Bradford City Possible takeover ( + lots of associated crypto discussion)

kentaddick

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

All of those things require a fee Seth, it’s just already incorporated into the price. 

WSS said:

Crypto value can be tanked by a megalomaniac sending a 7-word tweet...

Absolutely, which is why I’ve not ‘invested’ but I do see the obvious uses and benefits in the future. 

I am sure that to run a bank or credit card company or print and distribute money costs something. However isn’t it the case that banks take customers savings and make money from that whilst they have it, but because of scale can make enough to run the bank?
If I buy the mythical cauliflower with Sterling are you saying I will get a discount on it if I buy with Sethcoins that I dream up?
My point that currency is eventually related to productivity is what needs to also be addressed. Otherwise a dreamed up currency is very similar (but worse!) to a currency based on Tulips.

You realise there are literally tens of thousands of projects and dApps that run on the ethereum network, as well as NFTs? So it is productive (the current ludicrous gas fees tell you that enough!) and verifiably so (you can watch each transaction happen as each block is done in real time).

seth plum

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

Right, @seth plum to use your cauliflower/honey analogy:

say you want to buy cauliflowers, to do that you’d have to use the cauliflower network - so you have to go to the cauliflower network and buy some cauliflowers. This network is made of various groups of cauliflower growers, and in order for you to be recognised as a cauliflower owner but I am buying cauliflower expressly because I am no a cauliflower owner they all have to see and acknowledge that you are a cauliflower owner so that it’s recorded on a ledger everyone can see so after I buy a cauliflower I am obliged in some way to tell the world I have a cauliflower, why? In order to do this do what, write it down in a book that I have bought a cauliflower?, this takes the cauliflower growers a little bit of work, so you have to pay them a little bit of the cauliflower you want in order to be recognised as a cauliflower owner why on earth would I have to be recognised as a cauliflower owner?. This is required for all transactions on the cauliflower network to save all this faff I would buy my cauliflowers elsewhere, like Lewisham market or somewhere.

Say now you don’t want cauliflower, you want to create honey, because you have some utility for that honey. There’s no honey network, but that’s okay, because the cauliflower network will allow you to turn your cauliflower into honey by reconfiguring the dna of the cauliflower into honey  eh? and still be able to use the cauliflower network. You still have to pay the cauliflower growers fees because you’re using that network I paid the cauliflower growers fee the first time I bought the cauliflower, I paid it because they took the trouble to grow it an harvest it, once that's done the cauliflower is mine free and clear.. Other people see your honey eh? again, honey that has been made out of cauliflowers by altering its dna? and want to buy your honey to use the utility for that honey you’ve created. That honey is now worth something isn't it worth a cauliflower? - as people want to trade their cauliflower for some honey. As a result that cauliflower also goes up in value I can understand my cauliflower goes up in value because there's a shortage, and mine is still good to eat, but see no other reason because more people are using the network. Now imagine other people are doing the same thing with the cauliflower and turning it into all sorts of stuff that has utilities or uses, maybe they might even reference the ledger of your honey in their utility, so that it essentially builds on what your honey does as i asked earlier why do I need to pay somebody for writing down in a ledger that I have just bought a cauliflower with pounds shillings and pence?

Hell, you might even want to become a cauliflower grower yourself instead of all that and maintain the cauliflower network, so you can collect a share of the cauliflower fees. 
So money is made by somebody somewhere putting a tax on cauliflowers?

Now imagine that’s all done in code, and that’s essentially how the ethereum network works. 

What you seem to be describing is some kind of force getting a squeeze on transactions off the back of cauliflower growers (and honey producers). Why should that happen when those forces are neither growing nor consuming any cauliflowers? 

No what I’m describing is literally the ethereum network and why ethereum (and other layer one cryptos) have value. In fact, you’ve highlighted exactly why there are other networks and cryptos, not just ethereum - why should you pay such high fees? Maybe you could use another network, the drawback is not as many people would be using that network. So the value might not be as high. 

Why would anybody want to use an ethereum network (whatever that is) for anything?
A base principle is I go to the person down the road, and fix their roof in exchange for a basket of apples they have grown.
Hey presto they have an actual thing, and I have an actual thing.
Take that scenario as a starting point and explain where the imaginary currencies fit in.

Right, so you create a contract in which once the work is completed, you receive the basket of apples. Usually you’d have to go to lawyers to draw up a contract, contact a bank and set up an escrow for the apples, or you’re relying on your client to supply the apples to you, through a delivery service or delivered by them themselves. If you do the work and don’t receive the apples (which any freelancer will tell you is a possibility) you’ll call the police, or take the case to small claims court to get your apples. Using a blockchain network like ethereum this can all be done much more efficiently in code with no middle men. The apples you want will be held in a smart contract that will release the apples to you once work has been seen to be completed. Not receiving the apples upon completion or receiving the apples before you’ve completed work is an impossibility - because it’s written in the code of the smart contract. You’ve now replaced all the middle men who are ensuring trust with code - which is much more efficient. All that this takes is for you to pay a “gas” fee to the network who are witnessing your transaction and smart contract by paying in ETH tokens. 

The more ETH tokens you have, the more you can use the network and more complex transactions you can make. The network is maintained by “miners” who witness the transaction. They are rewarded for witnessing these transactions with the “gas” fee you’ve paid, plus new ethereum tokens that they have been awarded for maintaining the network. 

The network cannot go down, because it’s maintained by thousands of completely separate computers. Nobody has a controlling stake in the network, so it is completely decentralised, not run by a company or nation state. 

You seem to be suggesting replacing, or adding to, all the presently existing middle men or women with new middle men or women.
Why would I want to do that? And why would I want to pay to do that?

Who are the middle men in my scenario? There are none. There’s 2 parties and a network that they exist on. In yours there’s a whole host of middle men right up to the Bank of England. 

I think earlier you said you have to pay to be on a ledger.
There's the middle man or woman right there isn't it?

Not really a middle man is it, it’s like saying soil is the middle man for growing cauliflower. You still have to water and expend resources on the soil. Even if, for the sake of argument, it is, it’s still a lot more efficient than the current set up, isn’t it? 

What seems to me to be inefficient is paying money earned for something that adds no benefit whatsoever.
Have you read the article I posted earlier about Tulips, and that 'bubble' and its relationship to imaginary currencies?
Even if governments print money they eventually have problems if that money is not related to something physically tangible like oil reserves, or the creative talent within a society. The money becomes worthless. 
Nobody is rushing out to buy the Korean People's Won because it has virtually nothing tangible to back it up. Nobody wants my newly dreamed up Sethcoins because there is nothing to back it up.
In your example, factored in to the price of the cauliflower is the enrichment of the soil, the use of water, and the ergs of labour used to produce it. What you buy is the cauliflower as a whole, complete with all the attendant processes that go along with it.
As for buying and selling stuff using Sethcoins, bitcoins or whatever, you assert (I think) that doing so would be somehow better if you used Sethcoins rather than the pounds sterling you earn from working.
I can't see how it can be better if Sethcoins only exist as a concept in my head, whereas Pounds sterling is rooted (sometimes badly rooted) in the productivity of the country.

But we've already established it does add benefit as it allows a system in which you don't have to have trust in institutions in order for it to work - just because you don't get it/refuse to engage in understanding it doesn't mean it doesn't have value. It's like saying websites have no value - as they're not tangible real things - they are literally lines of code represented graphically on a screen through using other lines of code. 

You plainly don't understand how currencies work (they're not backed by anything, except a central bank, which is backed by... the currency itself ie literally trust), crypto is backed by mathematics, which means you don't have to trust it - it just is. 

Have you read the bitcoin whitepaper by satoshi nakamoto i linked to earlier? It goes into far more depth and described far more simply than I ever could.

What you seem to be saying is the present system isn’t to be trusted, but the cryptocurrency system is.
Why?
Websites are manifestly tangible real things. To say they are not is like saying Music isn’t a tangible real thing.
You have a dig by telling me I don’t understand, yet am I right in assuming that you work in this cryptocurrency field, so you have an interest in trying to make it all sound kosher?

seth plum

Stu_of_Kunming said:

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

All of those things require a fee Seth, it’s just already incorporated into the price. 

WSS said:

Crypto value can be tanked by a megalomaniac sending a 7-word tweet...

Absolutely, which is why I’ve not ‘invested’ but I do see the obvious uses and benefits in the future. 

I am sure that to run a bank or credit card company or print and distribute money costs something. However isn’t it the case that banks take customers savings and make money from that whilst they have it, but because of scale can make enough to run the bank?
If I buy the mythical cauliflower with Sterling are you saying I will get a discount on it if I buy with Sethcoins that I dream up?
My point that currency is eventually related to productivity is what needs to also be addressed. Otherwise a dreamed up currency is very similar (but worse!) to a currency based on Tulips.

Sometimes that possible, although sometimes negative interest exists and I’ve heard in Australia some banks charge simply to check a balance at an atm. 

Free banking is like free postage, it’s incorporated into the price of what you buy.

Its my understanding that lots of processes and services, especially internationally banking can be streamlined using blockchain technology. 

Are you suggesting things will have two prices? A Sterling price and a cheaper price if you use cryptocurrency (which you have to have paid for)?
As for streamlined, I have described how I use credit cards and banking, that is streamlined already.

kentaddick

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

Right, @seth plum to use your cauliflower/honey analogy:

say you want to buy cauliflowers, to do that you’d have to use the cauliflower network - so you have to go to the cauliflower network and buy some cauliflowers. This network is made of various groups of cauliflower growers, and in order for you to be recognised as a cauliflower owner but I am buying cauliflower expressly because I am no a cauliflower owner they all have to see and acknowledge that you are a cauliflower owner so that it’s recorded on a ledger everyone can see so after I buy a cauliflower I am obliged in some way to tell the world I have a cauliflower, why? In order to do this do what, write it down in a book that I have bought a cauliflower?, this takes the cauliflower growers a little bit of work, so you have to pay them a little bit of the cauliflower you want in order to be recognised as a cauliflower owner why on earth would I have to be recognised as a cauliflower owner?. This is required for all transactions on the cauliflower network to save all this faff I would buy my cauliflowers elsewhere, like Lewisham market or somewhere.

Say now you don’t want cauliflower, you want to create honey, because you have some utility for that honey. There’s no honey network, but that’s okay, because the cauliflower network will allow you to turn your cauliflower into honey by reconfiguring the dna of the cauliflower into honey  eh? and still be able to use the cauliflower network. You still have to pay the cauliflower growers fees because you’re using that network I paid the cauliflower growers fee the first time I bought the cauliflower, I paid it because they took the trouble to grow it an harvest it, once that's done the cauliflower is mine free and clear.. Other people see your honey eh? again, honey that has been made out of cauliflowers by altering its dna? and want to buy your honey to use the utility for that honey you’ve created. That honey is now worth something isn't it worth a cauliflower? - as people want to trade their cauliflower for some honey. As a result that cauliflower also goes up in value I can understand my cauliflower goes up in value because there's a shortage, and mine is still good to eat, but see no other reason because more people are using the network. Now imagine other people are doing the same thing with the cauliflower and turning it into all sorts of stuff that has utilities or uses, maybe they might even reference the ledger of your honey in their utility, so that it essentially builds on what your honey does as i asked earlier why do I need to pay somebody for writing down in a ledger that I have just bought a cauliflower with pounds shillings and pence?

Hell, you might even want to become a cauliflower grower yourself instead of all that and maintain the cauliflower network, so you can collect a share of the cauliflower fees. 
So money is made by somebody somewhere putting a tax on cauliflowers?

Now imagine that’s all done in code, and that’s essentially how the ethereum network works. 

What you seem to be describing is some kind of force getting a squeeze on transactions off the back of cauliflower growers (and honey producers). Why should that happen when those forces are neither growing nor consuming any cauliflowers? 

No what I’m describing is literally the ethereum network and why ethereum (and other layer one cryptos) have value. In fact, you’ve highlighted exactly why there are other networks and cryptos, not just ethereum - why should you pay such high fees? Maybe you could use another network, the drawback is not as many people would be using that network. So the value might not be as high. 

Why would anybody want to use an ethereum network (whatever that is) for anything?
A base principle is I go to the person down the road, and fix their roof in exchange for a basket of apples they have grown.
Hey presto they have an actual thing, and I have an actual thing.
Take that scenario as a starting point and explain where the imaginary currencies fit in.

Right, so you create a contract in which once the work is completed, you receive the basket of apples. Usually you’d have to go to lawyers to draw up a contract, contact a bank and set up an escrow for the apples, or you’re relying on your client to supply the apples to you, through a delivery service or delivered by them themselves. If you do the work and don’t receive the apples (which any freelancer will tell you is a possibility) you’ll call the police, or take the case to small claims court to get your apples. Using a blockchain network like ethereum this can all be done much more efficiently in code with no middle men. The apples you want will be held in a smart contract that will release the apples to you once work has been seen to be completed. Not receiving the apples upon completion or receiving the apples before you’ve completed work is an impossibility - because it’s written in the code of the smart contract. You’ve now replaced all the middle men who are ensuring trust with code - which is much more efficient. All that this takes is for you to pay a “gas” fee to the network who are witnessing your transaction and smart contract by paying in ETH tokens. 

The more ETH tokens you have, the more you can use the network and more complex transactions you can make. The network is maintained by “miners” who witness the transaction. They are rewarded for witnessing these transactions with the “gas” fee you’ve paid, plus new ethereum tokens that they have been awarded for maintaining the network. 

The network cannot go down, because it’s maintained by thousands of completely separate computers. Nobody has a controlling stake in the network, so it is completely decentralised, not run by a company or nation state. 

You seem to be suggesting replacing, or adding to, all the presently existing middle men or women with new middle men or women.
Why would I want to do that? And why would I want to pay to do that?

Who are the middle men in my scenario? There are none. There’s 2 parties and a network that they exist on. In yours there’s a whole host of middle men right up to the Bank of England. 

I think earlier you said you have to pay to be on a ledger.
There's the middle man or woman right there isn't it?

Not really a middle man is it, it’s like saying soil is the middle man for growing cauliflower. You still have to water and expend resources on the soil. Even if, for the sake of argument, it is, it’s still a lot more efficient than the current set up, isn’t it? 

What seems to me to be inefficient is paying money earned for something that adds no benefit whatsoever.
Have you read the article I posted earlier about Tulips, and that 'bubble' and its relationship to imaginary currencies?
Even if governments print money they eventually have problems if that money is not related to something physically tangible like oil reserves, or the creative talent within a society. The money becomes worthless. 
Nobody is rushing out to buy the Korean People's Won because it has virtually nothing tangible to back it up. Nobody wants my newly dreamed up Sethcoins because there is nothing to back it up.
In your example, factored in to the price of the cauliflower is the enrichment of the soil, the use of water, and the ergs of labour used to produce it. What you buy is the cauliflower as a whole, complete with all the attendant processes that go along with it.
As for buying and selling stuff using Sethcoins, bitcoins or whatever, you assert (I think) that doing so would be somehow better if you used Sethcoins rather than the pounds sterling you earn from working.
I can't see how it can be better if Sethcoins only exist as a concept in my head, whereas Pounds sterling is rooted (sometimes badly rooted) in the productivity of the country.

But we've already established it does add benefit as it allows a system in which you don't have to have trust in institutions in order for it to work - just because you don't get it/refuse to engage in understanding it doesn't mean it doesn't have value. It's like saying websites have no value - as they're not tangible real things - they are literally lines of code represented graphically on a screen through using other lines of code. 

You plainly don't understand how currencies work (they're not backed by anything, except a central bank, which is backed by... the currency itself ie literally trust), crypto is backed by mathematics, which means you don't have to trust it - it just is. 

Have you read the bitcoin whitepaper by satoshi nakamoto i linked to earlier? It goes into far more depth and described far more simply than I ever could.

What you seem to be saying is the present system isn’t to be trusted, but the cryptocurrency system is.
Why?
Websites are manifestly tangible real things. To say they are not is like saying Music isn’t a tangible real thing.
You have a dig by telling me I don’t understand, yet am I right in assuming that you work in this cryptocurrency field, so you have an interest in trying to make it all sound kosher?

- the present system is run by various middle men all taking their cut, who employ people who are falliable, make mistakes and can and often do do stupid things. Blockchain technology is based on code - mathematics which is infalliable - 2+2 will always = 4, you can automate a lot more things and the system is far more transparent on a widely accessible ledger in which all transactions are public. 

- Websites are just as much "real things" as cryptocurrency, they're literally just lines of code. 

- Lol i don't work in cryptocurrency, i wish i did, solidity developers are in incredibly high demand and get paid a fortune. 

kentaddick

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

All of those things require a fee Seth, it’s just already incorporated into the price. 

WSS said:

Crypto value can be tanked by a megalomaniac sending a 7-word tweet...

Absolutely, which is why I’ve not ‘invested’ but I do see the obvious uses and benefits in the future. 

I am sure that to run a bank or credit card company or print and distribute money costs something. However isn’t it the case that banks take customers savings and make money from that whilst they have it, but because of scale can make enough to run the bank?
If I buy the mythical cauliflower with Sterling are you saying I will get a discount on it if I buy with Sethcoins that I dream up?
My point that currency is eventually related to productivity is what needs to also be addressed. Otherwise a dreamed up currency is very similar (but worse!) to a currency based on Tulips.

Sometimes that possible, although sometimes negative interest exists and I’ve heard in Australia some banks charge simply to check a balance at an atm. 

Free banking is like free postage, it’s incorporated into the price of what you buy.

Its my understanding that lots of processes and services, especially internationally banking can be streamlined using blockchain technology. 

Are you suggesting things will have two prices? A Sterling price and a cheaper price if you use cryptocurrency (which you have to have paid for)?
As for streamlined, I have described how I use credit cards and banking, that is streamlined already.

streamlined maybe for you as the end user, but not streamlined at all under the bonnet. Stu is correct, a shop has to pay to have a card machine installed in their shop, for instance - this is factored into the price of the items you buy. You then go through visa/mastercard payment which is then contacting your bank to move money they possess (that they owe you) and have invested and pay the vendor through a similar process (and may even be to an account the bank themselves own) - how is that streamlined? And how is it more streamlined than approving a transaction of something you directly own and only you have custody of directly to the wallet of the person you're paying?

Stu_of_Kunming

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

All of those things require a fee Seth, it’s just already incorporated into the price. 

WSS said:

Crypto value can be tanked by a megalomaniac sending a 7-word tweet...

Absolutely, which is why I’ve not ‘invested’ but I do see the obvious uses and benefits in the future. 

I am sure that to run a bank or credit card company or print and distribute money costs something. However isn’t it the case that banks take customers savings and make money from that whilst they have it, but because of scale can make enough to run the bank?
If I buy the mythical cauliflower with Sterling are you saying I will get a discount on it if I buy with Sethcoins that I dream up?
My point that currency is eventually related to productivity is what needs to also be addressed. Otherwise a dreamed up currency is very similar (but worse!) to a currency based on Tulips.

Sometimes that possible, although sometimes negative interest exists and I’ve heard in Australia some banks charge simply to check a balance at an atm. 

Free banking is like free postage, it’s incorporated into the price of what you buy.

Its my understanding that lots of processes and services, especially internationally banking can be streamlined using blockchain technology. 

Are you suggesting things will have two prices? A Sterling price and a cheaper price if you use cryptocurrency (which you have to have paid for)?
As for streamlined, I have described how I use credit cards and banking, that is streamlined already.

If credit cards could be cheaper to use, do you really think companies would say no? I think you’ve confused blockchain with something that is going to replace existing currencies, I can’t see that happening in our lifetime. The technology has far more uses than that that can save millions of pounds right now. 

kentaddick

Stu_of_Kunming said:

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

All of those things require a fee Seth, it’s just already incorporated into the price. 

WSS said:

Crypto value can be tanked by a megalomaniac sending a 7-word tweet...

Absolutely, which is why I’ve not ‘invested’ but I do see the obvious uses and benefits in the future. 

I am sure that to run a bank or credit card company or print and distribute money costs something. However isn’t it the case that banks take customers savings and make money from that whilst they have it, but because of scale can make enough to run the bank?
If I buy the mythical cauliflower with Sterling are you saying I will get a discount on it if I buy with Sethcoins that I dream up?
My point that currency is eventually related to productivity is what needs to also be addressed. Otherwise a dreamed up currency is very similar (but worse!) to a currency based on Tulips.

Sometimes that possible, although sometimes negative interest exists and I’ve heard in Australia some banks charge simply to check a balance at an atm. 

Free banking is like free postage, it’s incorporated into the price of what you buy.

Its my understanding that lots of processes and services, especially internationally banking can be streamlined using blockchain technology. 

Are you suggesting things will have two prices? A Sterling price and a cheaper price if you use cryptocurrency (which you have to have paid for)?
As for streamlined, I have described how I use credit cards and banking, that is streamlined already.

If credit cards could be cheaper to use, do you really think companies would say no? I think you’ve confused blockchain with something that is going to replace existing currencies, I can’t see that happening in our lifetime. The technology has far more uses than that that can save millions of pounds right now. 

crypto"currencies" is a misnomer imo. You're not going to go into a shop and buy things with an unregulated decentralised cryptocurrency imo - why would a government give that up? But to suggest they don't have any worth is equally as silly. What's more likely is there will be government issued stablecoins that you'd be able to use, that may replace the current system.

Big_Bad_World

What seems to be seemingly happening here is someone seemingly telling people what they seem to be saying. Badly.

Lincsaddick

another publicity seeker .. and the article has a very brief description oh how Bitcoin 'works'
Bedford FC: Bitcoin podcaster Peter McCormack has Premier League dream for 10th-tier side - BBC Sport

seth plum

kentaddick said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

All of those things require a fee Seth, it’s just already incorporated into the price. 

WSS said:

Crypto value can be tanked by a megalomaniac sending a 7-word tweet...

Absolutely, which is why I’ve not ‘invested’ but I do see the obvious uses and benefits in the future. 

I am sure that to run a bank or credit card company or print and distribute money costs something. However isn’t it the case that banks take customers savings and make money from that whilst they have it, but because of scale can make enough to run the bank?
If I buy the mythical cauliflower with Sterling are you saying I will get a discount on it if I buy with Sethcoins that I dream up?
My point that currency is eventually related to productivity is what needs to also be addressed. Otherwise a dreamed up currency is very similar (but worse!) to a currency based on Tulips.

Sometimes that possible, although sometimes negative interest exists and I’ve heard in Australia some banks charge simply to check a balance at an atm. 

Free banking is like free postage, it’s incorporated into the price of what you buy.

Its my understanding that lots of processes and services, especially internationally banking can be streamlined using blockchain technology. 

Are you suggesting things will have two prices? A Sterling price and a cheaper price if you use cryptocurrency (which you have to have paid for)?
As for streamlined, I have described how I use credit cards and banking, that is streamlined already.

If credit cards could be cheaper to use, do you really think companies would say no? I think you’ve confused blockchain with something that is going to replace existing currencies, I can’t see that happening in our lifetime. The technology has far more uses than that that can save millions of pounds right now. 

crypto"currencies" is a misnomer imo. You're not going to go into a shop and buy things with an unregulated decentralised cryptocurrency imo - why would a government give that up? But to suggest they don't have any worth is equally as silly. What's more likely is there will be government issued stablecoins that you'd be able to use, that may replace the current system.

Haven’t we agreed that worth is related to faith?
Is that any different to believing that Tulips are worth something?
I really struggle to see how a serious currency is not related to something tangible.
Nobody wants the North Korean Peoples Won because (outside North Korea at least) you can’t get anything tangible with it.
I doubt that Sainsburys will exchange a box of tea for a couple of my home grown Tulips…they might in certain very narrow circumstances mind you.

seth plum

Lincsaddick said:

another publicity seeker .. and the article has a very brief description oh how Bitcoin 'works'
Bedford FC: Bitcoin podcaster Peter McCormack has Premier League dream for 10th-tier side - BBC Sport

In that article the cryptocurrency bloke says ‘this might not work’.
He also seems to say it will take off because people will buy cryptocurrency sweatshirts and other merchandise.
Growing and selling Tulips might be more substantial.

kentaddick

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

All of those things require a fee Seth, it’s just already incorporated into the price. 

WSS said:

Crypto value can be tanked by a megalomaniac sending a 7-word tweet...

Absolutely, which is why I’ve not ‘invested’ but I do see the obvious uses and benefits in the future. 

I am sure that to run a bank or credit card company or print and distribute money costs something. However isn’t it the case that banks take customers savings and make money from that whilst they have it, but because of scale can make enough to run the bank?
If I buy the mythical cauliflower with Sterling are you saying I will get a discount on it if I buy with Sethcoins that I dream up?
My point that currency is eventually related to productivity is what needs to also be addressed. Otherwise a dreamed up currency is very similar (but worse!) to a currency based on Tulips.

Sometimes that possible, although sometimes negative interest exists and I’ve heard in Australia some banks charge simply to check a balance at an atm. 

Free banking is like free postage, it’s incorporated into the price of what you buy.

Its my understanding that lots of processes and services, especially internationally banking can be streamlined using blockchain technology. 

Are you suggesting things will have two prices? A Sterling price and a cheaper price if you use cryptocurrency (which you have to have paid for)?
As for streamlined, I have described how I use credit cards and banking, that is streamlined already.

If credit cards could be cheaper to use, do you really think companies would say no? I think you’ve confused blockchain with something that is going to replace existing currencies, I can’t see that happening in our lifetime. The technology has far more uses than that that can save millions of pounds right now. 

crypto"currencies" is a misnomer imo. You're not going to go into a shop and buy things with an unregulated decentralised cryptocurrency imo - why would a government give that up? But to suggest they don't have any worth is equally as silly. What's more likely is there will be government issued stablecoins that you'd be able to use, that may replace the current system.

Haven’t we agreed that worth is related to faith?
Is that any different to believing that Tulips are worth something?
I really struggle to see how a serious currency is not related to something tangible.
Nobody wants the North Korean Peoples Won because (outside North Korea at least) you can’t get anything tangible with it.
I doubt that Sainsburys will exchange a box of tea for a couple of my home grown Tulips…they might in certain very narrow circumstances mind you.

Well, tulips are worth something, aren't they? However you can't create and host a dApp on tulips, you can't write a smart contract with tulips, you can't really do anything with tulips except grow more tulips. I agree with you - it has to be related to something tangible, which cryptocurrencies like ethereum have tangible benefits and uses. The huge advantage of crypto is you don't have to have faith in a centralised entity like a government for it to have value. The faith exists because the code is sound, so there doesn't need to be countless middle men and institutions enforcing that trust whilst simultaneously automating whatever functions those middle men perform.

Croydon

seth plum

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

All of those things require a fee Seth, it’s just already incorporated into the price. 

WSS said:

Crypto value can be tanked by a megalomaniac sending a 7-word tweet...

Absolutely, which is why I’ve not ‘invested’ but I do see the obvious uses and benefits in the future. 

I am sure that to run a bank or credit card company or print and distribute money costs something. However isn’t it the case that banks take customers savings and make money from that whilst they have it, but because of scale can make enough to run the bank?
If I buy the mythical cauliflower with Sterling are you saying I will get a discount on it if I buy with Sethcoins that I dream up?
My point that currency is eventually related to productivity is what needs to also be addressed. Otherwise a dreamed up currency is very similar (but worse!) to a currency based on Tulips.

Sometimes that possible, although sometimes negative interest exists and I’ve heard in Australia some banks charge simply to check a balance at an atm. 

Free banking is like free postage, it’s incorporated into the price of what you buy.

Its my understanding that lots of processes and services, especially internationally banking can be streamlined using blockchain technology. 

Are you suggesting things will have two prices? A Sterling price and a cheaper price if you use cryptocurrency (which you have to have paid for)?
As for streamlined, I have described how I use credit cards and banking, that is streamlined already.

If credit cards could be cheaper to use, do you really think companies would say no? I think you’ve confused blockchain with something that is going to replace existing currencies, I can’t see that happening in our lifetime. The technology has far more uses than that that can save millions of pounds right now. 

crypto"currencies" is a misnomer imo. You're not going to go into a shop and buy things with an unregulated decentralised cryptocurrency imo - why would a government give that up? But to suggest they don't have any worth is equally as silly. What's more likely is there will be government issued stablecoins that you'd be able to use, that may replace the current system.

Haven’t we agreed that worth is related to faith?
Is that any different to believing that Tulips are worth something?
I really struggle to see how a serious currency is not related to something tangible.
Nobody wants the North Korean Peoples Won because (outside North Korea at least) you can’t get anything tangible with it.
I doubt that Sainsburys will exchange a box of tea for a couple of my home grown Tulips…they might in certain very narrow circumstances mind you.

Well, tulips are worth something, aren't they? However you can't create and host a dApp on tulips, you can't write a smart contract with tulips, you can't really do anything with tulips except grow more tulips. I agree with you - it has to be related to something tangible, which cryptocurrencies like ethereum have tangible benefits and uses. The huge advantage of crypto is you don't have to have faith in a centralised entity like a government for it to have value. The faith exists because the code is sound, so there doesn't need to be countless middle men and institutions enforcing that trust whilst simultaneously automating whatever functions those middle men perform.

The point about a government (theoretically at least) you can establish or remove them and find ways to hold them to account.

kentaddick

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

All of those things require a fee Seth, it’s just already incorporated into the price. 

WSS said:

Crypto value can be tanked by a megalomaniac sending a 7-word tweet...

Absolutely, which is why I’ve not ‘invested’ but I do see the obvious uses and benefits in the future. 

I am sure that to run a bank or credit card company or print and distribute money costs something. However isn’t it the case that banks take customers savings and make money from that whilst they have it, but because of scale can make enough to run the bank?
If I buy the mythical cauliflower with Sterling are you saying I will get a discount on it if I buy with Sethcoins that I dream up?
My point that currency is eventually related to productivity is what needs to also be addressed. Otherwise a dreamed up currency is very similar (but worse!) to a currency based on Tulips.

Sometimes that possible, although sometimes negative interest exists and I’ve heard in Australia some banks charge simply to check a balance at an atm. 

Free banking is like free postage, it’s incorporated into the price of what you buy.

Its my understanding that lots of processes and services, especially internationally banking can be streamlined using blockchain technology. 

Are you suggesting things will have two prices? A Sterling price and a cheaper price if you use cryptocurrency (which you have to have paid for)?
As for streamlined, I have described how I use credit cards and banking, that is streamlined already.

If credit cards could be cheaper to use, do you really think companies would say no? I think you’ve confused blockchain with something that is going to replace existing currencies, I can’t see that happening in our lifetime. The technology has far more uses than that that can save millions of pounds right now. 

crypto"currencies" is a misnomer imo. You're not going to go into a shop and buy things with an unregulated decentralised cryptocurrency imo - why would a government give that up? But to suggest they don't have any worth is equally as silly. What's more likely is there will be government issued stablecoins that you'd be able to use, that may replace the current system.

Haven’t we agreed that worth is related to faith?
Is that any different to believing that Tulips are worth something?
I really struggle to see how a serious currency is not related to something tangible.
Nobody wants the North Korean Peoples Won because (outside North Korea at least) you can’t get anything tangible with it.
I doubt that Sainsburys will exchange a box of tea for a couple of my home grown Tulips…they might in certain very narrow circumstances mind you.

Well, tulips are worth something, aren't they? However you can't create and host a dApp on tulips, you can't write a smart contract with tulips, you can't really do anything with tulips except grow more tulips. I agree with you - it has to be related to something tangible, which cryptocurrencies like ethereum have tangible benefits and uses. The huge advantage of crypto is you don't have to have faith in a centralised entity like a government for it to have value. The faith exists because the code is sound, so there doesn't need to be countless middle men and institutions enforcing that trust whilst simultaneously automating whatever functions those middle men perform.

The point about a government (theoretically at least) you can establish or remove them and find ways to hold them to account.

I wouldn't be surprised in the future we will vote in elections using blockchain technology. Instant, undisputed results for everyone to see.

stonemuse

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

All of those things require a fee Seth, it’s just already incorporated into the price. 

WSS said:

Crypto value can be tanked by a megalomaniac sending a 7-word tweet...

Absolutely, which is why I’ve not ‘invested’ but I do see the obvious uses and benefits in the future. 

I am sure that to run a bank or credit card company or print and distribute money costs something. However isn’t it the case that banks take customers savings and make money from that whilst they have it, but because of scale can make enough to run the bank?
If I buy the mythical cauliflower with Sterling are you saying I will get a discount on it if I buy with Sethcoins that I dream up?
My point that currency is eventually related to productivity is what needs to also be addressed. Otherwise a dreamed up currency is very similar (but worse!) to a currency based on Tulips.

Sometimes that possible, although sometimes negative interest exists and I’ve heard in Australia some banks charge simply to check a balance at an atm. 

Free banking is like free postage, it’s incorporated into the price of what you buy.

Its my understanding that lots of processes and services, especially internationally banking can be streamlined using blockchain technology. 

Are you suggesting things will have two prices? A Sterling price and a cheaper price if you use cryptocurrency (which you have to have paid for)?
As for streamlined, I have described how I use credit cards and banking, that is streamlined already.

If credit cards could be cheaper to use, do you really think companies would say no? I think you’ve confused blockchain with something that is going to replace existing currencies, I can’t see that happening in our lifetime. The technology has far more uses than that that can save millions of pounds right now. 

crypto"currencies" is a misnomer imo. You're not going to go into a shop and buy things with an unregulated decentralised cryptocurrency imo - why would a government give that up? But to suggest they don't have any worth is equally as silly. What's more likely is there will be government issued stablecoins that you'd be able to use, that may replace the current system.

Haven’t we agreed that worth is related to faith?
Is that any different to believing that Tulips are worth something?
I really struggle to see how a serious currency is not related to something tangible.
Nobody wants the North Korean Peoples Won because (outside North Korea at least) you can’t get anything tangible with it.
I doubt that Sainsburys will exchange a box of tea for a couple of my home grown Tulips…they might in certain very narrow circumstances mind you.

Well, tulips are worth something, aren't they? However you can't create and host a dApp on tulips, you can't write a smart contract with tulips, you can't really do anything with tulips except grow more tulips. I agree with you - it has to be related to something tangible, which cryptocurrencies like ethereum have tangible benefits and uses. The huge advantage of crypto is you don't have to have faith in a centralised entity like a government for it to have value. The faith exists because the code is sound, so there doesn't need to be countless middle men and institutions enforcing that trust whilst simultaneously automating whatever functions those middle men perform.

The point about a government (theoretically at least) you can establish or remove them and find ways to hold them to account.

I wouldn't be surprised in the future we will vote in elections using blockchain technology. Instant, undisputed results for everyone to see.

Already happening in certain parts of the world 

kentaddick

stonemuse said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

All of those things require a fee Seth, it’s just already incorporated into the price. 

WSS said:

Crypto value can be tanked by a megalomaniac sending a 7-word tweet...

Absolutely, which is why I’ve not ‘invested’ but I do see the obvious uses and benefits in the future. 

I am sure that to run a bank or credit card company or print and distribute money costs something. However isn’t it the case that banks take customers savings and make money from that whilst they have it, but because of scale can make enough to run the bank?
If I buy the mythical cauliflower with Sterling are you saying I will get a discount on it if I buy with Sethcoins that I dream up?
My point that currency is eventually related to productivity is what needs to also be addressed. Otherwise a dreamed up currency is very similar (but worse!) to a currency based on Tulips.

Sometimes that possible, although sometimes negative interest exists and I’ve heard in Australia some banks charge simply to check a balance at an atm. 

Free banking is like free postage, it’s incorporated into the price of what you buy.

Its my understanding that lots of processes and services, especially internationally banking can be streamlined using blockchain technology. 

Are you suggesting things will have two prices? A Sterling price and a cheaper price if you use cryptocurrency (which you have to have paid for)?
As for streamlined, I have described how I use credit cards and banking, that is streamlined already.

If credit cards could be cheaper to use, do you really think companies would say no? I think you’ve confused blockchain with something that is going to replace existing currencies, I can’t see that happening in our lifetime. The technology has far more uses than that that can save millions of pounds right now. 

crypto"currencies" is a misnomer imo. You're not going to go into a shop and buy things with an unregulated decentralised cryptocurrency imo - why would a government give that up? But to suggest they don't have any worth is equally as silly. What's more likely is there will be government issued stablecoins that you'd be able to use, that may replace the current system.

Haven’t we agreed that worth is related to faith?
Is that any different to believing that Tulips are worth something?
I really struggle to see how a serious currency is not related to something tangible.
Nobody wants the North Korean Peoples Won because (outside North Korea at least) you can’t get anything tangible with it.
I doubt that Sainsburys will exchange a box of tea for a couple of my home grown Tulips…they might in certain very narrow circumstances mind you.

Well, tulips are worth something, aren't they? However you can't create and host a dApp on tulips, you can't write a smart contract with tulips, you can't really do anything with tulips except grow more tulips. I agree with you - it has to be related to something tangible, which cryptocurrencies like ethereum have tangible benefits and uses. The huge advantage of crypto is you don't have to have faith in a centralised entity like a government for it to have value. The faith exists because the code is sound, so there doesn't need to be countless middle men and institutions enforcing that trust whilst simultaneously automating whatever functions those middle men perform.

The point about a government (theoretically at least) you can establish or remove them and find ways to hold them to account.

I wouldn't be surprised in the future we will vote in elections using blockchain technology. Instant, undisputed results for everyone to see.

Already happening in certain parts of the world 

but hey, apparently it has no value, right @seth plum

seth plum

kentaddick said:

stonemuse said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

All of those things require a fee Seth, it’s just already incorporated into the price. 

WSS said:

Crypto value can be tanked by a megalomaniac sending a 7-word tweet...

Absolutely, which is why I’ve not ‘invested’ but I do see the obvious uses and benefits in the future. 

I am sure that to run a bank or credit card company or print and distribute money costs something. However isn’t it the case that banks take customers savings and make money from that whilst they have it, but because of scale can make enough to run the bank?
If I buy the mythical cauliflower with Sterling are you saying I will get a discount on it if I buy with Sethcoins that I dream up?
My point that currency is eventually related to productivity is what needs to also be addressed. Otherwise a dreamed up currency is very similar (but worse!) to a currency based on Tulips.

Sometimes that possible, although sometimes negative interest exists and I’ve heard in Australia some banks charge simply to check a balance at an atm. 

Free banking is like free postage, it’s incorporated into the price of what you buy.

Its my understanding that lots of processes and services, especially internationally banking can be streamlined using blockchain technology. 

Are you suggesting things will have two prices? A Sterling price and a cheaper price if you use cryptocurrency (which you have to have paid for)?
As for streamlined, I have described how I use credit cards and banking, that is streamlined already.

If credit cards could be cheaper to use, do you really think companies would say no? I think you’ve confused blockchain with something that is going to replace existing currencies, I can’t see that happening in our lifetime. The technology has far more uses than that that can save millions of pounds right now. 

crypto"currencies" is a misnomer imo. You're not going to go into a shop and buy things with an unregulated decentralised cryptocurrency imo - why would a government give that up? But to suggest they don't have any worth is equally as silly. What's more likely is there will be government issued stablecoins that you'd be able to use, that may replace the current system.

Haven’t we agreed that worth is related to faith?
Is that any different to believing that Tulips are worth something?
I really struggle to see how a serious currency is not related to something tangible.
Nobody wants the North Korean Peoples Won because (outside North Korea at least) you can’t get anything tangible with it.
I doubt that Sainsburys will exchange a box of tea for a couple of my home grown Tulips…they might in certain very narrow circumstances mind you.

Well, tulips are worth something, aren't they? However you can't create and host a dApp on tulips, you can't write a smart contract with tulips, you can't really do anything with tulips except grow more tulips. I agree with you - it has to be related to something tangible, which cryptocurrencies like ethereum have tangible benefits and uses. The huge advantage of crypto is you don't have to have faith in a centralised entity like a government for it to have value. The faith exists because the code is sound, so there doesn't need to be countless middle men and institutions enforcing that trust whilst simultaneously automating whatever functions those middle men perform.

The point about a government (theoretically at least) you can establish or remove them and find ways to hold them to account.

I wouldn't be surprised in the future we will vote in elections using blockchain technology. Instant, undisputed results for everyone to see.

Already happening in certain parts of the world 

but hey, apparently it has no value, right @seth plum

What?
Electronic voting?
I have been discussing cryptocurrencies right, @kentaddick

jimmymelrose

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

Right, @seth plum to use your cauliflower/honey analogy:

say you want to buy cauliflowers, to do that you’d have to use the cauliflower network - so you have to go to the cauliflower network and buy some cauliflowers. This network is made of various groups of cauliflower growers, and in order for you to be recognised as a cauliflower owner but I am buying cauliflower expressly because I am no a cauliflower owner they all have to see and acknowledge that you are a cauliflower owner so that it’s recorded on a ledger everyone can see so after I buy a cauliflower I am obliged in some way to tell the world I have a cauliflower, why? In order to do this do what, write it down in a book that I have bought a cauliflower?, this takes the cauliflower growers a little bit of work, so you have to pay them a little bit of the cauliflower you want in order to be recognised as a cauliflower owner why on earth would I have to be recognised as a cauliflower owner?. This is required for all transactions on the cauliflower network to save all this faff I would buy my cauliflowers elsewhere, like Lewisham market or somewhere.

Say now you don’t want cauliflower, you want to create honey, because you have some utility for that honey. There’s no honey network, but that’s okay, because the cauliflower network will allow you to turn your cauliflower into honey by reconfiguring the dna of the cauliflower into honey  eh? and still be able to use the cauliflower network. You still have to pay the cauliflower growers fees because you’re using that network I paid the cauliflower growers fee the first time I bought the cauliflower, I paid it because they took the trouble to grow it an harvest it, once that's done the cauliflower is mine free and clear.. Other people see your honey eh? again, honey that has been made out of cauliflowers by altering its dna? and want to buy your honey to use the utility for that honey you’ve created. That honey is now worth something isn't it worth a cauliflower? - as people want to trade their cauliflower for some honey. As a result that cauliflower also goes up in value I can understand my cauliflower goes up in value because there's a shortage, and mine is still good to eat, but see no other reason because more people are using the network. Now imagine other people are doing the same thing with the cauliflower and turning it into all sorts of stuff that has utilities or uses, maybe they might even reference the ledger of your honey in their utility, so that it essentially builds on what your honey does as i asked earlier why do I need to pay somebody for writing down in a ledger that I have just bought a cauliflower with pounds shillings and pence?

Hell, you might even want to become a cauliflower grower yourself instead of all that and maintain the cauliflower network, so you can collect a share of the cauliflower fees. 
So money is made by somebody somewhere putting a tax on cauliflowers?

Now imagine that’s all done in code, and that’s essentially how the ethereum network works. 

What you seem to be describing is some kind of force getting a squeeze on transactions off the back of cauliflower growers (and honey producers). Why should that happen when those forces are neither growing nor consuming any cauliflowers? 

No what I’m describing is literally the ethereum network and why ethereum (and other layer one cryptos) have value. In fact, you’ve highlighted exactly why there are other networks and cryptos, not just ethereum - why should you pay such high fees? Maybe you could use another network, the drawback is not as many people would be using that network. So the value might not be as high. 

Why would anybody want to use an ethereum network (whatever that is) for anything?
A base principle is I go to the person down the road, and fix their roof in exchange for a basket of apples they have grown.
Hey presto they have an actual thing, and I have an actual thing.
Take that scenario as a starting point and explain where the imaginary currencies fit in.

Right, so you create a contract in which once the work is completed, you receive the basket of apples. Usually you’d have to go to lawyers to draw up a contract, contact a bank and set up an escrow for the apples, or you’re relying on your client to supply the apples to you, through a delivery service or delivered by them themselves. If you do the work and don’t receive the apples (which any freelancer will tell you is a possibility) you’ll call the police, or take the case to small claims court to get your apples. Using a blockchain network like ethereum this can all be done much more efficiently in code with no middle men. The apples you want will be held in a smart contract that will release the apples to you once work has been seen to be completed. Not receiving the apples upon completion or receiving the apples before you’ve completed work is an impossibility - because it’s written in the code of the smart contract. You’ve now replaced all the middle men who are ensuring trust with code - which is much more efficient. All that this takes is for you to pay a “gas” fee to the network who are witnessing your transaction and smart contract by paying in ETH tokens. 

The more ETH tokens you have, the more you can use the network and more complex transactions you can make. The network is maintained by “miners” who witness the transaction. They are rewarded for witnessing these transactions with the “gas” fee you’ve paid, plus new ethereum tokens that they have been awarded for maintaining the network. 

The network cannot go down, because it’s maintained by thousands of completely separate computers. Nobody has a controlling stake in the network, so it is completely decentralised, not run by a company or nation state. 

You seem to be suggesting replacing, or adding to, all the presently existing middle men or women with new middle men or women.
Why would I want to do that? And why would I want to pay to do that?

Who are the middle men in my scenario? There are none. There’s 2 parties and a network that they exist on. In yours there’s a whole host of middle men right up to the Bank of England. 

I think earlier you said you have to pay to be on a ledger.
There's the middle man or woman right there isn't it?

Not really a middle man is it, it’s like saying soil is the middle man for growing cauliflower. You still have to water and expend resources on the soil. Even if, for the sake of argument, it is, it’s still a lot more efficient than the current set up, isn’t it? 

What seems to me to be inefficient is paying money earned for something that adds no benefit whatsoever.
Have you read the article I posted earlier about Tulips, and that 'bubble' and its relationship to imaginary currencies?
Even if governments print money they eventually have problems if that money is not related to something physically tangible like oil reserves, or the creative talent within a society. The money becomes worthless. 
Nobody is rushing out to buy the Korean People's Won because it has virtually nothing tangible to back it up. Nobody wants my newly dreamed up Sethcoins because there is nothing to back it up.
In your example, factored in to the price of the cauliflower is the enrichment of the soil, the use of water, and the ergs of labour used to produce it. What you buy is the cauliflower as a whole, complete with all the attendant processes that go along with it.
As for buying and selling stuff using Sethcoins, bitcoins or whatever, you assert (I think) that doing so would be somehow better if you used Sethcoins rather than the pounds sterling you earn from working.
I can't see how it can be better if Sethcoins only exist as a concept in my head, whereas Pounds sterling is rooted (sometimes badly rooted) in the productivity of the country.

But we've already established it does add benefit as it allows a system in which you don't have to have trust in institutions in order for it to work - just because you don't get it/refuse to engage in understanding it doesn't mean it doesn't have value. It's like saying websites have no value - as they're not tangible real things - they are literally lines of code represented graphically on a screen through using other lines of code. 

You plainly don't understand how currencies work (they're not backed by anything, except a central bank, which is backed by... the currency itself ie literally trust), crypto is backed by mathematics, which means you don't have to trust it - it just is. 

Have you read the bitcoin whitepaper by satoshi nakamoto i linked to earlier? It goes into far more depth and described far more simply than I ever could.

What you seem to be saying is the present system isn’t to be trusted, but the cryptocurrency system is.
Why?
Websites are manifestly tangible real things. To say they are not is like saying Music isn’t a tangible real thing.
You have a dig by telling me I don’t understand, yet am I right in assuming that you work in this cryptocurrency field, so you have an interest in trying to make it all sound kosher?

Really? 
I have a website and I can make it disappear with a click of the mouse.
What tangible real things can I do that with? It would be nice to know. It might at least save me some trips to the dump.

kentaddick

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

stonemuse said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

All of those things require a fee Seth, it’s just already incorporated into the price. 

WSS said:

Crypto value can be tanked by a megalomaniac sending a 7-word tweet...

Absolutely, which is why I’ve not ‘invested’ but I do see the obvious uses and benefits in the future. 

I am sure that to run a bank or credit card company or print and distribute money costs something. However isn’t it the case that banks take customers savings and make money from that whilst they have it, but because of scale can make enough to run the bank?
If I buy the mythical cauliflower with Sterling are you saying I will get a discount on it if I buy with Sethcoins that I dream up?
My point that currency is eventually related to productivity is what needs to also be addressed. Otherwise a dreamed up currency is very similar (but worse!) to a currency based on Tulips.

Sometimes that possible, although sometimes negative interest exists and I’ve heard in Australia some banks charge simply to check a balance at an atm. 

Free banking is like free postage, it’s incorporated into the price of what you buy.

Its my understanding that lots of processes and services, especially internationally banking can be streamlined using blockchain technology. 

Are you suggesting things will have two prices? A Sterling price and a cheaper price if you use cryptocurrency (which you have to have paid for)?
As for streamlined, I have described how I use credit cards and banking, that is streamlined already.

If credit cards could be cheaper to use, do you really think companies would say no? I think you’ve confused blockchain with something that is going to replace existing currencies, I can’t see that happening in our lifetime. The technology has far more uses than that that can save millions of pounds right now. 

crypto"currencies" is a misnomer imo. You're not going to go into a shop and buy things with an unregulated decentralised cryptocurrency imo - why would a government give that up? But to suggest they don't have any worth is equally as silly. What's more likely is there will be government issued stablecoins that you'd be able to use, that may replace the current system.

Haven’t we agreed that worth is related to faith?
Is that any different to believing that Tulips are worth something?
I really struggle to see how a serious currency is not related to something tangible.
Nobody wants the North Korean Peoples Won because (outside North Korea at least) you can’t get anything tangible with it.
I doubt that Sainsburys will exchange a box of tea for a couple of my home grown Tulips…they might in certain very narrow circumstances mind you.

Well, tulips are worth something, aren't they? However you can't create and host a dApp on tulips, you can't write a smart contract with tulips, you can't really do anything with tulips except grow more tulips. I agree with you - it has to be related to something tangible, which cryptocurrencies like ethereum have tangible benefits and uses. The huge advantage of crypto is you don't have to have faith in a centralised entity like a government for it to have value. The faith exists because the code is sound, so there doesn't need to be countless middle men and institutions enforcing that trust whilst simultaneously automating whatever functions those middle men perform.

The point about a government (theoretically at least) you can establish or remove them and find ways to hold them to account.

I wouldn't be surprised in the future we will vote in elections using blockchain technology. Instant, undisputed results for everyone to see.

Already happening in certain parts of the world 

but hey, apparently it has no value, right @seth plum

What?
Electronic voting?
I have been discussing cryptocurrencies right, @kentaddick

Yes. Voting can and is done using crypto. 

Croydon

I tried to get this thread back on track, I really did. 

seth plum

jimmymelrose said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

Right, @seth plum to use your cauliflower/honey analogy:

say you want to buy cauliflowers, to do that you’d have to use the cauliflower network - so you have to go to the cauliflower network and buy some cauliflowers. This network is made of various groups of cauliflower growers, and in order for you to be recognised as a cauliflower owner but I am buying cauliflower expressly because I am no a cauliflower owner they all have to see and acknowledge that you are a cauliflower owner so that it’s recorded on a ledger everyone can see so after I buy a cauliflower I am obliged in some way to tell the world I have a cauliflower, why? In order to do this do what, write it down in a book that I have bought a cauliflower?, this takes the cauliflower growers a little bit of work, so you have to pay them a little bit of the cauliflower you want in order to be recognised as a cauliflower owner why on earth would I have to be recognised as a cauliflower owner?. This is required for all transactions on the cauliflower network to save all this faff I would buy my cauliflowers elsewhere, like Lewisham market or somewhere.

Say now you don’t want cauliflower, you want to create honey, because you have some utility for that honey. There’s no honey network, but that’s okay, because the cauliflower network will allow you to turn your cauliflower into honey by reconfiguring the dna of the cauliflower into honey  eh? and still be able to use the cauliflower network. You still have to pay the cauliflower growers fees because you’re using that network I paid the cauliflower growers fee the first time I bought the cauliflower, I paid it because they took the trouble to grow it an harvest it, once that's done the cauliflower is mine free and clear.. Other people see your honey eh? again, honey that has been made out of cauliflowers by altering its dna? and want to buy your honey to use the utility for that honey you’ve created. That honey is now worth something isn't it worth a cauliflower? - as people want to trade their cauliflower for some honey. As a result that cauliflower also goes up in value I can understand my cauliflower goes up in value because there's a shortage, and mine is still good to eat, but see no other reason because more people are using the network. Now imagine other people are doing the same thing with the cauliflower and turning it into all sorts of stuff that has utilities or uses, maybe they might even reference the ledger of your honey in their utility, so that it essentially builds on what your honey does as i asked earlier why do I need to pay somebody for writing down in a ledger that I have just bought a cauliflower with pounds shillings and pence?

Hell, you might even want to become a cauliflower grower yourself instead of all that and maintain the cauliflower network, so you can collect a share of the cauliflower fees. 
So money is made by somebody somewhere putting a tax on cauliflowers?

Now imagine that’s all done in code, and that’s essentially how the ethereum network works. 

What you seem to be describing is some kind of force getting a squeeze on transactions off the back of cauliflower growers (and honey producers). Why should that happen when those forces are neither growing nor consuming any cauliflowers? 

No what I’m describing is literally the ethereum network and why ethereum (and other layer one cryptos) have value. In fact, you’ve highlighted exactly why there are other networks and cryptos, not just ethereum - why should you pay such high fees? Maybe you could use another network, the drawback is not as many people would be using that network. So the value might not be as high. 

Why would anybody want to use an ethereum network (whatever that is) for anything?
A base principle is I go to the person down the road, and fix their roof in exchange for a basket of apples they have grown.
Hey presto they have an actual thing, and I have an actual thing.
Take that scenario as a starting point and explain where the imaginary currencies fit in.

Right, so you create a contract in which once the work is completed, you receive the basket of apples. Usually you’d have to go to lawyers to draw up a contract, contact a bank and set up an escrow for the apples, or you’re relying on your client to supply the apples to you, through a delivery service or delivered by them themselves. If you do the work and don’t receive the apples (which any freelancer will tell you is a possibility) you’ll call the police, or take the case to small claims court to get your apples. Using a blockchain network like ethereum this can all be done much more efficiently in code with no middle men. The apples you want will be held in a smart contract that will release the apples to you once work has been seen to be completed. Not receiving the apples upon completion or receiving the apples before you’ve completed work is an impossibility - because it’s written in the code of the smart contract. You’ve now replaced all the middle men who are ensuring trust with code - which is much more efficient. All that this takes is for you to pay a “gas” fee to the network who are witnessing your transaction and smart contract by paying in ETH tokens. 

The more ETH tokens you have, the more you can use the network and more complex transactions you can make. The network is maintained by “miners” who witness the transaction. They are rewarded for witnessing these transactions with the “gas” fee you’ve paid, plus new ethereum tokens that they have been awarded for maintaining the network. 

The network cannot go down, because it’s maintained by thousands of completely separate computers. Nobody has a controlling stake in the network, so it is completely decentralised, not run by a company or nation state. 

You seem to be suggesting replacing, or adding to, all the presently existing middle men or women with new middle men or women.
Why would I want to do that? And why would I want to pay to do that?

Who are the middle men in my scenario? There are none. There’s 2 parties and a network that they exist on. In yours there’s a whole host of middle men right up to the Bank of England. 

I think earlier you said you have to pay to be on a ledger.
There's the middle man or woman right there isn't it?

Not really a middle man is it, it’s like saying soil is the middle man for growing cauliflower. You still have to water and expend resources on the soil. Even if, for the sake of argument, it is, it’s still a lot more efficient than the current set up, isn’t it? 

What seems to me to be inefficient is paying money earned for something that adds no benefit whatsoever.
Have you read the article I posted earlier about Tulips, and that 'bubble' and its relationship to imaginary currencies?
Even if governments print money they eventually have problems if that money is not related to something physically tangible like oil reserves, or the creative talent within a society. The money becomes worthless. 
Nobody is rushing out to buy the Korean People's Won because it has virtually nothing tangible to back it up. Nobody wants my newly dreamed up Sethcoins because there is nothing to back it up.
In your example, factored in to the price of the cauliflower is the enrichment of the soil, the use of water, and the ergs of labour used to produce it. What you buy is the cauliflower as a whole, complete with all the attendant processes that go along with it.
As for buying and selling stuff using Sethcoins, bitcoins or whatever, you assert (I think) that doing so would be somehow better if you used Sethcoins rather than the pounds sterling you earn from working.
I can't see how it can be better if Sethcoins only exist as a concept in my head, whereas Pounds sterling is rooted (sometimes badly rooted) in the productivity of the country.

But we've already established it does add benefit as it allows a system in which you don't have to have trust in institutions in order for it to work - just because you don't get it/refuse to engage in understanding it doesn't mean it doesn't have value. It's like saying websites have no value - as they're not tangible real things - they are literally lines of code represented graphically on a screen through using other lines of code. 

You plainly don't understand how currencies work (they're not backed by anything, except a central bank, which is backed by... the currency itself ie literally trust), crypto is backed by mathematics, which means you don't have to trust it - it just is. 

Have you read the bitcoin whitepaper by satoshi nakamoto i linked to earlier? It goes into far more depth and described far more simply than I ever could.

What you seem to be saying is the present system isn’t to be trusted, but the cryptocurrency system is.
Why?
Websites are manifestly tangible real things. To say they are not is like saying Music isn’t a tangible real thing.
You have a dig by telling me I don’t understand, yet am I right in assuming that you work in this cryptocurrency field, so you have an interest in trying to make it all sound kosher?

Really? 
I have a website and I can make it disappear with a click of the mouse.
What tangible real things can I do that with? It would be nice to know. It might at least save me some trips to the dump.

You can make music disappear by stopping it/switching it off.

seth plum

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

stonemuse said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

All of those things require a fee Seth, it’s just already incorporated into the price. 

WSS said:

Crypto value can be tanked by a megalomaniac sending a 7-word tweet...

Absolutely, which is why I’ve not ‘invested’ but I do see the obvious uses and benefits in the future. 

I am sure that to run a bank or credit card company or print and distribute money costs something. However isn’t it the case that banks take customers savings and make money from that whilst they have it, but because of scale can make enough to run the bank?
If I buy the mythical cauliflower with Sterling are you saying I will get a discount on it if I buy with Sethcoins that I dream up?
My point that currency is eventually related to productivity is what needs to also be addressed. Otherwise a dreamed up currency is very similar (but worse!) to a currency based on Tulips.

Sometimes that possible, although sometimes negative interest exists and I’ve heard in Australia some banks charge simply to check a balance at an atm. 

Free banking is like free postage, it’s incorporated into the price of what you buy.

Its my understanding that lots of processes and services, especially internationally banking can be streamlined using blockchain technology. 

Are you suggesting things will have two prices? A Sterling price and a cheaper price if you use cryptocurrency (which you have to have paid for)?
As for streamlined, I have described how I use credit cards and banking, that is streamlined already.

If credit cards could be cheaper to use, do you really think companies would say no? I think you’ve confused blockchain with something that is going to replace existing currencies, I can’t see that happening in our lifetime. The technology has far more uses than that that can save millions of pounds right now. 

crypto"currencies" is a misnomer imo. You're not going to go into a shop and buy things with an unregulated decentralised cryptocurrency imo - why would a government give that up? But to suggest they don't have any worth is equally as silly. What's more likely is there will be government issued stablecoins that you'd be able to use, that may replace the current system.

Haven’t we agreed that worth is related to faith?
Is that any different to believing that Tulips are worth something?
I really struggle to see how a serious currency is not related to something tangible.
Nobody wants the North Korean Peoples Won because (outside North Korea at least) you can’t get anything tangible with it.
I doubt that Sainsburys will exchange a box of tea for a couple of my home grown Tulips…they might in certain very narrow circumstances mind you.

Well, tulips are worth something, aren't they? However you can't create and host a dApp on tulips, you can't write a smart contract with tulips, you can't really do anything with tulips except grow more tulips. I agree with you - it has to be related to something tangible, which cryptocurrencies like ethereum have tangible benefits and uses. The huge advantage of crypto is you don't have to have faith in a centralised entity like a government for it to have value. The faith exists because the code is sound, so there doesn't need to be countless middle men and institutions enforcing that trust whilst simultaneously automating whatever functions those middle men perform.

The point about a government (theoretically at least) you can establish or remove them and find ways to hold them to account.

I wouldn't be surprised in the future we will vote in elections using blockchain technology. Instant, undisputed results for everyone to see.

Already happening in certain parts of the world 

but hey, apparently it has no value, right @seth plum

What?
Electronic voting?
I have been discussing cryptocurrencies right, @kentaddick

Yes. Voting can and is done using crypto. 

I doubt I will have to pay in bitcoins to vote in the local elections in May.

jimmymelrose

seth plum said:

jimmymelrose said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

Right, @seth plum to use your cauliflower/honey analogy:

say you want to buy cauliflowers, to do that you’d have to use the cauliflower network - so you have to go to the cauliflower network and buy some cauliflowers. This network is made of various groups of cauliflower growers, and in order for you to be recognised as a cauliflower owner but I am buying cauliflower expressly because I am no a cauliflower owner they all have to see and acknowledge that you are a cauliflower owner so that it’s recorded on a ledger everyone can see so after I buy a cauliflower I am obliged in some way to tell the world I have a cauliflower, why? In order to do this do what, write it down in a book that I have bought a cauliflower?, this takes the cauliflower growers a little bit of work, so you have to pay them a little bit of the cauliflower you want in order to be recognised as a cauliflower owner why on earth would I have to be recognised as a cauliflower owner?. This is required for all transactions on the cauliflower network to save all this faff I would buy my cauliflowers elsewhere, like Lewisham market or somewhere.

Say now you don’t want cauliflower, you want to create honey, because you have some utility for that honey. There’s no honey network, but that’s okay, because the cauliflower network will allow you to turn your cauliflower into honey by reconfiguring the dna of the cauliflower into honey  eh? and still be able to use the cauliflower network. You still have to pay the cauliflower growers fees because you’re using that network I paid the cauliflower growers fee the first time I bought the cauliflower, I paid it because they took the trouble to grow it an harvest it, once that's done the cauliflower is mine free and clear.. Other people see your honey eh? again, honey that has been made out of cauliflowers by altering its dna? and want to buy your honey to use the utility for that honey you’ve created. That honey is now worth something isn't it worth a cauliflower? - as people want to trade their cauliflower for some honey. As a result that cauliflower also goes up in value I can understand my cauliflower goes up in value because there's a shortage, and mine is still good to eat, but see no other reason because more people are using the network. Now imagine other people are doing the same thing with the cauliflower and turning it into all sorts of stuff that has utilities or uses, maybe they might even reference the ledger of your honey in their utility, so that it essentially builds on what your honey does as i asked earlier why do I need to pay somebody for writing down in a ledger that I have just bought a cauliflower with pounds shillings and pence?

Hell, you might even want to become a cauliflower grower yourself instead of all that and maintain the cauliflower network, so you can collect a share of the cauliflower fees. 
So money is made by somebody somewhere putting a tax on cauliflowers?

Now imagine that’s all done in code, and that’s essentially how the ethereum network works. 

What you seem to be describing is some kind of force getting a squeeze on transactions off the back of cauliflower growers (and honey producers). Why should that happen when those forces are neither growing nor consuming any cauliflowers? 

No what I’m describing is literally the ethereum network and why ethereum (and other layer one cryptos) have value. In fact, you’ve highlighted exactly why there are other networks and cryptos, not just ethereum - why should you pay such high fees? Maybe you could use another network, the drawback is not as many people would be using that network. So the value might not be as high. 

Why would anybody want to use an ethereum network (whatever that is) for anything?
A base principle is I go to the person down the road, and fix their roof in exchange for a basket of apples they have grown.
Hey presto they have an actual thing, and I have an actual thing.
Take that scenario as a starting point and explain where the imaginary currencies fit in.

Right, so you create a contract in which once the work is completed, you receive the basket of apples. Usually you’d have to go to lawyers to draw up a contract, contact a bank and set up an escrow for the apples, or you’re relying on your client to supply the apples to you, through a delivery service or delivered by them themselves. If you do the work and don’t receive the apples (which any freelancer will tell you is a possibility) you’ll call the police, or take the case to small claims court to get your apples. Using a blockchain network like ethereum this can all be done much more efficiently in code with no middle men. The apples you want will be held in a smart contract that will release the apples to you once work has been seen to be completed. Not receiving the apples upon completion or receiving the apples before you’ve completed work is an impossibility - because it’s written in the code of the smart contract. You’ve now replaced all the middle men who are ensuring trust with code - which is much more efficient. All that this takes is for you to pay a “gas” fee to the network who are witnessing your transaction and smart contract by paying in ETH tokens. 

The more ETH tokens you have, the more you can use the network and more complex transactions you can make. The network is maintained by “miners” who witness the transaction. They are rewarded for witnessing these transactions with the “gas” fee you’ve paid, plus new ethereum tokens that they have been awarded for maintaining the network. 

The network cannot go down, because it’s maintained by thousands of completely separate computers. Nobody has a controlling stake in the network, so it is completely decentralised, not run by a company or nation state. 

You seem to be suggesting replacing, or adding to, all the presently existing middle men or women with new middle men or women.
Why would I want to do that? And why would I want to pay to do that?

Who are the middle men in my scenario? There are none. There’s 2 parties and a network that they exist on. In yours there’s a whole host of middle men right up to the Bank of England. 

I think earlier you said you have to pay to be on a ledger.
There's the middle man or woman right there isn't it?

Not really a middle man is it, it’s like saying soil is the middle man for growing cauliflower. You still have to water and expend resources on the soil. Even if, for the sake of argument, it is, it’s still a lot more efficient than the current set up, isn’t it? 

What seems to me to be inefficient is paying money earned for something that adds no benefit whatsoever.
Have you read the article I posted earlier about Tulips, and that 'bubble' and its relationship to imaginary currencies?
Even if governments print money they eventually have problems if that money is not related to something physically tangible like oil reserves, or the creative talent within a society. The money becomes worthless. 
Nobody is rushing out to buy the Korean People's Won because it has virtually nothing tangible to back it up. Nobody wants my newly dreamed up Sethcoins because there is nothing to back it up.
In your example, factored in to the price of the cauliflower is the enrichment of the soil, the use of water, and the ergs of labour used to produce it. What you buy is the cauliflower as a whole, complete with all the attendant processes that go along with it.
As for buying and selling stuff using Sethcoins, bitcoins or whatever, you assert (I think) that doing so would be somehow better if you used Sethcoins rather than the pounds sterling you earn from working.
I can't see how it can be better if Sethcoins only exist as a concept in my head, whereas Pounds sterling is rooted (sometimes badly rooted) in the productivity of the country.

But we've already established it does add benefit as it allows a system in which you don't have to have trust in institutions in order for it to work - just because you don't get it/refuse to engage in understanding it doesn't mean it doesn't have value. It's like saying websites have no value - as they're not tangible real things - they are literally lines of code represented graphically on a screen through using other lines of code. 

You plainly don't understand how currencies work (they're not backed by anything, except a central bank, which is backed by... the currency itself ie literally trust), crypto is backed by mathematics, which means you don't have to trust it - it just is. 

Have you read the bitcoin whitepaper by satoshi nakamoto i linked to earlier? It goes into far more depth and described far more simply than I ever could.

What you seem to be saying is the present system isn’t to be trusted, but the cryptocurrency system is.
Why?
Websites are manifestly tangible real things. To say they are not is like saying Music isn’t a tangible real thing.
You have a dig by telling me I don’t understand, yet am I right in assuming that you work in this cryptocurrency field, so you have an interest in trying to make it all sound kosher?

Really? 
I have a website and I can make it disappear with a click of the mouse.
What tangible real things can I do that with? It would be nice to know. It might at least save me some trips to the dump.

You can make music disappear by stopping it/switching it off.

Yes you can. 

You can make poo disappear by flushing the toilet.

Now where were we?

Stu_of_Kunming

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

stonemuse said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

All of those things require a fee Seth, it’s just already incorporated into the price. 

WSS said:

Crypto value can be tanked by a megalomaniac sending a 7-word tweet...

Absolutely, which is why I’ve not ‘invested’ but I do see the obvious uses and benefits in the future. 

I am sure that to run a bank or credit card company or print and distribute money costs something. However isn’t it the case that banks take customers savings and make money from that whilst they have it, but because of scale can make enough to run the bank?
If I buy the mythical cauliflower with Sterling are you saying I will get a discount on it if I buy with Sethcoins that I dream up?
My point that currency is eventually related to productivity is what needs to also be addressed. Otherwise a dreamed up currency is very similar (but worse!) to a currency based on Tulips.

Sometimes that possible, although sometimes negative interest exists and I’ve heard in Australia some banks charge simply to check a balance at an atm. 

Free banking is like free postage, it’s incorporated into the price of what you buy.

Its my understanding that lots of processes and services, especially internationally banking can be streamlined using blockchain technology. 

Are you suggesting things will have two prices? A Sterling price and a cheaper price if you use cryptocurrency (which you have to have paid for)?
As for streamlined, I have described how I use credit cards and banking, that is streamlined already.

If credit cards could be cheaper to use, do you really think companies would say no? I think you’ve confused blockchain with something that is going to replace existing currencies, I can’t see that happening in our lifetime. The technology has far more uses than that that can save millions of pounds right now. 

crypto"currencies" is a misnomer imo. You're not going to go into a shop and buy things with an unregulated decentralised cryptocurrency imo - why would a government give that up? But to suggest they don't have any worth is equally as silly. What's more likely is there will be government issued stablecoins that you'd be able to use, that may replace the current system.

Haven’t we agreed that worth is related to faith?
Is that any different to believing that Tulips are worth something?
I really struggle to see how a serious currency is not related to something tangible.
Nobody wants the North Korean Peoples Won because (outside North Korea at least) you can’t get anything tangible with it.
I doubt that Sainsburys will exchange a box of tea for a couple of my home grown Tulips…they might in certain very narrow circumstances mind you.

Well, tulips are worth something, aren't they? However you can't create and host a dApp on tulips, you can't write a smart contract with tulips, you can't really do anything with tulips except grow more tulips. I agree with you - it has to be related to something tangible, which cryptocurrencies like ethereum have tangible benefits and uses. The huge advantage of crypto is you don't have to have faith in a centralised entity like a government for it to have value. The faith exists because the code is sound, so there doesn't need to be countless middle men and institutions enforcing that trust whilst simultaneously automating whatever functions those middle men perform.

The point about a government (theoretically at least) you can establish or remove them and find ways to hold them to account.

I wouldn't be surprised in the future we will vote in elections using blockchain technology. Instant, undisputed results for everyone to see.

Already happening in certain parts of the world 

but hey, apparently it has no value, right @seth plum

What?
Electronic voting?
I have been discussing cryptocurrencies right, @kentaddick

Yes. Voting can and is done using crypto. 

I doubt I will have to pay in bitcoins to vote in the local elections in May.

I think this is the mistake your making, cryptocurrency is just a name, you to stop thinking about it as a currency is the same way you think of €$¥ etc. 

Chris_from_Sidcup

Croydon said:

The big clue that they're probably lying was with their comment that the EFL had been "surprisingly progressive". 

The EFL have rarely been progressive with anything.

seth plum

Stu_of_Kunming said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

stonemuse said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

All of those things require a fee Seth, it’s just already incorporated into the price. 

WSS said:

Crypto value can be tanked by a megalomaniac sending a 7-word tweet...

Absolutely, which is why I’ve not ‘invested’ but I do see the obvious uses and benefits in the future. 

I am sure that to run a bank or credit card company or print and distribute money costs something. However isn’t it the case that banks take customers savings and make money from that whilst they have it, but because of scale can make enough to run the bank?
If I buy the mythical cauliflower with Sterling are you saying I will get a discount on it if I buy with Sethcoins that I dream up?
My point that currency is eventually related to productivity is what needs to also be addressed. Otherwise a dreamed up currency is very similar (but worse!) to a currency based on Tulips.

Sometimes that possible, although sometimes negative interest exists and I’ve heard in Australia some banks charge simply to check a balance at an atm. 

Free banking is like free postage, it’s incorporated into the price of what you buy.

Its my understanding that lots of processes and services, especially internationally banking can be streamlined using blockchain technology. 

Are you suggesting things will have two prices? A Sterling price and a cheaper price if you use cryptocurrency (which you have to have paid for)?
As for streamlined, I have described how I use credit cards and banking, that is streamlined already.

If credit cards could be cheaper to use, do you really think companies would say no? I think you’ve confused blockchain with something that is going to replace existing currencies, I can’t see that happening in our lifetime. The technology has far more uses than that that can save millions of pounds right now. 

crypto"currencies" is a misnomer imo. You're not going to go into a shop and buy things with an unregulated decentralised cryptocurrency imo - why would a government give that up? But to suggest they don't have any worth is equally as silly. What's more likely is there will be government issued stablecoins that you'd be able to use, that may replace the current system.

Haven’t we agreed that worth is related to faith?
Is that any different to believing that Tulips are worth something?
I really struggle to see how a serious currency is not related to something tangible.
Nobody wants the North Korean Peoples Won because (outside North Korea at least) you can’t get anything tangible with it.
I doubt that Sainsburys will exchange a box of tea for a couple of my home grown Tulips…they might in certain very narrow circumstances mind you.

Well, tulips are worth something, aren't they? However you can't create and host a dApp on tulips, you can't write a smart contract with tulips, you can't really do anything with tulips except grow more tulips. I agree with you - it has to be related to something tangible, which cryptocurrencies like ethereum have tangible benefits and uses. The huge advantage of crypto is you don't have to have faith in a centralised entity like a government for it to have value. The faith exists because the code is sound, so there doesn't need to be countless middle men and institutions enforcing that trust whilst simultaneously automating whatever functions those middle men perform.

The point about a government (theoretically at least) you can establish or remove them and find ways to hold them to account.

I wouldn't be surprised in the future we will vote in elections using blockchain technology. Instant, undisputed results for everyone to see.

Already happening in certain parts of the world 

but hey, apparently it has no value, right @seth plum

What?
Electronic voting?
I have been discussing cryptocurrencies right, @kentaddick

Yes. Voting can and is done using crypto. 

I doubt I will have to pay in bitcoins to vote in the local elections in May.

I think this is the mistake your making, cryptocurrency is just a name, you to stop thinking about it as a currency is the same way you think of €$¥ etc. 

I think the problem is conflating a technological development called blockchain with currency.
Technological development is relatively commonplace, we now have ear buds when before there was the clunky Sony Walkman cassette player.
I am accepting that computers and the World Wide Web will develop, as it does.
What I am sceptical about is a dreamed up currency where it’s value is a dreamed up act of faith. I entered this conversation talking about buying Bradford City with bunches of 🌷 Tulips which would have been a possibility in Holland back in the day (if Bradford City had existed near Venlo or something).
If I wanted to get some bitcoins I would have to pay for them in pounds Sterling. If those bitcoins were churning around and growing in perceived value how would I realise that value so as to buy cauliflowers down Lewisham market?
I would have to change them back into Sterling.
Life is difficult enough without that kind of rip off palaver.

Cafc43v3r

Sorry to interrupt the tulips and cauliflowers 

https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/sportlatest/19798927.bradford-city-owner-rupp-blasts-back-wagmi-united/

kentaddick

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

stonemuse said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

All of those things require a fee Seth, it’s just already incorporated into the price. 

WSS said:

Crypto value can be tanked by a megalomaniac sending a 7-word tweet...

Absolutely, which is why I’ve not ‘invested’ but I do see the obvious uses and benefits in the future. 

I am sure that to run a bank or credit card company or print and distribute money costs something. However isn’t it the case that banks take customers savings and make money from that whilst they have it, but because of scale can make enough to run the bank?
If I buy the mythical cauliflower with Sterling are you saying I will get a discount on it if I buy with Sethcoins that I dream up?
My point that currency is eventually related to productivity is what needs to also be addressed. Otherwise a dreamed up currency is very similar (but worse!) to a currency based on Tulips.

Sometimes that possible, although sometimes negative interest exists and I’ve heard in Australia some banks charge simply to check a balance at an atm. 

Free banking is like free postage, it’s incorporated into the price of what you buy.

Its my understanding that lots of processes and services, especially internationally banking can be streamlined using blockchain technology. 

Are you suggesting things will have two prices? A Sterling price and a cheaper price if you use cryptocurrency (which you have to have paid for)?
As for streamlined, I have described how I use credit cards and banking, that is streamlined already.

If credit cards could be cheaper to use, do you really think companies would say no? I think you’ve confused blockchain with something that is going to replace existing currencies, I can’t see that happening in our lifetime. The technology has far more uses than that that can save millions of pounds right now. 

crypto"currencies" is a misnomer imo. You're not going to go into a shop and buy things with an unregulated decentralised cryptocurrency imo - why would a government give that up? But to suggest they don't have any worth is equally as silly. What's more likely is there will be government issued stablecoins that you'd be able to use, that may replace the current system.

Haven’t we agreed that worth is related to faith?
Is that any different to believing that Tulips are worth something?
I really struggle to see how a serious currency is not related to something tangible.
Nobody wants the North Korean Peoples Won because (outside North Korea at least) you can’t get anything tangible with it.
I doubt that Sainsburys will exchange a box of tea for a couple of my home grown Tulips…they might in certain very narrow circumstances mind you.

Well, tulips are worth something, aren't they? However you can't create and host a dApp on tulips, you can't write a smart contract with tulips, you can't really do anything with tulips except grow more tulips. I agree with you - it has to be related to something tangible, which cryptocurrencies like ethereum have tangible benefits and uses. The huge advantage of crypto is you don't have to have faith in a centralised entity like a government for it to have value. The faith exists because the code is sound, so there doesn't need to be countless middle men and institutions enforcing that trust whilst simultaneously automating whatever functions those middle men perform.

The point about a government (theoretically at least) you can establish or remove them and find ways to hold them to account.

I wouldn't be surprised in the future we will vote in elections using blockchain technology. Instant, undisputed results for everyone to see.

Already happening in certain parts of the world 

but hey, apparently it has no value, right @seth plum

What?
Electronic voting?
I have been discussing cryptocurrencies right, @kentaddick

Yes. Voting can and is done using crypto. 

I doubt I will have to pay in bitcoins to vote in the local elections in May.

that's not what i said at all lmao.

You're being wilfully ignorant and trolling - I've been patient enough with you, but you keep looping back round to the same misguided and uneducated statements even when you've been corrected.

kentaddick

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

stonemuse said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

seth plum said:

kentaddick said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

seth plum said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

All of those things require a fee Seth, it’s just already incorporated into the price. 

WSS said:

Crypto value can be tanked by a megalomaniac sending a 7-word tweet...

Absolutely, which is why I’ve not ‘invested’ but I do see the obvious uses and benefits in the future. 

I am sure that to run a bank or credit card company or print and distribute money costs something. However isn’t it the case that banks take customers savings and make money from that whilst they have it, but because of scale can make enough to run the bank?
If I buy the mythical cauliflower with Sterling are you saying I will get a discount on it if I buy with Sethcoins that I dream up?
My point that currency is eventually related to productivity is what needs to also be addressed. Otherwise a dreamed up currency is very similar (but worse!) to a currency based on Tulips.

Sometimes that possible, although sometimes negative interest exists and I’ve heard in Australia some banks charge simply to check a balance at an atm. 

Free banking is like free postage, it’s incorporated into the price of what you buy.

Its my understanding that lots of processes and services, especially internationally banking can be streamlined using blockchain technology. 

Are you suggesting things will have two prices? A Sterling price and a cheaper price if you use cryptocurrency (which you have to have paid for)?
As for streamlined, I have described how I use credit cards and banking, that is streamlined already.

If credit cards could be cheaper to use, do you really think companies would say no? I think you’ve confused blockchain with something that is going to replace existing currencies, I can’t see that happening in our lifetime. The technology has far more uses than that that can save millions of pounds right now. 

crypto"currencies" is a misnomer imo. You're not going to go into a shop and buy things with an unregulated decentralised cryptocurrency imo - why would a government give that up? But to suggest they don't have any worth is equally as silly. What's more likely is there will be government issued stablecoins that you'd be able to use, that may replace the current system.

Haven’t we agreed that worth is related to faith?
Is that any different to believing that Tulips are worth something?
I really struggle to see how a serious currency is not related to something tangible.
Nobody wants the North Korean Peoples Won because (outside North Korea at least) you can’t get anything tangible with it.
I doubt that Sainsburys will exchange a box of tea for a couple of my home grown Tulips…they might in certain very narrow circumstances mind you.

Well, tulips are worth something, aren't they? However you can't create and host a dApp on tulips, you can't write a smart contract with tulips, you can't really do anything with tulips except grow more tulips. I agree with you - it has to be related to something tangible, which cryptocurrencies like ethereum have tangible benefits and uses. The huge advantage of crypto is you don't have to have faith in a centralised entity like a government for it to have value. The faith exists because the code is sound, so there doesn't need to be countless middle men and institutions enforcing that trust whilst simultaneously automating whatever functions those middle men perform.

The point about a government (theoretically at least) you can establish or remove them and find ways to hold them to account.

I wouldn't be surprised in the future we will vote in elections using blockchain technology. Instant, undisputed results for everyone to see.

Already happening in certain parts of the world 

but hey, apparently it has no value, right @seth plum

What?
Electronic voting?
I have been discussing cryptocurrencies right, @kentaddick

Yes. Voting can and is done using crypto. 

I doubt I will have to pay in bitcoins to vote in the local elections in May.

I think this is the mistake your making, cryptocurrency is just a name, you to stop thinking about it as a currency is the same way you think of €$¥ etc. 

I think the problem is conflating a technological development called blockchain with currency.
Technological development is relatively commonplace, we now have ear buds when before there was the clunky Sony Walkman cassette player.
I am accepting that computers and the World Wide Web will develop, as it does.
What I am sceptical about is a dreamed up currency where it’s value is a dreamed up act of faith. I entered this conversation talking about buying Bradford City with bunches of 🌷 Tulips which would have been a possibility in Holland back in the day (if Bradford City had existed near Venlo or something).
If I wanted to get some bitcoins I would have to pay for them in pounds Sterling. If those bitcoins were churning around and growing in perceived value how would I realise that value so as to buy cauliflowers down Lewisham market?
I would have to change them back into Sterling.
Life is difficult enough without that kind of rip off palaver.

You're skeptical of the US dollar and Sterling?

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fiatmoney.asp