Why did gold win out as a currency? Did it win out over other precious medals for its non toxic nature and it’s ease in identification? Gold has superior qualities of malleability and a different color than the vast majority of other medals making it nearly impossible to counterfeit. I doubt it won the currency race because it was the first currency or even the 1st medal used.

You've repeated the same thing. You cannot "design" a longer standing crypto than bitcoin, and there will never be a less changeable version. And to "evolve" a less changeable versions is absurd.

In regard to the long standing history of gold and why it is valued higher than the other metals in this context, Nick Szabo is the leading philosopher on this, he has written many essays expounding on it, and he is the #1 contender for the creator of bitcoin. I linked to the most relevant essay, shelling out, and I don't believe you that you said you have read the literature I have been linking to.

The book I alluded to by this author also gives an in depth explanation: https://thesaifhouse.wordpress.com/2...ement-network/

None of your sentiments speak to the historical reality.

Try to counterfeit a bitcoin. Try to make 21 million + 1.

You think the color of gold gives it its value?

Gold didn't win a currency race. Currency, latin for "in circulation", our fiat circulates, gold is a slow moving settlement mechanism. Gold is valuable for reasons you haven't yet understood.

I feel like I'm being clear here.

Nooseknot, what are your thoughts on the upcoming BTG fork and S2X fork?

The same as my thoughts on BCC https://medium.com/@rextar4444/the-m...y-f87858bf8791

https://medium.com/@rextar4444/the-m...y-b3c83a5d019f

There are many stolen coins that I believe (although I've never had the technical confirmed) that need a low fee layer 1 in order to make them fungible (ie washed). So there is implicate collusion among anyone with stolen coins (or governments with coins their laws don't allow them to hold) to try to usurp core.

Its not possible, and so we are simply watching the security of the network being tested.

You can fork the network all you want, but to fork it and call the new fork bitcoin in any meaningful way (ie to tie the fork to the market cap) is impossible.

But these people have nothing to lose by trying impossible feats, other than their reputation, and they believe they can be billionaires and trillionaires if they succeed.

Look at the people and groups that are trying to do this and funding it. Roger Ver, who could not help but smile like a fox while he lied through his teeth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP1YsMlrfF0

Craig Wright who reportedly has some form of a significant and early key.

The Chinese miners that are subsidized by the Chinese governments.

And somewhat unrelated the many businesses who's business model relies on a low fee layer 1 network.

The reality is that entropy grows over time. These differing opinions are getting more diverse as their complexity grows, and this is just solidifying bitcoin's unchangeable nature.

Evolution, and survival of the fittest is often cited as what will be bitcoin's downfall because it lacks the ability to evolve. Such claimants also have not read Dawkins. In regard to genes, they show their value by NOT changing. That they are evolutionarily stable is what shows that they are more suitable for survival than that which must continue to adapt and change.

Again, it was Szabo that suggested the community read Dawkins, and Dawkins is cited in Szabo's essay "shelling out"

The significance of the essay is that there is otherwise no founded argument for bitcoin to procure and hold value.

You're confusing two levels of abstraction. It's like your mind can almost - but not quite - grasp the level of concreteness needed to think intelligently about this topic. Perhaps you just need some sleep and a cold drink.

Here you're confusing the level of the organism with the level of the gene.
How many organisms are RNA encoded today?
Something similar will likely happen with Bitcoin. Bitcoin has many, seemingly intractable, flaws. Like RNA organisms it's been expanding into an empty space, but as competitors and predators line up, it will likely prove inferior. Most first mover technology goes the way of the dinosaur.
lol?

The evolution analogy doesn’t really help bitcoin afaik.

Take the cockroach for example. The cockroach is the best example I know of a complex organism that seems immune to change. The cockroach has this distinction not becaus it was the 1st design but one of the best designs and it was tested over time.

What gives Bitcoin an edge? If it's not good for transactions, people aren't going to buy it. Gold would decline steadily in value if people didn't want it for jewelry, which is the majority use, and would no longer be a store of value anywhere near the level it is.

Right now Bitcoin has the most hashing power, but if other coins or opportunities offer far more profit for the same amount of electricity - and they will unless transactions become viable - do you think that will remain the same? That's a crazy view, imo. So it's unlikely to be as secure as a heavily transacting network.

NooseKnot would be best claiming a future fork, of which current bitcoin holders will gain a share, will end up winning. That's the only credible path in which current holders don't eventually go to zero imo.

Nooseknot,

The bird analogy with different eye colors seemed confusing to me. It seems like it is saying those that don't diversify win and those that diversify lose. Realistically it is on a probability spectrum. The blue eye birds diversified and had a chance of winning, but not as high as the brown eyed birds. The Brown eyed birds, though unlikely, could be wrong and lose everything! Maybe I misunderstood the article.

The other one made more sense when it talked about how markets behave. There once was promotional event on a poker site. The buy-in for each game was free for a limited time. The payout wasn't much, but the buy-in was free. I quickly realized the GTO solution for everyone was to push all-in every hand so we could increase the number of games we could play. We decrease our probability of winning so we could play more games. This is more EV in the long run. Unfortunately, everybody didn't see this. Some of the people were defecting and trying to play ruing the highest payout for everybody else.

The TV show Golden Balls is another example of this. The highest payout collectively would be for everyone to split. However, people are going to defect and that results will shift everyone into picking steal as the best option.

I've had some discussions with people on how I think BCH is garbage, but they just don't seem to budge. Its price is dropping rapidly and I believe it will continue to do so.


If I understood you correctly it appears that you don't think the splits will be good or have value. If you look at the one that is winning it is wise to switch over to that one. Based on what you've said earlier about Bitcoin's value being greater to its inability to change is what will make it come out ahead.

I don't know if I understood everything. You've burst posted in this thread with a lot of articles and stuff. It is hard to keep up.

Umm. I've read all the literature I'm citing. And I don't understand how you missed Dawkins point about genes. I think you need to spend more time diving into the links and literature I'm citing.

It's weird how reality isn't reflecting anything you are saying, yet it is perfectly inline with my explanation of it.

It's also weird how everything you say is in contrast to the creators of this phenomenon who are clearly more educated than you can understand is possible. You've laughed me, called me silly, provided no founded counter argument. And now you have gone back and rehashed what the community is happy and excited that I have already debunked.

Bitcoin is interesting and fun, because it created an immutable recorded of loud mouthed ignorant people and although you will never stop proudly displaying your ignorance and willingness to profess about topics you CLEARLY know nothing about...everyone else in the community can simply note the price.

The price says you are wrong, and we can check back later today. And when the fork of bcc happened we can see the price since, and when the 2x fork happens we will laugh at you more. As with bitcoin gold.

You have no leg to stand on. But feel free to be as loud as you want. I don't think you have another single reasonable person convinced. I deal with people like you all day. You have to justify your existence and lack of effort somehow, and justification is really really easy to do when you choose to remain ignorant of truth and not traverse the associated material.

I am not laughed at in the bitcoin community. Many VERY reputable members, after years of trying to understand me, are admitting I have a very valuable argument.

People like you, always argue, but you will never claim to know what you are talking about. I always ask people like you... Are you claiming to be knowledgeable and well read on this subject? And I already know, you don't claim to be.

You haven't noticed sir, you are professing, but you refuse to claim that you know what you are talking about, and you refuse to claim you are well studied.

Allow me. I KNOW what I am talking about, and I am well studied. And many reputable members of the bitcoin community would back me up on this claim. As will many members of this community as they learn of my argument, regardless if you mean to drown it out with ad hominems and "lol"'s.

Go look at the price dummy, then look at it tomorrow. You are not correct in your sentiments and assertions.

The eye color analogue is effectively about forks. Its not optimal to diversify if you believe btc has the highest probability of convergence.

There are nefarious people pumping BCH and then there are many ignorant people that think raising the transaction capacity is the ultimate value proposition and they are steadily losing their investment equity because of their foolhardiness.

Yes, sorry, im unsympathetic to this. Bitcoin takes time to learn. My argument appears shallow on the surface, but its incredibly deep and tied to Szabo's which is at least equally so.

Bitcoin can't be usurped, and 90% of the population will never understand why.

Great posts noose.

What percent of your net worth are you keeping in Bitcoin? Just asking because of your confidence.

In the end game, I think there's a very good chance bitcoin isn't it. What I like about bitcoin though is the fact that it was the coin before all the coins. Nobody knew it was going to be worth anything, so it was sold and dispersed among many people and has already been through many "crises" or whatever the word is. Therefore, theoretically, there's very little that can happen to bitcoin that can make the price drop massively because we've had massive bad news in the past and bitcoin has weathered it.

It has less people in it looking for a quick buck. All the quick buck buyers are buying "cheaper coins". I think one of the main reasons it's done so well is because it has the lowest inflation, which will possibly change when ETH moves to POS. When that's happens I think we will see the tides turn.

Noose: I've never deleted one of your posts and don't have the power to do so in this subforum.

You're clearly intelligent, well-read, and supremely confident to the point of arrogance about your knowledge. All great attributes in my book. Coincidentally Toothsayer shares these attributes with regards to the subjects with which he's well-apprised. I greatly enjoy reading both your takes on just about any subject.

Why are you so sure that day-to-day price action confirms the intrinsic value of Bitcoin? Wouldn't the explanation that it's a basic speculative bubble be just as or more probable?

What is your reasoning, or what literature can you point to, that explains why Bitcoin can't be outcompeted in its use niches by a superior coin?

Hi Noose,

You make some very interesting points in the thread. I was wondering, however, If you could also spell out the negatives of bitcoin? Are there any? What would be the most likely reason (if at all) for it to fail in the future? do you think there is a realistic possibility of Bitcoin not living up to your expectations of it?

Genuinely interested in your take on this.

whats the probability of this 2x fork coming out on top? futures are going for relatively cheap.

IMO the futures are the estimated odds for that from the market. So around 14%.

auto ignore anything noose and toothsayer say about bitcoin.

1 still recycles **** that isnt relevant anymore from 2012
1 looks at bitcoin through the lens of a tinfoil hat

^fundamentally incorrect and indicative of someone who only has a superficial understanding of bitcoin. Examine every onemoretimes post from 2013-2014 when he was raiding the thread about how it would only take 20m USD to launch a 51% attack, and the US government was manipulating the price of bitcoin in order to yield a higher silk road bitcoin auction price.

just retraded tinfoilism.

Noose is the same i guess, but 2017 version of onemoretimes.

^meaningless and a fundamental misunderstanding of what gives bitcoin value.

dude, you're full of trash.


1/Unequivocally, Bitcoin is not a delfationary asset. Full stop. Its money supply will increase until year 2100. At which point it will have a 0% inflation rate

2/It will never possess a negative inflation rate.

3/the purchasing power of bitcoin is completely determined by the free market of its bid/ask orderbook at any arbitrary moment.



--

Bitcoin is disinflationary

I'm curious just what you think the mods should do? You're a complete random who showed up yesterday in a small subforum and in that time you've made like 50 posts in a bitcoin thread. You've posted multiple links, including to your own articles and twitter.

Now you're seemingly upset that people are questioning and disagreeing with things you've written. Would you like the mods to ban anyone that questions or disagrees with you?

Sorry. I typed the above response before getting to this. Mods, please ban anyone that questions Noose.

ya.

Can you explain the difference for us so you can clearly show why and how I am wrong.

It's not as a valuable if our currencies stabilize.