RE: Are you Shorting Fiat Currency yet?
I don't think it is wise to make correlations of the Fiat world with the crypto world. There are far more complicated dynamics in place. Remember. 3 companies in China control the Bitcoin transactions much like the Fed controls Fiat flow.
They are both centralized as fuck. Either can pop at any moment. It is a gamble which will do it first. The bitshares price is tight to bitcoin. Let's not get ahead of our selves. I know you are saying that that is not an investing advice but darn man. It's like those pharmaceutical commercials that sell you the hype and then in 4 seconds, in super fast speech or small letters, they tell you the warnings.
I don't agree with chart analysis. Sorry. I also think that it makes noobs that want to invest in the crypto world, scared. It becomes all about the money and less about the technology.
All markets have chaotic dynamics. There are only so many ways for human beings to store, transfer, and represent value, so I think a comparison and correlation is warranted here.
I hear this claim often, but do you remember back when one mining farm got close to 51% and the whole bitcoin network started freaking out? In almost no time, the system adjusted and people moved their hashing power, even if that resulted in less rewards. Many in crypto are rational actors motivated by greed (for lack of a more friendly word) who can be trusted to make decisions in their own self-interest. The more bitcoin doesn't deal with scaling and centralization problems, the more they open themselves up to systemic risk and other cryptocurrencies gaining marketshare at a faster rate than bitcoin (we're already seeing this now). Those 3 companies don't control bitcoin in that they can't just create 8 trillion dollars out of nothing over the last 8 years like the Fed did. That's not a good comparison, IMO.
Not sure I agree there. The number of bitcoin holders determines the level of centralization. Miners can only censor transactions or attempt a 51% attack and that's all theoretical at this point. Yes, governance is a problem but BitShares, Steemit, and soon EOS are already solving that problem so bitcoin needs to evolve or die.
To the degree exchanges do everything in BTC pairs. This is also changing as more exchanges offer pairs in ETC or Monero or, like OpenLedger, offer all kinds of pairs including BitShares. Yes, the prices are tied together, but most of that is due to the main onramp of cryptocurrency from fiat still being BTC. I don't think that will be the case for much longer as BTC is just too damned slow and expensive right now. If they screw up too much, others will take their place.
Yes, the "this is not investment advice" is a disclaimer much like the drug companies. I do think those who are looking to invest should be investing into cryptocurrencies and not fiat currency. At the same time, people need to make their own damned decisions and not point to a post of mine as their reasoning. That's why I add those comments (and for any possible legal ramifications not having them might have).
I didn't really make any. I wasn't talking about fib lines or anything, just showing history in graphical form.
The money and the technology go hand in hand. There have been some great tech startups with amazing technology that failed so bad the tech was lost forever. The money matters in order for the technology to actually gain adoption and improve human existence.
I'll just leave this here mate. 1% of bitcoin people control 99% of the wealth. Anybody can check this out. Same exact parallel with the FIAT world. Almost identical.
Is this FUD or has it been adjusted appropriately according to known exchange addresses (which represent many, many people) and/or very early (possibly lost) addresses such as the ~10% Satoshi owns that have never moved?
I imagine with those changes, you'd get closer to the 80/20 principle which (currently) seems to be an emergent pattern in nature and in our species. I don't think that will change (or that it would even be automatically beneficial if it did).
The difference to me (and this is key) is that the fiat world can create new value out of nothing at any time and distribute it directly to cronies with many ways to hide their tracks and avoid audits. Crytpocurrency has to follow the protocol and is completely public. To say it's an exact parallel is not accurate, IMO.
The pareto principle is largely a myth that started from guys like Tim Ferris and later on other motivational speakers. Taleb corrected the assumption and actually argued in Black Swan that is more like 99/1% rather than 80/20. Not gonna get into it, just know that even 80/20 is nothing close to decentralization. No need to push it.
one word. ICOs
do you really want to me to start enumerating the scam coins?
ICOs and scam coins are not representative of the blockchain market share growth over the last 7 years or so which is why I put in my post.
It sounds to me you're saying, "Nope, because it's not perfection so it's just as bad as everything else."
Really?
Yes, corrupt people will continue to do corrupt things and IMO this technology allows that to be more visible then ever (see the outcry over the BAT ICO). Much more so than the FED. It's a huge step in the right direction.
ICOs and new cryptocurrencies still don't "create money out of nothing" they create money out of market action, people buying and selling. If they try to distribute a token at a valuation the market does not respect, the price tanks.
I am saying that there is not such a great divide right now between crypto and fiat. Dan explained how pretty much everything is centralized pretty much - hence EOS. You argued for that as well if i remember correctly.
ok lets talk what happened with BAT or black coin or or or. there is a lot of manipulation. much like the FED.
Who has looked at the FED's books directly? I know we can see what the treasury does with the FED, since the treasury publishes that data, but you can't actually look at the books of the FED and you have to trust the treasury completely.
The blockchain can be analyzed by anyone. That, to me, is a hugely important difference. What you call manipulation may also be an example of flaws outside of the blockchain itself which have not been improved on yet. These aspects are still fragile and have not yet obtained the anti-fragile nature of the blockchain.
Dan says the EOS distribution will be different. I think it will improve on anything we've yet seen based on what he's already innovated. This ecosystem evolves towards solving issues people are not happy with. The FED does not.
Nobody looked at the FED's book man. Nobody lookes at the ico books either. It doesn't matter if it is private or public domain. People aim to make their own gimmick and profit from it.
The blockchain CAN be analyzed but it is rather useless and pointless at the beginning. Also many people do not have any expertise.
You do know that blockchain technologies are currently being implemented by governments all around the world right? Governments and blockchain are not mutually exclusive. I actually think that more and more governments will implement blockchain technologies since what is once in the blockchain, is forever in the blockchain. Perfect way to track anybody really.