level to that offered by larger currencies. Once you get enough users on board, they'll probably be part of that stabilizing force. I think it's inevitable, but have no idea when exactly it will happen or whether any of the current coins will be involved.

makeorbrake

smacl wrote: »

Something like tether, but glass box with respect to backing assets and operators. Mainstream users, as opposed to investors or gamblers, really want stability at a similar level to that offered by larger currencies. Once you get enough users on board, they'll probably be part of that stabilizing force. I think it's inevitable, but have no idea when exactly it will happen or whether any of the current coins will be involved.

I think that's why we're seeing a deluge of stablecoins hitting the market. Tether has tarnished the stablecoin concept and put doubt into peoples mind as to whether they can trust it. However, they are coming through now in different forms that are more effective at demonstrating backing funds, etc.

Furthermore, up until now, bitcoin has always been proposed as a solution in any country where there is volatility. Turkey being the most recent example. However, when hyperinflation or economic turmoil strikes, all people are looking to do is maintain their existing wealth. Rather than have to also deal with the (current) volatility of bitcoin, it's likely that a stablecoin would offer a far better solution.

makeorbrake

Following on from earlier - a clarification of Paul Krugman's comments at last weeks ChainXchange conference in Las Vegas;

LINK

“Gold is dead… Bitcoin has more utility than gold,”

"There is some chance for Bitcoin to be valuable in the future."

smacl

makeorbrake wrote: »

Following on from earlier - a clarification of Paul Krugman's comments at last weeks ChainXchange conference in Las Vegas;

LINK

“Gold is dead… Bitcoin has more utility than gold,”

"There is some chance for Bitcoin to be valuable in the future."

Doing a search on the above it seems difficult enough to get neutral coverage on it, NullTX was probably among the better ones I scanned, and it does seem to be a turnaround from his piece in the NY Times in July;

Most gold just sits there, possessing value because people believe it possesses value. But gold does have real-world uses, both for jewelry and for things like filling teeth, that provide a weak but real tether to the real economy.

Cryptocurrencies, by contrast, have no backstop, no tether to reality. Their value depends entirely on self-fulfilling expectations — which means that total collapse is a real possibility. If speculators were to have a collective moment of doubt, suddenly fearing that Bitcoins were worthless, well, Bitcoins would become worthless.

Personally, I think Krugman's position on crypto is weak, insofar as he readily admits it is limited to BTC and seems weighed down by concerns relating to energy usage. This is in all probability short sighted, as both BTC and the energy usage issue are liable to be no more than transitional stages in the the long term adoption (or not) in crypto-currency. I don't for a moment believe the technical or stability issues surrounding crypto are insurmountable and do believe the utility is real. On that basis, it seems probable to me at least that it will become ubiquitous over time. YMMV.