SURVEY: Cryptocurrency--would you invest?

[Hummin]

46 minutes ago, phycokiller said:

 

didnt crypto fail already, many times actually, but most recently in December when the biggest bubble in history popped? seems the majority decided to hold and the price is sill up almost 10x what it was a year ago. I didnt notice the price of silver or gold go up as people moved there. Im not sure what the failure you are hoping for is?

Im not hoping for failure, but I keep my values in what I know will survive, and then if the rest fails, then, hopefully it will be the last real value that matters, and Im safe. Thats all Im asking for. The rest of you can gamble and play stocks and cryptocoins as much you want, but if gold should for some reason have a peak, it would be ok for me. 

[phycokiller]

2 hours ago, Hummin said:

 

the reason it has value is because, one can only assume, its actually used for quite a lot more then speculating, the silk road closure only publicized the underground markets and they are booming a far as I know, multi millions a day Im sure, also I know people are using it to send money from their home countries to Thailand etc because it quicker and cheaper, and there are many legitimate businesses that accept it and no doubt doing some business. this is why whenever the bubble bursts it eventually mets a support. if it was pure speculation it would be long gone

 

thats just my personal take on bitcoins survival and growth. the other coins, yes pure speculation that I wouldnt want to own, but certainly worth watching

[Craig krup]

On 29/04/2018 at 1:45 AM, bearpolar said:

You can't make an idiot understand simple facts, just let him believe that his saved pennies that are losing value due to massive inflation are the future and that in 30 years we'll all be back on type writers and using an abacus instead of calculators.

 

You'd go crazy like him if you were old and after slaving away your entire life for a subpar retirement and then saw tons of guys under 30 already retired because of virtual currencies.

 

Whatever you think you can find to change his mind, he'll find THE article that says the opposite.. just like flat earthers and climate change deniers.

So explain to the idiot, and all the others, how so many lost everything? If the unique feature is a distributed ledger of some sort - blockcnain - then you rely on others, correct? If it isn't a distributed ledger the McGuffin is completely absent, and you throw away even that fig leaf of sense. 

 

It's all nonsense. Bitcoin could be worth $10m a coin, or zero, as could a tulip. But reason tells you that the correct value is zero, so it's just the greater fool game, with each of you certain that you aren't the fool. 

 

One of you must be. 

[Craig krup]

23 hours ago, phycokiller said:

the reason it has value is because, one can only assume, its actually used for quite a lot more then speculating,

 

Why assume that? Why not assume that there's little usage, it's not built for usage, much cheaper and better alternatives exist and it's a bubble? Why not assume this? You've more evidence for that view of the facts than for the claim that present value is supported by acceptability and genuine use. So why "assume" that it's used for more than speculating? 

 

The answer to this rhetorical question? Because you have to assume that if you want to believe it isn't a vast exercise in human credulity. 

[Craig krup]

On 29/04/2018 at 1:45 AM, bearpolar said:

You'd go crazy like him if you were old and after slaving away your entire life for a subpar retirement and then saw tons of guys under 30 already retired because of virtual currencies.

You earn it, someone gifts it, you steal it, you gamble, you're paid to wait and/or accept volatility. 

 

Earn - Work. Arbitrage is a kind of work. Seeing the value of an old table if you move it from the car boot sale to a shop is work. It's useful activity. Crypto speculators could claim that they "see" such value. Whether anyone would agree with them is a separate issue. 

 

Gift - Granny dies and you're in the will. 

 

Stealing - We'll include fraud in this definition. 

 

Gambling - The only "gain" is for the casino or Phil Silvers. All other players are simply moving money amongst themselves. In pure bookmaking - where the bookie doesn't take a position - on horse racing and the like you can make money by knowing more than the pool of punters. If the bookie takes a position you can make money if you know more than them, but that's less likely. 

 

You're paid to wait - Share prices are volatile, and people like to consume now rather than later, so if you'll accept volatility the world might reward that, as it will if you consume later when you could consume now. 

 

Young guys retiring?!!! Largely fantasists, illegally living in countries where the real sums earned by them will go alittle further. My unearned income right now is $35,000. It jumps by another $20,000 in 2025 and by another $11,500 in 2032 (if I live). 

 

Get rich slowly. Save hard. Invest wisely. Avoid idiocy. 

[phycokiller]

19 minutes ago, Craig krup said:

 

Why assume that? Why not assume that there's little usage, it's not built for usage, much cheaper and better alternatives exist and it's a bubble? Why not assume this? You've more evidence for that view of the facts than for the claim that present value is supported by acceptability and genuine use. So why "assume" that it's used for more than speculating? 

 

The answer to this rhetorical question? Because you have to assume that if you want to believe it isn't a vast exercise in human credulity. 

I answered that already, theres no other explanation for the price holding, if it was speculation as you like to think it would have gone the way of the poppies at the first bubble burst, instead it keeps growing. the only thing that can explain the price holding is that it is used, as as i said, the drug industry alone is millions a day, its an accepted currenciy in Japan, switziland , singapore etc and US states are working to allow taxes to be paid with btc. but of course it could be that our reptilian overloads are pumping billions in to this just to fool us all

[Craig krup]

29 minutes ago, phycokiller said:

I answered that already, theres no other explanation for the price holding, if it was speculation as you like to think it would have gone the way of the poppies at the first bubble burst, instead it keeps growing. the only thing that can explain the price holding is that it is used, as as i said, the drug industry alone is millions a day, its an accepted currenciy in Japan, switziland , singapore etc and US states are working to allow taxes to be paid with btc. but of course it could be that our reptilian overloads are pumping billions in to this just to fool us all

 

Your argument is, 1) we pretty much know that some people are using it, 2) we know that bubbles burst once and for all, and therefore 3) the only reason for growth is genuine usage. 

 

Would you sign up for that argument laid out as it is? Is premise "2" true? Isn't it the case that bubbles typically involve huge reversals and seeming recoveries? Didn't Isaac Newton sell out of the South Sea bubble, thinking it had to be collective madness, only to buy back in a month later when prices had risen again, and he was then wiped out? Aren't all bubbles characterised by volatile charts? Isn't it that which sucks folk in - "If I'd bought there and sold there I'd be rich!" How do you know that (given liquidity and everything else) present prices need genuine usage to maintain them, rather than speculation? How many "coins" are on offer? What's the propensity to sell? How many genuine users are there? What's the propensity among speculators to buy? 

 

I remember listening to the shysters who had caused the split capital investment trust scandal giving evidence to the House of Commons. Weeks went by, and none of those involved could see the key question - "How could the holders of the zero dividend preference shares possibly benefit from the new bank borrowing which was taken on?" The couldn't see it. They had no feel for finance. That was another example of prices being ramped-up by willing buyers and few sellers, and it all went royally pear-shaped. 

 

 

[Craig krup]

Incidentally, BBC's "Click" had a show from Iceland this weekend showing us the economics of Bitcoin. Server farms in Iceland, using cheap electricity to fuel banks of bog-standard PCs, blowing freezing near-Arctic air over them to cool them, and a lesson in basic economics at the end of it. Leaving aside the question of whether any of this makes any kind of fundamental sense - whether the "currency" will ever be usable - you need a high price for the "coins" just to cover most folk's cost of electricity. 

 

And then we get back to the fundamental question. If 1217657565876987655343256876765878768765654547698768543656556436575645 is a genuine Bitcoin - the number has the requisite properties - why, for the purpose of facilitating transactions, is the number 325 inferior? If Craig krup owns 325 - if the relevant "world" says I own it, why is 325 inferior to 1217657565876987655343256876765878768765654547698768543656556436575645? There are 20 million whole numbers to 20,000,000, so why are any of them inferior to the set of 20 million produced by pissing away all this electricity, and then a mutual agreement that the difficulty involved in creating this set somehow implies that the members of the set have exchange value? 

 

We know the dollar has exchange value because there's a massive store - called "the USA" - where stuff is vended in dollars, and a Federal Reserve which ensures that the price of stuff doesn't rise too fast. So dollars can be repatriated - with enough of them you can look at a central New York apartment, or with one you can look at McDonald's menu: the cheesburger and the McChicken look like remarkable value. So my dollar is backed with a bun and a patty of minced something - "The Golden Arches, Daisy, they got me!!, as Gary Larson might say. Where do you repatriate 1217657565876987655343256876765878768765654547698768543656556436575645 when all the bullshit stops? 

[seancbk]

Some of you need to watch this 
 

 

[Craig krup]

So - Sean's clip - all this really is....

 

1) a collective agreement about who owns and when a valid transfer has taken place, and 

2) a mechanism to achieve an initial allocation through pissing away electricity? 

 

That's it. That's what all this amounts to. Jesus wept. 

[Acemaker]

On 4/22/2018 at 11:22 AM, Inepto Cracy said:

I did, at the end of last year as a gamble.

I made a lot of money back , when I got cold feet and the price had risen substantially, I called it quits.

I now have money I did not have before.

Would I ever do it again, I don't think so.

I was lucky but you could loose everything in a matter of minutes, not even days.

Dont miss this, last chance ends 6 p.m. EST Tomorrow May 2nd.

 

https://karatbank.io/?ref=2470&sub=my_campaign

[Acemaker]

On 4/28/2018 at 8:41 PM, Hummin said:

As long you know it is gambling, I respect that, and as you say, we never know tomorow, that is what i have to consider as well as everyone else. Spread risk is my idea, but of course no fantasy return, but Im in for long term, and have what I need. 

Dont miss this genuinely Gold backed, Last chance ends tomorrow, May 2nd at 6p.m. EST.

 

https://karatbank.io/?ref=2470&sub=my_campaign

[bartender100]

I took my original stake out of cryptos i own a long time ago, and taken profit along the way. Made way more that I ever did on the stock markets, and i did well on them over the last 35 years

 

As with many things, its all about timing

 

I still believe there is a long way to go, percentage of people in the world owning and trading them is very low, but growing daily as the coins are adapted by the big online players like Amazon, soon your credit and debit cards will be using the technology 

 

https://cryptobriefing.com/how-amazon-cryptocurrency-will-change-the-world/

 

I think some of the posters on this thread are still using VHS and tape cassettes maybe, were the last to get mobiles, and join Facebook

[Craig krup]

6 minutes ago, bartender100 said:

soon your credit and debit cards will be using the technology 

Okay, so if the technology is a benefit, and can't be patented, and the massive existing providers can adopt it, this is a positive for cryptos how, exactly? 

[ukrules]

18 minutes ago, Craig krup said:

Okay, so if the technology is a benefit, and can't be patented, and the massive existing providers can adopt it, this is a positive for cryptos how, exactly? 

Sounds like Luddite talk to me.

[Craig krup]

1 hour ago, ukrules said:

Sounds like Luddite talk to me.

In what way? Ned Ludd thought the machines could take his job. Craig krup things the Amazonian second mouse is the one which - were there cheese - would get the cheese. 

 

So Craig thinks, 1) this is b*llocks, and obviously so, and 2) if it wasn't others would do it better, and make your present half-assed effort valueless.

 

It's a bit like the Dragon's Den on the BBC. Somebody comes along with the idea of replicating Rachel's pudding from Friends - custard, jam and meat - which only Joey could eat. The Dragon looks at the "entrepreneur" and says, "This is nonsense, and if it isn't nonsense then you, me and your mum's oven won't be able to take on Allied Bakeries". 

 

History does not record Ned Ludd engaging in this level of sub-Buffett thought.  

[bearpolar]

why are you still replying to  craig?

 

He's an university teacher(so someone that has no other ability other than adding 25,000 words to make a point that should take 30 words) living in the UK, wishing he could have money to live full time in Thailand.. He's just completely bored, alone trying to find people to disagree with.

 

adding him to the ignore function works perfectly.

[Hummin]

9 hours ago, bartender100 said:

 

I think some of the posters on this thread are still using VHS and tape cassettes maybe, were the last to get mobiles, and join Facebook

Im still in the internet cafe dude, no f...ing cellphone here. 

 

Well, I have tried to find the morality of bitcoins, and there is many views, and articles, and questions to ask about the moral concerning bitcoins. Those who advocating bitcoins laudly, seems to have no whatever issues about that. I wonder if they ever asked themselves question about is this right or wrong? Seems quite greedy to me, and at the same time use laughing about those who is scepticle about bitcoins . 

 

This one is fear enough straight forward, and ofcourse from Forbes. Hard to find any other trustworthy link to present except this one. 

 

"On the contrary – the only reason Bitcoin has value to anyone is because of the underlying value as a medium of exchange for lawbreakers. If we could flip a switch and eliminate all illegal uses of Bitcoin, there would be nothing left of the cybercurrency."

 

Blood diamond of the digital era!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbloomberg/2017/03/28/bitcoin-blood-diamonds-of-the-digital-era/#493f4664492a

[phycokiller]

37 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Im still in the internet cafe dude, no f...ing cellphone here. 

 

Well, I have tried to find the morality of bitcoins, and there is many views, and articles, and questions to ask about the moral concerning bitcoins. Those who advocating bitcoins laudly, seems to have no whatever issues about that. I wonder if they ever asked themselves question about is this right or wrong? Seems quite greedy to me, and at the same time use laughing about those who is scepticle about bitcoins . 

 

This one is fear enough straight forward, and ofcourse from Forbes. Hard to find any other trustworthy link to present except this one. 

 

"On the contrary – the only reason Bitcoin has value to anyone is because of the underlying value as a medium of exchange for lawbreakers. If we could flip a switch and eliminate all illegal uses of Bitcoin, there would be nothing left of the cybercurrency."

 

Blood diamond of the digital era!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbloomberg/2017/03/28/bitcoin-blood-diamonds-of-the-digital-era/#493f4664492a

thats not necessarily a bad thing, many laws are so a small group of people can maintain monopolies to the disadvantage of the general population. If cryptos allow people to break those laws thats a good thing in my view

[seancbk]

12 hours ago, Craig krup said:

13 hours ago, bartender100 said:

soon your credit and debit cards will be using the technology 

Okay, so if the technology is a benefit, and can't be patented, and the massive existing providers can adopt it, this is a positive for cryptos how, exactly?

 

Because every blockchain uses a token and every token can be traded on the open market.   A good example of this is Ripple.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripple_(payment_protocol)

[Craig krup]

7 hours ago, bearpolar said:

why are you still replying to  craig?

 

1) He's an university teacher(2) so someone that has no other ability other than adding 25,000 words to make a point that should take 30 words) living in the UK, 3) wishing he could have money to live full time in Thailand.. 4) He's just completely bored, alone trying to find people to disagree with.

1) He's a college lecturer: FE; the trenches. He does, though, have a PhD, some articles, and some of the stuff he tries to teach is supposedly higher education. 2) That looks like an entire economy bag of McCain's on the shoulder. 3) As I've said, and it's not a boast, I get about £26,000 in dividends every year. I've been a very frugal Dougal. ISA, my live in partner, keeps me very well. I have made money my god, and she has rewarded my worship. 4) I'm a "Maven". A colleague passed this description on to me. It's a particular personality type. The can't stand to see someone else not aware of a bargain, opportunity or fact that could save them. 

 

But yes, you should ignore me. It's a bit like the radar at Pearl Harbor. Opinions differed. Some said it had its uses, you're sure that turning it off has the greatest advantage of all: the cessation of that annoying pinging sound. 

 

John Stuart Mill, in "On Liberty" famously said the following. "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on[Pg 31] many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."

 

But you've not read Mill, have you? Still, ignore "silences" me not. It just means you get silence, and that's your right. Eating what you've got on the end of your fork, when all this ends, is - though - your obligation. 

 

 

7 hours ago, bearpolar said:

 

 

[Craig krup]

2 hours ago, seancbk said:

 

Because every blockchain uses a token and every token can be traded on the open market.   A good example of this is Ripple.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripple_(payment_protocol)

You've royally missed my point. I said, "Okay, so if the technology is a benefit, and can't be patented, and the massive existing providers can adopt it, this is a positive for cryptos how, exactly?"

 

Allow me to parse that so that no doubt is possible. There are no barriers to entry! In the unlikely event that any of this made any sense, was workable, took off, whatever, then the established and well-funded companies (Amazon, for example) could do it better in a New York minute. 

[phycokiller]

1 hour ago, Craig krup said:

You've royally missed my point. I said, "Okay, so if the technology is a benefit, and can't be patented, and the massive existing providers can adopt it, this is a positive for cryptos how, exactly?"

 

Allow me to parse that so that no doubt is possible. There are no barriers to entry! In the unlikely event that any of this made any sense, was workable, took off, whatever, then the established and well-funded companies (Amazon, for example) could do it better in a New York minute. 

why would they want to do that?

 

why would microsoft, one of the worlds largest companies that employs thousands of the worlds top programmers choose to accept bitcoin rather then do it better? why is paypal looking at ways to accept bitcoin rather then do it better?

Edited May 2, 2018 by phycokiller

[seancbk]

59 minutes ago, Craig krup said:

3 hours ago, seancbk said:

 

Because every blockchain uses a token and every token can be traded on the open market.   A good example of this is Ripple.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripple_(payment_protocol)

You've royally missed my point. I said, "Okay, so if the technology is a benefit, and can't be patented, and the massive existing providers can adopt it, this is a positive for cryptos how, exactly?"

 

Allow me to parse that so that no doubt is possible. There are no barriers to entry! In the unlikely event that any of this made any sense, was workable, took off, whatever, then the established and well-funded companies (Amazon, for example) could do it better in a New York minute. 

 

 

And you miss the point. 

When Amazon do it (and they have already started testing options) then their 'Amazon token' that is used to handle the transactions and verify their blockchain, will in all likelihood (I'd say 100%) be traded on the open market.   

As the whole cryptosphere matures the barriers to entry will begin to increase, in the same way they did with the Internet.    Success in almost every part of the internet is now only possible with huge investment, the number of one man ecommerce operations that will go on to become billion $ businesses, or media based content sites that will attract millions of $ of advertising is now nil.  

Eventually new crypto currencies and new crypto platforms will no longer be able to get any traction against the established players.   There may be some new verticals where a new idea might have a chance, but they'll be very few.   

[Craig krup]

1 minute ago, seancbk said:

When Amazon do it (and they have already started testing options) then their 'Amazon token' that is used to handle the transactions and verify their blockchain, will in all likelihood (I'd say 100%) be traded on the open market.   

Right.

1) So the new - the immediate, near-term, Amazonian new - will be better than the present. 

2) That "present" includes almost all currencies other than Bitcoin, and probably involves Bitcoin too. 

3) So almost everything presently owned and speculatively traded will become worthless at some point. 

 

I was thinking about this last night. Amazon could back a coin with its own assets. Hand over $100 and we'll give you AC100 - one hundred Amazon coins. We promise to pay $100 for AC100 minus a dollar for the hassle and a 10 day wait. That discourages redemptions, but gives security. Firms, including Amazon, will let you pay with AC. It "clears" through blockchain technology, if you think that makes a difference. 

 

What possible advantage does this palaver create? Well, it means that you can buy things without anyone knowing. They can only know you bought the AC. If states will tolerate that, fine. But any supposed advantage of exchange through non-state tokens, and anonymized, could be done by a credible non-state actor. 

 

Now two possible futures exist. 1) States allow this, in which case new entrants wipe out the present nonsense. 2) States don't allow this, and so the crypto currencies never become established at all. 

 

Either the sector is Amazons, or it isn't a sector at all. Either way you lose. 

[Craig krup]

21 minutes ago, phycokiller said:

why would they want to do that?

 

why would microsoft, one of the worlds largest companies that employs thousands of the worlds top programmers choose to accept bitcoin rather then do it better? why is paypal looking at ways to accept bitcoin rather then do it better?

I don't understand your question. Your first rhetorical question implies that that Microsoft won't accept Bitcoin, while the second implies that Paypal will. 

 

Presumably you mean that I'm wrong in thinking both could do better than Bitcoin and the rest. You think it's a "fact" that they've set in train the process of accepting Bitcoin for payment, and - implicitly - they've ruled out creating an alternative. I know of no such "facts". Microsoft sell sotware. So long as they can hedge at low cost whatever you pain in they couldn't give a monkey's whether you pay in Argentine Pesos, Bitcoin, or - indeed - monkeys. 

 

It's this fundamental lack of business sense that gets on my pectorals. If Bitcoin was up and running, routinely used to facilitate trade, who would have a financial interest in maintaining the system: at the most basic level, paying for the electricity to record the distributed ledger?

 

It's all balls. If the fundamental idea makes sense it can't be patented and can be done better by the well-financed. So it's a medium term wipe-out as a proposition. Which fool or fools holds the baby, however, has yet to be determined. It could go to $1m before it's the first story on the news. The housing market went a long way before the fundamentals played out. The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. 

 

[I've got a dividend arriving on the 18th May . Murray International Investment Trust. Managed by a dour Scot, Bruce Stout. I bet he doesn't "understand" Bitcoin].  

[seancbk]

2 minutes ago, Craig krup said:

14 minutes ago, seancbk said:

When Amazon do it (and they have already started testing options) then their 'Amazon token' that is used to handle the transactions and verify their blockchain, will in all likelihood (I'd say 100%) be traded on the open market.   

Right.

1) So the new - the immediate, near-term, Amazonian new - will be better than the present. 

2) That "present" includes almost all currencies other than Bitcoin, and probably involves Bitcoin too. 

3) So almost everything presently owned and speculatively traded will become worthless at some point. 

 

I was thinking about this last night. Amazon could back a coin with its own assets. Hand over $100 and we'll give you AC100 - one hundred Amazon coins. We promise to pay $100 for AC100 minus a dollar for the hassle and a 10 day wait. That discourages redemptions, but gives security. Firms, including Amazon, will let you pay with AC. It "clears" through blockchain technology, if you think that makes a difference. 

 

What possible advantage does this palaver create? Well, it means that you can buy things without anyone knowing. They can only know you bought the AC. If states will tolerate that, fine. But any supposed advantage of exchange through non-state tokens, and anonymized, could be done by a credible non-state actor. 

 

Now two possible futures exist. 1) States allow this, in which case new entrants wipe out the present nonsense. 2) States don't allow this, and so the crypto currencies never become established at all. 

 

Either the sector is Amazons, or it isn't a sector at all. Either way you lose. 

Where are you getting this completely misguided understanding from?

1)  An Amazon token would be used internally on their own network by Amazon and their suppliers/vendors.    It is possible that customers may get minor discounts if using the token as a currency within the Amazon ecosystem, it will depend on how much using the blockchain and it's token will save Amazon in administrative costs and therefore how much they can pass onto customers using it as a currency on their site.   

Amazon-coin and their blockchain doesn't take over any other blockchain or currency/token.   

2) That 'Present' carries on.  

3) Why?  


You have some major misunderstandings of the whole crypto token/currency and blockchain ecosystem.    

[Craig krup]

12 minutes ago, seancbk said:

1)  An Amazon token would be used internally on their own network by Amazon and their suppliers/vendors. 

 

2) It is possible that customers may get minor discounts if using the token as a currency within the Amazon ecosystem

 

3) It will depend on how much using the blockchain and it's token will save Amazon in administrative costs and therefore how much they can pass onto customers using it as a currency on their site.   
 

 

You've got a bee in your bonnet about Amazon's supply chain. I wish I'd never mentioned Amazon. Take Google. Could Google create a crypto instantly if 1) there was any reason to do so, 2) the technology (blockchain) was relevant and meaningful and 3) states allowed it? 

 

Could they? Suppose there was a commercial advantage. Suppose someone saw a reason. Suppose there was a demand for non-fiat currencies. Suppose something like seigniorage existed: the supplier of the money could actually make something. 

 

Why on Earth wouldn't they? 

Why on Earth wouldn't people trust this provider, who might well back their currency in interesting ways, and wouldn't have the legacy of all the fraud and other nonsense surrounding cryptos? 

 

Try for a moment to abandon your "Amazon could use blockchain for...." fixation and address the issue. Cryptos are supposed to be currencies. They'll be used to buy and sell. They have 1) distributed ledgers, 2) no inherent value and 3) anonymity. 

 

Advantage "1" could be replicated, and appeals to people with tin foil in their hats more than the general population. 

Advantage "2" is no advantage. I'd rather have a Hong Kong dollar backed one-to-one by the US dollar than one without.

Advantage "3" is one that'll either be given to all providers, or none. States will tolerate it, or they won't. Law enforcement is awfully good at terrifying the crap out of people - witness Silk Road. So if anonymity is tolerated I'll be paying for my porn - or whatever - with Goocoins. 

 

It's all balls. Think it through. 

[seancbk]

1 minute ago, Craig krup said:

 

You've got a bee in your bonnet about Amazon's supply chain. I wish I'd never mentioned Amazon. Take Google. Could Google create a crypto instantly if 1) there was any reason to do so, 2) the technology (blockchain) was relevant and meaningful and 3) states allowed it? 

 

Could they? Suppose there was a commercial advantage. Suppose someone saw a reason. Suppose there was a demand for non-fiat currencies. Suppose something like seigniorage existed: the supplier of the money could actually make something. 

 

Why on Earth wouldn't they? 

Why on Earth wouldn't people trust this provider, who might well back their currency in interesting ways, and wouldn't have the legacy of all the fraud and other nonsense surrounding cryptos? 

 

Try for a moment to abandon your "Amazon could use blockchain for...." fixation and address the issue. Cryptos are supposed to be currencies. They'll be used to buy and sell. They have 1) distributed ledgers, 2) no inherent value and 3) anonymity. 

 

Advantage "1" could be replicated, and appeals to people with tin foil in their hats more than the general population. 

Advantage "2" is no advantage. I'd rather have a Hong Kong dollar backed one-to-one by the US dollar than one without.

Advantage "3" is one that'll either be given to all providers, or none. States will tolerate it, or they won't. Law enforcement is awfully good at terrifying the crap out of people - witness Silk Road. So if anonymity is tolerated I'll be paying for my porn - or whatever - with Goocoins. 

 

It's all balls. Think it through. 

 

Not all cryptos are currencies.   That is your first misconception.    A lot of people get confused because they've heard the term cryptocurrency.    Some blockchain tokens (Bitcoin being the obvious) are purely currencies, that is what BTC was created to be.   But many tokens are not currencies, hence the name token.   

It doesn't matter if it's Amazon, Google, Visa or any other entity.    Them creating their own blockchain has near zero impact on the other tokens.   The only impact it might have is in a particular industry vertical, if their new project introduces some tangible benefit (more features) that causes people to switch from a competing platform within that vertical.

To take the explanation of verticals further Ripple is currently the leading financial services blockchain platform.  They have a marketcap of US$ 81.6 billion, with US$ 624 million in trading volume over the past 24 hours.   (Suggest you read more here - https://bravenewcoin.com/news/ripple-price-analysis-ripple-continues-to-collect-banking-partnerships/?utm_source=BNC+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b450dffac9-Crypto+Asset+Review%2C+21st+Mar+2018&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_83439a8472-b450dffac9-245199457 )

Anyone within the financial vertical would now be considering whether the effort to build their own platform is worth it, or whether to join Ripple's platform (clue:  Many are joining see the link I posted).

You seem to think that creating a new blockchain platform is easy, when in fact it takes large teams of programmers and crypto(graphic) scientists to achieve something like the Ripple network.  

 

[seancbk]

16 minutes ago, Craig krup said:

Cryptos are supposed to be currencies. They'll be used to buy and sell. They have 1) distributed ledgers, 2) no inherent value and 3) anonymity. 

 

 

They are not all currencies.

Yes they do all have distributed ledgers. 

I'm not going to argue the value proposition as you either see it or you don't.

They are not all anonymous nor do they need to be.