I was reading about Sirin Labs a Swiss-Israeli tech company that wants to develop a open source Blockchain mobile phone. It issued virtual tokens, ICOs, initial coin offerings to support it effort, its target was $75m and it raised $118m in 24 hours from 5600 investors. It plans to keep its offering open for the next 12 days.

So if I understand this correctly, instead of appealing to individual investors, Sirin issued these virtual token coins in exchange for cash. Unlike shares of stock, these coins can be purchased or sold by anyone interested by using a Blockchain network as a means of conveyance. The attractive part is that you can potentially trade these coins at any time, or you can hold on to the originals, and if company is successful the value of the coins could rise significantly.

This gets around investor control. It has no guarantees attached and unlike stock, there is no owner of an ICO token. There are also no current regulating body. But if you are familiar with the company, the people involved or the proposed product it might be an attractive way to invest, to retain some solvency, without having to buy or sell stock, warrants or whatever, and pay broker fees.

But in the future, perhaps some cryptocurrency (most likely not bitcoin) is accepted worldwide as an actual currency. Then the banks are toast. And the banks are not happy about this prospect. — fishfry

Why would the banks be toast?

And don't forget that nation states and governments have had the monopoly on legal tender for quite a while now. And then there is the interest the tax office has on any kind of transactions. Hence if you would have a widely accepted "cryptocurrency", then likely it's watered down so that it's easy for the authorities to check the transfers. Because what will regulators see with cryptocurrencies? Money laundering and tax evasion.

And anyway, likely bitcoin Tulip-mania level bubble bursting will decrease the hype around cryptocurrencies.

Coinbase, Gemini, Cex, Kraken haven't worked for me. I do have an acc with Bitstamp (and an external wallet) though I haven't bought yet. I might invest some after the fall.

And don't forget that nation states and governments have had the monopoly on legal tender for quite a while now. And then there is the interest the tax office has on any kind of transactions. Hence if you would have a widely accepted "cryptocurrency", then likely it's watered down so that it's easy for the authorities to check the transfers. Because what will regulators see with cryptocurrencies? Money laundering and tax evasion. — ssu

Identities are always revealed when trying to exchange crypto for any standard currency. To mask the identity, you'd need to purchase directly with crypto for the most part (and also receive your payments in crypto, not in USD you convert later to crypto).

The thing is, I don't see anything that nations can do to stop crypto. To begin with, politicians are too dumb to even understand what is really happening. And even if they did, it quickly turns into a game theory situation. Those nations which don't outlaw crypto will have a significant advantage in the form of cost-reduction based on the blockchain technology. By automating all transactions that previously were based on some form of human input, billions will be saved.

The other thing is that crypto isn't centralised at all. There is no "one player" who you can take down, and down goes the crypto. It's much like guerrilla warfare - the enemy is everywhere. It's the kind of technology that once started nobody can really control.

I think it's a clear fact already that digital currency of the crypto kind is superior to our paper fiat currency though. It does make all transactions easier and significantly cheaper. So perhaps in the future, we'll be approaching a situation where everything is exchanged in crypto, not in fiat currencies - so this exchange of Bitcoin/USD becomes irrelevant.

And anyway, likely bitcoin Tulip-mania level bubble bursting will decrease the hype around cryptocurrencies. — ssu

I do think Bitcoin will collapse in value, but the underlying blockchain technology will very likely revolutionise the way we do business. This paper was very interesting.

Why would the banks be toast?

And don't forget that nation states and governments have had the monopoly on legal tender for quite a while now. And then there is the interest the tax office has on any kind of transactions. Hence if you would have a widely accepted "cryptocurrency", then likely it's watered down so that it's easy for the authorities to check the transfers. Because what will regulators see with cryptocurrencies? Money laundering and tax evasion. — ssu

Couldn't agree more. That is the counterargument. The evil banksters who have run the world since the beginning of civilization will continue to do so. I tend to agree with that side of the question.

But the crypto argument is strong too. A crypto is just a computer program and some people who are willing to run it. The government can't outlaw that. Programs are speech in the sense of the first amendment. I believe [not really up on this] that there have been court rulings to that effect.

Of course governments can bust the miners and the exchanges. Those are the weak points in the system where the cryptos meet the real world.

The battle between the cryptos and the governments/banks is just beginning. Anything could happen.

Coinbase, Gemini, Cex, Kraken haven't worked for me. I do have an acc with Bitstamp (and an external wallet) though I haven't bought yet. I might invest some after the fall. — Agustino

Try Coinbase again. If they finally let me in perhaps they have their technical problems fixed.

I agree with the strategy of waiting for the big crash to get into phase two. Right now I'm just trying to learn the mechanics. It's all fairly mysterious actually.

So if I understand this correctly, instead of appealing to individual investors, Sirin issued these virtual token coins in exchange for cash. Unlike shares of stock, these coins can be purchased or sold by anyone interested by using a Blockchain network as a means of conveyance. The attractive part is that you can potentially trade these coins at any time, or you can hold on to the originals, and if company is successful the value of the coins could rise significantly. — Cavacava

Yes, the venture capitalists are another industry about to get disintermediated. ICO's are how you fund your company now. Put up a white paper, grab a copy of some crypto code (it's all open source), send out a press release and you can collect millions through your ICO.

Of course scams abound in the ICO space. You can just take the money and run, and some ICOs have done that.

Here's another ICO I just heard about. Overstock is going to issue an ICO to raise some revenue. The author of this article thinks it's going to fail.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4124362-overstock-tzero-ico-destined-fail

Also, I don't see how people could cash out easily with market caps at levels we're currently seeing. — Benkei

There are no actual bitcoin millionaires, unless they sold a million dollars worth of bitcoin and got their million USD back from the exchange. On Reddit there are hundreds of complaints about the difficulty of actually getting your money out of an exchange. I think a lot of the "millionaires" holding bitcoin are in for a big surprise.

On the day everyone tries to get out, the exchanges will crash. Many people will never get their money back. It's going to be really bad.

It isn't. — Benkei

[Referring to whether IOTA is quantum-safe].

I believe you. That makes sense. On the other hand I'm not sure I believe real world implementations of quantum computers will be around any time soon. I'm a skeptic on that front.

I still like the fact that IOTA has no blockchain and no miners. Blockchains don't scale and miners inevitably centralize. I'm drawn to non-blockchain cryptos. Another really cool one is Hashgraph. They claim to be able to potentially handle millions of transactions a second. Fairly complex design I haven't been able to understand yet. https://hashgraph.com/

If you plan to transfer the Bitcoin to something like Bittrex so that you can buy more than just the three currencies on Coinbase, don't send them directly from Coinbase (big transfer fees). Use gdax.com (if you're signed into Coinbase you'll automatically sign into GDAX). Transfers from Coinbase to GDAX and from GDAX to anywhere else are free. — Michael

Michael, Thanks for that info and inspiration. Your experience of getting approved at cex motivated me to keep at it. The exchanges are overwhelmed these days. Makes you wonder what it will be like when everyone tries to get out ...

My next step as you say is to move the coins to gdax and learn how to transfer them to another exchange. I want some IOTA. I really like the non-blockchain solutions.

It's interesting watching the fad move from Bitcoin to Litecoin. Wonder where the herd is headed next, and who's the piper setting the tune?

The evil banksters who have run the world since the beginning of civilization will continue to do so. I tend to agree with that side of the question. — fishfry

How will they manage that? The only way they'll succeed is if they become the miners. Or in collaboration with the government, they change the USD to a blockchain system of their own making. Either way, I think the blockchain technology will win.

In the beginning, we traded goods for goods - you gave me your tomatoes, and I gave you my potatoes. Then to make trade easier, we introduced gold coins - and their worth was given by their weight in gold. But as trade expanded, gold coins became too heavy to carry around. So we introduced paper currency backed by gold. For every dollar out there, there was gold to back it up - that was its intrinsic value. Then in order to expand trade even further, we realised that currency doesn't actually need an intrinsic value, so we ditched the gold standard, and we arrived at the fiat currencies we have today, which are just a means of exchanging value. Money still maintained a physical aspect though, in order to prevent double-spend. The blockchain technology is just the next evolution from that - now we ditch the physical aspect completely, since money is a fictive commodity anyway, merely useful to facilitate exchanges and trade. And with the blockchain technology, we can avoid double-spend too and automate all other aspects of trade that we couldn't until today. Because trade no longer requires trust, it can massively expand once again.

The government can't outlaw that. Programs are speech in the sense of the first amendment. I believe [not really up on this] that there have been court rulings to that effect. — fishfry

I think the government can absolutely outlaw blockchain technologies. Not that this would do anything, because not all governments will outlaw it.

Of course governments can bust the miners and the exchanges. Those are the weak points in the system where the cryptos meet the real world. — fishfry

Why do you think they're weak? I don't think they're weak at all. If China bans miners, US miners will take over, and so on. Because power is distributed through the whole network, and does not rely on any one person or group to keep it going. So to really bust them, there must be a coalition of governments looking to do that. And I don't think that if some governments seek to do that, others won't seek to do the opposite.

Try Coinbase again. If they finally let me in perhaps they have their technical problems fixed. — fishfry

It's not available for my region ;)

And anyway, I heard some bad things about Coinbase. They limit people's ability to buy and sell, etc. Kraken seems really good, if it wasn't DDoS'd all the time. Bitstamp is very good for those in the EU.

What I'm not sure on yet, is how one can profit from blockchain technologies - it obviously will be able to help you in your own particular industry (through smart contracts, etc. etc.), but how do you profit from the technology itself, apart from becoming a miner, or opening your own currency?

The government can't outlaw that. Programs are speech in the sense of the first amendment. — fishfry

The United States isn't the only government, and not everywhere has something like the First Amendment.

What I'm not sure on yet, is how one can profit from blockchain technologies - it obviously will be able to help you in your own particular industry (through smart contracts, etc. etc.), but how do you profit from the technology itself, apart from becoming a miner, or opening your own currency? — Agustino

Agustino, I am watching what my two Indians are doing with BitCoin and Ethereum how the systems will work with a little skin in the game. My eldest Indian has invested $100.00 in BitCoin while my younger Indian has been mining and nothing but "mining" in Ethereum.

In the last month we have gotten two calls from our younger Indian telling his older brother to sell and sell now. But before days end, he called and said if he didn't sell tell him to hold off. That sounds more like a day trader who has the time and desire, to closely monitor the movements. I keep giving the sage advice my parents did of taking out your original investment and only work the profit, never the initial investment.

All this happening while NicK who does IT for a living is kicking himself for not buying into BitCoin when it first began because we would no longer have to be working the ranch but rather investing in our "Next" which is a Bed and Breakfast deep in the woods of Northern Arizona. What can we say? Other than damn...would have, could have, should have...

I think it is quite appropriate and it appeals to the Wild West attitude in me, when they call those who want to only invest their time and energy for a little piece of the gold, miners. It is really cool to see what the Pioneers of this new way of exchanging monies are having to navigate and I must say, it is very okay with me to let the "NEXT" generation take the lead on this one.

I believe you. That makes sense. On the other hand I'm not sure I believe real world implementations of quantum computers will be around any time soon. I'm a skeptic on that front. — fishfry

Alright, I'm calling that one. ;) 2026 or possibly sooner. Remember, it's only an engineering problem now so it's pretty close.

I haven't gone through all the posts, but my take is that cryptos are like the internet boom in the 90s. Generally, I think many will do well, but once the bubble bursts, there will only be few remaining which are reputable. If you own those few in the long run, you'll likely stand the chance of making some decent coin..

2026 or possibly sooner. Remember, it's only an engineering problem now so it's pretty close. — Benkei

I was under the impression the Q-Wave* had disproved all claims regarding quantum computing as the Grail of computer ingeneering?

* Sorry, D-wave.

Agustino, I am watching what my two Indians are doing with BitCoin and Ethereum how the systems will work with a little skin in the game. My eldest Indian has invested $100.00 in BitCoin while my younger Indian has been mining and nothing but "mining" in Ethereum. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Yeah, I have skipped over profiting by buying it and trading it, but that seems more of a "consumer" approach. In becoming a miner or creating your own digital currency, you take a "producer" approach and are liable to access much higher profits if you were successful. You also retain much more control. Only that with something like this technology - apart from starting your own currency or becoming a miner for an existing one - I don't see many alternatives, at least as of yet. But it may be possible that it's just because I'm not sufficiently technically literate in the surrounding matters.

How is the mining of Ethereum going? I've heard there are people who have really big "farms" to mine for these currencies, so how is it possible for anyone to compete with them?



As an interesting sidenote, they say they make 20 BTC/day, meaning approximately 7200/year. At current prices that translates to :-O - $135 MILLION per year! I think they must have huge profit margins too, since it's a computer business not a people business (people are very expensive).

In the last month we have gotten two calls from our younger Indian telling his older brother to sell and sell now. But before days end, he called and said if he didn't sell tell him to hold off. That sounds more like a day trader who has the time and desire, to closely monitor the movements. I keep giving the sage advice my parents did of taking out your original investment and only work the profit, never the initial investment. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I would agree with that advice, or at the very least I would say to keep everything invested, but not in just one asset/trade. I've done a bit of stock trading with small sums of money while in University, but that didn't go as well as - *gasp* - sports betting >:O I remember that I struggled to even keep up with inflation and avoid losing with my stocks. Sports betting went much better for me - I guess it was because I also happened to have the right mentors around for the betting.

All this happening while NicK who does IT for a living is kicking himself for not buying into BitCoin when it first began — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Many people are doing that, but what's the point? Nobody knew back in 2010 that Bitcoin would grow so much. And until recently, even my own knowledge about it came more from hearsay than anything solid - I've only started reading into it and understanding all the factors at play much more recently. So without being intimately familiar with the technology back then it's almost impossible that you could have rationally made the decision to invest a sizeable sum of money in it.

I think it is quite appropriate and it appeals to the Wild West attitude in me, when they call those who want to only invest their time and energy for a little piece of the gold, miners. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

It's not their "energy", it's the computer's X-)

Alright, I'm calling that one. ;) 2026 or possibly sooner. Remember, it's only an engineering problem now so it's pretty close. — Benkei

I'll be watching. Actually everything I know about the subject I learned from Scott Aronson's blog and his periodic debunkings of D-Wave. My understanding is that qbits are hopelessly unstable. I'll keep an eye out for news.

I am watching what my two Indians are doing with BitCoin and Ethereum how the systems will work with a little skin in the game. My eldest Indian has invested $100.00 in BitCoin while my younger Indian has been mining and nothing but "mining" in Ethereum. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

May I ask, who are these Indians? Is this part of a conversation I missed? I understand that you can mine Etherium with GPUs and that ASICs don't give an advantage, making GPUs the only practical choice for hobbyist miners.

I think it's a clear fact already that digital currency of the crypto kind is superior to our paper fiat currency though. It does make all transactions easier and significantly cheaper. So perhaps in the future, we'll be approaching a situation where everything is exchanged in crypto, not in fiat currencies - so this exchange of Bitcoin/USD becomes irrelevant. — Agustino

I have no doubt that future money will be based on blockchain or some distributed ledger technology. The question is, will it be issued by government(s) or will it live outside government?

Miners are being arrested in Venuzuela for "terrorism," the theory being that since bitcoin can be used for terrorism, if you mine bitcoin you're aiding and abetting terrorism. It's nonsense but that's how politicians work. They don't subscribe to notions of sound argument. They subscribe to notions of raw power. They're the government and whatever it is that's new and revolutionary, they'll control it.

I think what may happen is that blockchain services not associated with money -- blockchain discussion forums, blockchain Amazon, blockchain games, etc. -- will be fine. But governments the world over take a dim view of people trying to replace government-controlled money, and that's where they'll bring down the hammer.

The United States isn't the only government, and not everywhere has something like the First Amendment. — Michael

Right, that's another point for the government side. Can a government outlaw certain computer programs? Probably. And they certainly have the technical means to know who's connecting to which Internet services.

How will they manage that? The only way they'll succeed is if they become the miners. Or in collaboration with the government, they change the USD to a blockchain system of their own making. Either way, I think the blockchain technology will win. — Agustino

Mining and exchanges are the two points of contact where the blockchain meets the real world. That's how the government will move to suppress and control cryptos. It's already happening. The IRS got a court ruling that Coinbase has to give up the names and info of 14,000 of its largest customers. The SEC has ruled that some ICOs are securities. Venezuela's going after the miners.

May I ask, who are these Indians? — fishfry

>:O oh dear... She's referring to her sons I think, though I don't know why she calls them Indians :-O . I guess Tiff will have to explain this herself.

The question is, will it be issued by government(s) or will it live outside government? — fishfry

I think governments may very well convert the USD or their currencies to a blockchain technology based on the distributed ledger.

Miners are being arrested in Venuzuela for "terrorism," the theory being that since bitcoin can be used for terrorism, if you mine bitcoin you're aiding and abetting terrorism. It's nonsense but that's how politicians work. They don't subscribe to notions of sound argument. They subscribe to notions of raw power. They're the government and whatever it is that's new and revolutionary, they'll control it. — fishfry

Well yeah, that's not surprising, governments and those in power always seek control.

But governments the world over take a dim view of people trying to replace government-controlled money, and that's where they'll bring down the hammer. — fishfry

Yeah they do. The only question is if they can manage to control something like Bitcoin without incurring serious losses themselves. That they want to control it is one thing, whether this will be possible is another. The example of Venezuela and other North-Korean-like countries, don't carry much weight here. The question is if the big and powerful nations can do anything. For example, if America bans mining, won't Russia and China promote it, and earn billions of dollars for themselves out of it, while America is losing? So yes, maintaining control is important for politicians, but maintaining power is even more important. If they lose power for control, their nation will become much like North Korea is today - lots of control, but very weak.

So those two goals, power and control, often pull in different directions.

Mining and exchanges are the two points of contact where the blockchain meets the real world. That's how the government will move to suppress and control cryptos. It's already happening. The IRS got a court ruling that Coinbase has to give up the names and info of 14,000 of its largest customers. The SEC has ruled that some ICOs are securities. Venezuela's going after the miners. — fishfry

Right, of course the governments will obtain information that they need to assess taxes, etc. These are relatively unimportant though. The real question is if they can control the actual technology itself.

All crypto currencies are balloons.
Balloons can get very big. The skin of these balloons is as thick as the participant's greed and stupidity. The more thick the bigger the balloon can get.
But no one's stupidity is thick enough to sustain an ever larger balloon.

But no one's stupidity is thick enough to sustain an ever larger balloon. — charleton

The stupidity was not buying a Bitcoin a year ago and making about 14 000$ of profits.
Alas, stupidity knows little bounds.

The crypto world is full of surprises and delights. I just ran across Primecoin, trading symbol XPM.

Their mining operation involves finding new Cunningham chains, which are particular sequences of prime numbers about which there are many open questions. In other words they're putting their consensus algorithm to mathematical use, rather than wasting their computing power on brute-force attacks on meaningless cryptographic puzzles like bitcoin does.

Primecoins are an answer to one of the criticisms of bitcoin, which is that mining is a huge waste of electricity and computing power. But if you can have the miners do useful computations as their "proof of work," as it's called, then the economics make more sense.

I can see how this might evolve. Perhaps we can use that computing power on SETI, or protein folding, or some kind of distributed AI. That latter is a little speculative but the blockchain is actually a distributed programming environment so in principle there's no reason you couldn't make the Internet into a giant AI using a blockchain.

Maybe the singularity is closer than I thought. This might be it.

The paradox is that you have to be stupid enough to buy, and clever enough to sell before the balloon bursts, as it inevitably will.

The stupidity was not buying a Bitcoin a year ago and making about 14 000$ of profits. — Akanthinos

I don't think it's a question of stupidity and intelligence. People often take practical matters to be matters of someone being more intelligent than someone else. For example, we often think of Bill Gates, say, as being more intelligent than most other people. But while intelligence can help, it's by no means the critical factor in such decisions.

The critical factor is access to knowledge. I have a very high IQ, but I didn't have access to the right knowledge with regards to Bitcoin 1 year ago. Why not? Becuase I was busy working on growing my business, learning marketing, learning design, perfecting my development skills, studying philosophy, etc. And more importantly than all of those, because I didn't have the right people - people with relevant knowledge - around me. So I could have been 100x smarter than the person who happened to be working in a Bitcoin-related startup because he happened to be around the right people who were involved with it in University, say. But that person would have made the dough, and I wouldn't have.

None of us can see the future, and that's largely because we don't know what knowledge will be relevant to the future. To know that Bitcoin would be relevant I need to (1) hear about Bitcoin, and more importantly (2) devote the time required to study Bitcoin and understand what repercussions it would have. If I just hear that there's this new currency around that some people are interested in, etc. etc. I'm not gonna do anything about that usually, because my attention gets devoted to other things. In other words, it doesn't strike me as sufficiently important at first glance for me to start devoting the necessary resources to really see that it's important and relevant.

Like if someone were to say eating grass cures cancer. I would probably not even bother to investigate whether that's true, and just reject it out of hand. Why? Because our current medical understanding would offer no mechanism through which eating grass could achieve the effect. So I would discard it, even though empirically it may actually be true.

Primecoins are an answer to one of the criticisms of bitcoin, which is that mining is a huge waste of electricity and computing power. But if you can have the miners do useful computations as their "proof of work," as it's called, then the economics make more sense. — fishfry

That IS cool because it's one of my biggest gripes.

I have skipped over profiting by buying it and trading it, but that seems more of a "consumer" approach. In becoming a miner or creating your own digital currency, you take a "producer" approach and are liable to access much higher profits if you were successful. You also retain much more control. Only that with something like this technology - apart from starting your own currency or becoming a miner for an existing one - I don't see many alternatives, at least as of yet. But it may be possible that it's just because I'm not sufficiently technically literate in the surrounding matters.

How is the mining of Ethereum going? I've heard there are people who have really big "farms" to mine for these currencies, so how is it possible for anyone to compete with them? — Agustino

The part time mining of Ethereum at college on one GPU is up to about $20.00, not much but for a student who has invested nothing (I realize there is energy used that the school is providing {however with tuition of $52K a year I am not getting all that worked up about it/or waiting for the school to say something} but his degree requires him to have a GPU) and the education he is getting along the way is amazing.

Conversely, I think my other Indian who just invested $100 cash bought in at $420.00 and is now worth $700? I could be totally off but I think that is what they were saying last night.

Here is the really cool thing- NicK keeps getting caught with clients wanting to know about Cryptocurrency but even though he does IT from sunrise to sunset, he has less than half the knowledge than our youngest Indian who is the miner. NicK charges $150.00 an hour with a two hour minimum and cannot waste these clients money, letting them pick his brain about Cryptocurrency. One client in particular is VERY hungry and wants to get in on this but doesn't know how and since NicK hasn't actually done it but our youngest Indian has, he has offered to go out and educate NicK's client on what he knows. We will see where that goes as most people over the age of 45 don't really get the math that the youngers do. From a public speaking perspective I told him to go in with an hour set, the first 30 minutes explain how it works and then let the client pick his brain for the last 30.

Since the client is over 45 yrs old I imagine his eyes are going to glaze over about 15 minutes in and from then on he is going to realize that it might just be time to let another invest for him and watch what happens to the initial investment. By the second call I took from my Indian at college telling his older brother to sell, I asked why is his little brother not making those moves for his older brother?

8-) You see where I am going with this by now and it will be interesting to see what happens. On our way home last night with our Christmas tree in tow, I suggested to our youngest Indian to take over his older brothers money, charge whatever you need to make back in fees if there are any and then you choose a % of the profit made on that trade. He said okay like 1%? I said 5%? And NicK of course was the highest at 10% but remember he has been the sole bread winner for almost 20 yrs now so his perspective is not always as generous as the rest of us.

As an interesting sidenote, they say they make 20 BTC/day, meaning approximately 7200/year. At current prices that translates to :-O - $135 MILLION per year! I think they must have huge profit margins too, since it's a computer business not a people business (people are very expensive).
— Agustino

I would agree with that advice, or at the very least I would say to keep everything invested, but not in just one asset/trade. I've done a bit of stock trading with small sums of money while in University, but that didn't go as well as - *gasp* - sports betting >:O I remember that I struggled to even keep up with inflation and avoid losing with my stocks. Sports betting went much better for me - I guess it was because I also happened to have the right mentors around for the betting. — Agustino

Personally I cannot allow myself to gamble as I would go to the poor house if I did. As it turns out, my youngest has been investing in other cryptocurrencies and stratifying his investing. Since he is a student his income is none, so cash is hard to come by but apparently Granny had a gift of $100 for him and he invested in something. When I told him some of the delays and necessary information given that I have read on this thread, he nodded in agreement. :-O I was like no, folks from the forum are having to submit Drivers Licenses or photo id and more, much more involved and he just kept nodding. I said are you kidding me? He said no. He and his brother had to both do that as well, did I not wonder why he needed his SS#? Well yeah but you were at school and I thought you needed it for.........shit that one slipped right by Mom.

Many people are doing that, but what's the point? Nobody knew back in 2010 that Bitcoin would grow so much. And until recently, even my own knowledge about it came more from hearsay than anything solid - I've only started reading into it and understanding all the factors at play much more recently. So without being intimately familiar with the technology back then it's almost impossible that you could have rationally made the decision to invest a sizeable sum of money in it. — Agustino

I know but it still bites! >:O And I am not going to throw in the towel and say "It is what it is" >:O

It's not their "energy", it's the computer's X-) — Agustino

That is true my friend but if there is an ancillary artery to be found on any new idea, I can usually ferret it out and just like the stock market today, there are LOTS of people in this world that would just let someone else "worry about it" whether that is a 401k or a Cryptocurrency investment. Just an idea....

May I ask, who are these Indians? Is this part of a conversation I missed? I understand that you can mine Etherium with GPUs and that ASICs don't give an advantage, making GPUs the only practical choice for hobbyist miners. — fishfry

Agustino had it right, my Indians are my offspring. There was a time when people didn't advertise they had kids on the Internet (think WAY back in the day) and since they were both boys and our family is a LOT like a tribe, I just began to refer to them as my Indians. Both over the age of 18 now probably makes it unnecessary but now it sticks and so they are my Indians. (L)

There was a time when people didn't advertise they had kids on the Internet (think WAY back in the day) — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Just out of curiosity, why was this?

Remember when we never used our real birthdate, our real location, our real names? Same idea, we didn't post pictures of our children or used their names for security purposes. I realize we have come a LONG way but there was a time when the Net was not to be trusted with our personal info.

Remember when we never used our real birthdate, our real location, our real names? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Oh? I still don't use real birthdate >:O (unless it's an official, business related thing). But I think I'm just paranoid. Looking around, many people give just about everything, including their address online :-O - and someone can obtain your rough address (city) from your IP anyway - so basically every website you visit. Moderators here may be able to access those details anyway.

it is simply the future of currency. a global currency that is instant and doesn't require physical money. more and more people are becoming interested in bitcoin and not only becoming interested but buying into the currency too. international travel will see more people using bitcoin and less people will convert their countries currency. Though it's not in the interest of governments to use bitcoin for their own economies as a lot of wealth on earth is a result of a currency being worth more (USA, Britain etc.) but their may be change as it's popularity increases. it could sort a lot of economic problems around the globe in the future.

The thing is, I don't see anything that nations can do to stop crypto. To begin with, politicians are too dumb to even understand what is really happening. And even if they did, it quickly turns into a game theory situation. Those nations which don't outlaw crypto will have a significant advantage in the form of cost-reduction based on the blockchain technology. By automating all transactions that previously were based on some form of human input, billions will be saved. — Agustino

I remember hearing similarly naive discussions about the social media and it's positive effects couple of years ago.

Especially that a) governments are too old fashioned and dumb to understand it and b) as social media is so decentralized they cannot control it and hence c) with the social media and new media, freedom will ensure and nation states cannot influence the discourse as they could do earlier.

Now we see quite well what bullshit that is and just how easy it is for intelligence services to prosper with the "social media".

The other thing is that crypto isn't centralised at all. There is no "one player" who you can take down, and down goes the crypto. It's much like guerrilla warfare - the enemy is everywhere. It's the kind of technology that once started nobody can really control. — Agustino

Yeah? But you are. You are a citizen of some country, and if you get income, you have to report it to the government or otherwise you are avoiding taxes. Wouldn't matter if you made a fortune in barter trade and never would have taken actual money. The worth of the barter trade can be measured quite easily. And if it's a too big hassle to go at the user, you simply go after any merchant vendor accepting any cryptocurrency. After that it isn't so cryptic anymore.

I think it's a clear fact already that digital currency of the crypto kind is superior to our paper fiat currency though. It does make all transactions easier and significantly cheaper. — Agustino

How do you think so? I think a 50$ note is quite easy for making transactions. You don't even have to have a wallet for the "infrastructure" to use it. That's a relatively low cost for transactions.

So perhaps in the future, we'll be approaching a situation where everything is exchanged in crypto, not in fiat currencies - so this exchange of Bitcoin/USD becomes irrelevant. — Agustino

It's obvious that you are looking at this only from the view of the consumer and how he or she uses money.

I don't think you fathom the relevance of any payment system being legal tender, being a medium of payment recognized by a legal system. That's just one link of money to the sovereign states.

11

it is simply the future of currency. a global currency that is instant and doesn't require physical money. more and more people are becoming interested in bitcoin and not only becoming interested but buying into the currency too. international travel will see more people using bitcoin and less people will convert their countries currency. Though it's not in the interest of governments to use bitcoin for their own economies as a lot of wealth on earth is a result of a currency being worth more (USA, Britain etc.) but their may be change as it's popularity increases. it could sort a lot of economic problems around the globe in the future. — David Solman

As if consumers would rule the World.

The above would be similar to saying that in a democracy the voters in all their combined knowledge will choose the best possible candidate to be their President. Hence all countries will become democracies and the most capable people from every country will be chosen to lead them.

I think for the United States the role of the US dollar is quite an existential one, so I'm not thinking that now a Tulip-based cryptocurrency will take it's position.

Couldn't agree more. That is the counterargument. The evil banksters who have run the world since the beginning of civilization will continue to do so. I tend to agree with that side of the question.

But the crypto argument is strong too. A crypto is just a computer program and some people who are willing to run it. The government can't outlaw that. Programs are speech in the sense of the first amendment. I believe [not really up on this] that there have been court rulings to that effect.

Of course governments can bust the miners and the exchanges. Those are the weak points in the system where the cryptos meet the real world.

The battle between the cryptos and the governments/banks is just beginning. Anything could happen. — fishfry

Just to think of another payment system called barter trade. That's even more difficult to check. But if lets say you are a famous artist and we use barter trade, you give me one of your paintings and I give you a Gulfstream V aircraft, I would assume that the tax officials would be interested about the barter.

And you know what?

If I would be a conspiracy theorist, I would think that the whole Bitcoin bubble has been produced by the banks to get rid of this new payment system that partly comes to compete with them.

When this historical bubble bursts, the trust in cryptocurrencies will be shaken. Also, when you have basically bubbles in many markets, some Bitcoin bubble bursting would be the perfect culprit to blame first a market downturn and then for an economic downturn. People want culprits.

(I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I don't believe it, but once the bubble has burst, I will guarantee somebody will make the accusation of the evil banks being behind it)