I assume what he is saying is that the crypto deniers continue to get poorer and poorer relative to people invested in crypto. That trend has been pretty consistent for almost a decade now.

What he misses is you don't have to be some fanatical crypto believer anymore than you have to be a fanatical believer in Amazon to hold their stock. You just have to be willing to see the opportunity and be willing to take the risk that what is happening in crypto is actually real. So far it has been and if it is a bubble is one of the longest running bubbles of all time with one of the most consistent increases on value if you take out the wild swings.

Do I think it will go up more from here. Probably but I really don't know. The other thing people miss is that those of us in this sphere have made so much money we really don't worry about it as we have been playing with house money for years. I don't need to be some fanatical believer to stay in the crypto world. Even if it goes to zero it has ALREADY been life-changing should that worst case (and very unlikely event) scenario occur.

Robinhood crypto is launching later this month. That should give a boost to the price. It'll probably be a good chance to sell after all that robinhood money enters the market.

I bought in 2012 and didn't sell any until last November at around these prices. I am in a tough position because I feel very strongly that bitcoin is just massively overrated but also feel very strongly that it can keep going up exponentially.

Since it has gone back down to where I sold it at in November, it's a chance to back on the crazy train.

I'm probably just going to target 5% of networth like the rest of you sociopaths. House money or whatever lie we are telling ourselves.

It's relevant to point out that Nick Szabo stated he is not Satoshi. And Nathaniel Popper said Szabo's peers say he is not one to lie. Szabo and Finney however do have many years studying the problem of an apolitical e-currency. They both have a large works on the subjects, I have traversed most of each them, and I suggest anyone interested in the subject to do the same.

In his essay Money, blockchains, and social scalability Szabo makes an astute and significant point about what others would call bitcoin's limitation in regard to scaling:

Szabo doesn't seem to be talking about himself and few would understand the brilliance. In face we can see this in this an other communities that think bitcoin's limitation is that it doesn't scale. That is the crux of the solution. While Szabo and Finney and others spent years trying to solve an inflation targetable e-currency that scales as such, Satoshi's implementation is a backwards like realization that you CAN'T scale and in fact you could be the whole system on the reliability of this observation.

That naivety is yours. But your reason is worthy of a meme:



Yes. So in a scenario where bitcoin's market cap begins to encroach on gold (ie trillions) and central banks hold emergency meetings because they are losing their high value customers en mass, they will realize they have one special option. They could change their value targeting metric to be inline with the respective price of bitcoin.

Since bitcoin's value has a lot to do with speculation that national fiat currencies will be comparatively inflationary with respect to bitcoin. If each nation (in loose coalition) printed money to be on par with the value trend of bitcoin, this would quell the intensity of its deflationary nature.

In this scenario you would see and asymptotic trend of perfectly stability.

If banks refuse to do this, they will lose their customers and becomes obsolete.

It is a religion. The vast majority of people aren't libertarian, so why do you think they will become as entranced as you are about a libertarian currency?

Nick Szabo is intelligent but he fails to persuade. He is clearly a man who lives in the tightly knit and comfortable world of theory.

If anything this little experiment proves beyond a doubt that bitcoiners are as greedy, unethical, and selfish as the bankers their beloved currency was designed to get rid of. The irony is beautiful.

Satoshi nor Szabo Nor Finney nor Nash believed bitcoin would get rid of banks, that narrative is a myth created by early adopters touting their own beliefs not based on economic theory. You have your own narrative doordonot, based on things that are not facts and so you can have your theory too.

Similar to how societies historically have enacted change, the general population has little to do with actually forcing the change, but instead simply adapt to it.

Nonsense. Szabos blog is full of libertarian propaganda, and the developers alluded to creating this as a way of getting rid of the banks. The entire motivation for finishing it was the 2008 financial crisis. Bitcoin cannot be divorced from its political inspirations, and in fact has largely failed as a currency because of them. Political theorists have always predicted that libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism would lead to the formation of concentrations of hierarchical power----exactly what has happened in bitcoin. The core devs make all the decision. A few mining pools control all the hashing power. Roger Ver and his ilk have forked off.

I'm just wondering when these cryptos are going to start attacking each other lol. I think it must be inevitable.

You see, there are many many problems with this besides technical ones that the bulls neglect to mention, for obvious reasons. Perhaps you should start reading about them.

Bottom for now is in and ETH going to new ATH's buyyyyyyyyyy mofos

I can't find a citation and I am usually very good at it with these men because I am VERY familiar with their works. If you need it, it will come to me. Szabo explains the significance of institutions is that they are not designed by fore planning, instead they arise and evolve over time. This means we shouldn't want to wipe them out because they are very intrinsically valuable for that reason. He basically references hayek for these sentiments.

Finney is well known for his quote which I can find if want, that says there will be bitcoin banks and some will even run as a fractional reserves and this is a good thing. << I know for fact Szabo also endorses this view.

Nash said an international ecurrency with a stable supply would usurp control from central banks forcing them to creating stable money.

It is not to destroy them, but to ideal them, and yes 2008 is relevant.

Satoshi gave no such opinions, we was most apolitical as he was just a shell account.

the rest is the narrative of the other earlier adopters and as bitcoin gets used by higher and higher value players the narrative for its purpose will change no matter how much roger ver and Andreas A rant.

Yes most bitcoiners think bitcoin will destroy banks, those bitcoiners don't even know what banks are for or how they work. Ignorance doesn't lead technological change.

bulltrap

Why are we pretending we know who Satoshi Nakamoto is? We can speculate, but we can't know for sure. DoOrDoNot, you say it is Nick Szabo as if you are certain.

Noose, if I recall correctly you were a strong advocator of Nick Szabo being Satoshi. What changed?


I used WayBackTimeMachine a while back on bitcoin.org website to see what information I could pick up. There were 3 names listed as people that helped inspire Satoshi's work. Nick Szabo was one of the people but so were two others. I forgot what their names are, but it isn't hard to find out if you want to.

P.S. Bitcoin is at $8,259 and rising. Perhaps this godawful bear run is finally over and Bitcoin can get back on track to greatness in price.

You're ignorant. Bitcoin/ cryptos will bring the current banking model to its knees (if it succeeds of course). Like most businesses that stick around long enough, they eventually go off track from their mission of providing a needed service to ****ing over anyone and everyone for short term profits.

Knowing what banks are for and how they work in theory, or what the college text books tell you how the should work are almost the opposite of how they operate in real life.

Because there is money to be made. It has nothing to do with belief in anything else.

Was poker a religion? To make an account and learn how to play and beat the droolers 15 years ago did it mean you had to believe that poker was the answer to the world's problems? Of course not...

This is just another moronic line of argument you are making that sees crypto how you want it to be rather than how it actually is. Ironically the person with the most fanciful beliefs that diverge the most into religious type beliefs appears to be you. You want crypto to fail so hard you are willing to completely ignore reality.

Here's the post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?to...34211#msg34211

When I fell into the rabbit hole into researching this ****, reading that post opened up a world of possibilities that I had not previously thought of, and was instrumental into changing my analysis from "muh ponzi scheme" to this tech has real-world potential that dwarts its utility for illegal activity.

Lower lows and lower highs may not be favorable trends over the intermediate term.

what changed since November that you now want to own it at those same prices when in November you wanted to sell?

@zenzo Cheers

No, you might have heard me say Szabo is widely believed to be the number one candidate. Who were the other 2 you found?

You have used this word wrong:
Yes bitcoin's community is full of people with the same sentiments as you. But you don't know that economic theory is built on logic and is not hand waveable.

Banks aren't evil, they are useful, that is why they exist. Bitcoin was created to idealize them, not to destroy that. And as I said, this is inline with Szabo, finney, Nash. Satoshi never gave his ideology opinion.



Also Szabo:

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/statu...92284036145152
"Bitcoin .. needs .. a secondary level of payment[s] which is lighter weight." -- Hal Finney 2010
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?to...34211#msg34211 …
ht @rextar4444

Nick Szabo ⚡️
‏
@NickSzabo4
28 Mar 2017
More
Hal Finney & I etc. envisioned (smaller & less co-dependent) "banks", but we have better peripheral n/w protocols now.

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/statu...19088731037696

that ht is a reference to me btw.

Finney's quote reference George Selgin who's works I am also very familiar with. And selgin also doesn't believe banks are evil and should be destroyed.

Do you think Hal would have viewed the myriad of altcoins as Bitcoin-backed banks? Or have Bitcoin-backed banks not arisen yet?

I didn't misuse the word. You are uneducated and unaware of banking practices in real life and are only looking at the way it's supposed to operate in theory. They are very different things.

This is one of the underlying issues with America. Overwhelming majority ignore real life application and base their arguments off of theory. Not just banking... I'm talking about it all, healthcare, insurance, educating, penal system, military etc etc. There is a severe disconnect between between what systems are supposed to do and what they actually do. Capitalism is mainly to blame.

Exchanges seems closer to bitcoin bank than any alt coin when i read the post.

I didn't misuse the word. You are uneducated and unaware of banking practices in real life and are only looking at the way it's supposed to operate in theory. They are very different things.

This is one of the underlying issues with America. Overwhelming majority ignore real life application and base their arguments off of theory. Not just banking... I'm talking about it all, healthcare, insurance, education, penal system, military etc etc. There is a severe disconnect between between what systems are supposed to do and what they actually do. Capitalism is mainly to blame.

It's actually really weird, because if people actually learned to think for themselves instead of blindly believing whatever bs they're fed, we wouldn't have such massive problems as we do today

Exchanges are already providing alternative trading pairs to Bitcoin due to fees, congestion, etc. Security is the unassailable competitive advantage of Bitcoin in the arena of crypto-backed financial institutions, and none can surpass Bitcoin for as long as it remains the most worked immutable ledger.

That is my understanding of it anyway. Maybe Noose can clarify

How will consumer loans work in the Bitcoin future?

You are also using this word wrong:

Listen. I have read Szabo's works, Nash's works, Smiths' works, Hayek's words, much Mises and Rothbard, Finney's works, Selgin's works in regard to economics and (free banking theory). I have also written extensively on the subject.

You are spouting sentiments and pretending that learning from these people makes you dumb and that your petty observation, which is really fearing what you don't understand and your truly uneducated ignorance is actually not petty uneducated ignorance. You don't know what you are talking about. You don't know anything about this subject or these people works and that is why you have come to your uneducated and ignorant OPINION.

None of the people that created bitcoin thinks it will kill banks. Only those that don't understand what banks are for and why and how they arose think this. You can't just hand wave science and academia and years of studies and evolution of institution with the assumption that you understand bitcoin and banks better than the respective domain experts.

It might make sense to you, and you can pat yourself on the back all you want, but no reasonable person would accept your feelings over domain experts.