Advertisements

The “Bitcoin Cash” Hit Piece

The “Bitcoin Cash” Hit Piece

(Updated November 28, 2017)


Dear Cryptocurrency Enthusiasts:

This is an open letter-blog and assessment of the Mr. John Carvalho and Roger Ver discussion.

Is this the beginning of the end of Bitcoin Cash?

It’s not every day you get to take a peek at the guys and gals – the movers and shakers – in the crypto-sphere. See them in a more human light. See them make mistakes, get angry and do dumb things.

There is no such thing as a Bitcoin Jesus or is there? Well, he is being demoted now.

If you have 45 minutes, you can watch the interview with Bitcoin Jesus, by a less than dignified fellow. It occurred on November 27, 2017.

If you prefer an interpretation, then scan the words below. I have pulled out some of the more interesting highlights.

This is my interpretation of today’s debate between John Carvalho and Bitcoin Jesus — no longer. He is now just plain old Roger Ver these days. And it really gives you a taste of crypto-current-events.

Events that are awash in…problems.

It’ll make you think twice about Bitcoin (BTC)…and Bitcoin Cash (BCH and BCC).

Ver, as many know, was an early supporter of bitcoin, but now supports Bitcoin Cash. That should tell you something. And anyone who thinks that Ver is just a money grubbing corporate type, might end up holding a worthless bag of BTC, but I hope not.

Carvalho, our alleged hero, has a YouTube site called Bitcoin Error Log. He is the CEO of Xotika.TV, which appears to be a porn site.

Carvalho has serious character issues…

You be the judge of John Carvarlo’s character, but I say the guy has near zero credibility. And like Ver advised, I also don’t care if you sell smut for a living, but it does define you. It tells the world what you really are.

(And be careful accessing the Xotika.TV site, it involves a high-risk country, according to Scamadviser.com. Scumbag issues.)

Why Ver agreed to the interview it is beyond me. Smut profiteer interviews self-made millionaire? Go figure.

The smut seller wins debate?

Carvalho of the Bitcoin Error Log (on YouTube) put Roger Ver on the spot today. It was a live debate, but more like a planned hit piece. It is hard to tell if Ver did not deserve it.

Ver was apparently speaking from a hotel room and Carvalho was in his safe-space. It looked like a setup. Carvalho obviously wanted to make Ver look bad. Please tell me if that was not the plan Mr. Carvalho.

Carvalho’s attitude was condescending and Ver seemed to hit back with straight forward answers. Polite most of the time. Until the end, where he lost his composure. (He is only human, but is that an excuse?)

Carvalho spiced his language. Cursed, laughed, derided, and made empty accusations.  Again, what do we expect from his ilk.

And it worked. I began to have doubts about Bitcoin Cash and Ver.

Unfocused debate…more like a Witch Hunt

The debate, if that is what you would like to call it, was apparently supposed to focus, at least in part, on the block-size issues with bitcoin/bitcoin cash; however, the discussion appeared more accusatory and was derailed early on.

Carvalho was the accuser. Ver was on trial, trying to respond to unsubstantiated allegations. A Drumhead Trial from afar.

For starters, as Ver tried to answer questions, there was construction noise nearby and his audio often cut out. This, I’m certain, did not help Ver be heard. At that point I would have asked to debate later. But Ver soldiered on. A mistake.

It did help Carvalho. The beating of the drum…

Carvalho asked why Ver did not like the label “Bcash” for Bitcoin Cash.

Ver stood by his guns. He and the devs like the label Bitcoin Cash, Ver said. The label “Bcash” seems condescending in Ver’s opinion. (See here for how it all started.)

Carvalho wanted to know why he couldn’t call it what he wanted to call it.

Ver tried to explain that the term “Bcash” was obviously negative, so he and others, didn’t care for it.

Pushing buttons…

Carvalho explained that he and others feel that they can label it “Bcash” because there is only one true bitcoin. That seemed to be the crux of it. Carvlaho wanted to give Bitcoin Cash a derogatory name and wouldn’t admit it.

Why not admit it? Sometimes button pushing works and when the pushee admits that, he’s lost the battle.

Ver explained that this was Bitcoin Cash, not “Bcash” and not bitcoin, but Carvalho ignored this. It’s Bcash, he stated repeatedly. A dog with a bone.

This bit of nonsense was repeated by Carvalho. Bcash. Bcash. Every chance he got.

[One might think Ver was being interviewed by a child, but that was the game, was it not, Mr. Carvalho?]

Carvalho asserted that there is only one true bitcoin. He interrupted Ver, as it was explained that Bitcoin Cash was in line with Satoshi Nakamoto’s Whitepaper. These interruptions were obviously designed to keep Ver off balance.

And this is how it went. Ver, trying to be cordial and Carvalho interrupting with “Bcash” and snide remarks. And like I said, it worked.

Carvalho indicated that said bitcoin Whitepaper was not the “bible.” That “we” (meaning the Carvalho porno-gang?) can “agree” that the original bitcoin is the one true bitcoin and the Whitepaper (the original design) is essentially not bitcoin. In other words, if bitcoin’s code changes and the devs diverge from the original vision, it’s still bitcoin original — according to Carvalho.

Certainly, this is a tenuous argument. But Carvalho wouldn’t let go.

And Ver didn’t dislodge that sentiment. It was Ver, big bad corporate man, against bitcoin, a bunch on innocent devs (earning a bit of money on the side from Blockstream and others) working hard — coding.

Carvalho’s assertions…

These repeated assertions by Carvalho seemed to say that old bitcoin is always new bitcoin, even if it’s not in line with Satoshi Nakamoto’s vision. If the devs are still there, no matter if they are new devs, if the undefined community still exists, if the repository is still there, it’s bitcoin.

Appeal to emotions. A point for Carvalho.

What Ver attempted to explain, but Carvalho refused to acknowledge, was that Bitcoin Cash was closer to Satoshi Nakamoto’s original vision than bitcoin is now. That bitcoin has diverged and is heading down the wrong path. A path with higher fees, slower service and lost transactions.

It fell flat. Ver was a copycat and it stuck.

Carvalho continued his attack.

Carvalho repeated that the repository is “bitcoin” no matter how the code is edited by the core devs or contributed to, by the undefined community.

Ver indicated that not just anyone in the community can contribute to bitcoin. [So this is a false statement, Ver implied.]

Bitcoin is NOT open to the community.

Ver cited Gavin Andresen’s revocation. Andresen is no longer allowed to contribute – meaning bitcoin is NOT open to the community.

Carvalho stated that Satoshi Nakamoto did not hand bitcoin over to Gavin Andresen in the first place. That Andresen somehow obtained control over bitcoin after he went to the CIA. [Vague accusation – never explained. FUD?]

Ver stated that Carvalho was incorrect. That, not only did Nakamoto share access to bitcoin development, but Andresen then shared it with others. These others then revoked Andresen’s access, without his consent. Andresen can no longer approve code to be included into bitcoin.

Andresen a risk?

Ver also stated that the new core devs alleged that Gavin Andresen’s bitcoin dev account had been hacked and that was the reason his access had been revoked…permanently. Oddly, this, on its face, appears very suspicious and thus far this author is not aware of any evidence that Andresen’s bitcoin Github access was ever hacked. On the other hand, concerns over Andresen’s original indications that he had found the one true Satoshi Nakamoto (Craig Wright) may have played into the issue.

Carvalho stated that the new core team, which Gavin Andresen gave permission to help develop bitcoin, had been asking him to voluntarily revoke his own access, before they locked him out, because he was no longer “contributing” to the bitcoin project. That allowing Andresen continued access was a security risk.

Carvalho also stated that Andresen contributed to his own downfall by focusing on “antagonistic” things. [In other words, Andresen did not agree with the new core team members…and was unceremoniously booted out? That appears to be the implication.]

Okay. Enough. Andresen being booted out does not make bitcoin a closed community.

Point to Carvalho.

Back on focus…

Ver then tried to have Carvalho focus on the block-size debate issues, which was apparently supposed to be the focus of the interview.

Carvalho said that Ver had originally supported the Bitcoin SegWit2x fork.

Ver replied that this was true, but after the last-minute cancellation by others he went with Bitcoin Cash – and he had indicated this would happen if SegWitx2 failed. And it failed.

The accusations continued to fly from Carvalho.

Derailed again…

Carvalho indicated that Ver recently received flak for the newest Bitcoin.com wallet (Ver owns or has interest in Bitcoin.com). That the new wallet defaulted to Bitcoin Cash.

Ver stated that this was also untrue and held up his cell phone and showed Carvalho. The screen on the phone clearly showed two wallets. One for Bitcoin and another for Bitcoin Cash.

Cell Phone Wallet - Copy

(Photo Source: YouTube)

Carvalho stated that this would confuse people and implied that the names (Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash) were too similar. That “newcomers” might not know the difference.

And I’d have to say that Carvalho is right on this point. Ver’s cell phone shows a confusing set of choices. If you don’t know the difference between BTC and BCH, then you might become confused.

Carvalho then asserted that it was fraudulent to use the bitcoin name in Bitcoin Cash. Carvalho did not explain this accusation.

Fraudulent is something obtained, done by, or involving deception, especially criminal deception.

Ver stated that he did not think the labels were that confusing [or fraudulent].

[Side Note: If you can’t tell the difference between crypto-wallets with separate labels, you should probably not be using cryptocurrency.]

Carvalho then asserted that the Bitcoin.com wallet would confuse people, implying that the name of the website was also misleading.

Ver stated that the Bitcoin.com wallet clearly states that is supports Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash.

Carvalho then changed the subject. He stated that “we’re” concerned for the “noobs” due the Ver’s marketing power. That they will be confused.

Even score here. Both have valid points.

Ver countered. He asked why Carvalho was not concerned that newcomers would pay more in transaction fees ($20.00 fees) with old bitcoin?

Carvalho ignores high old bitcoin fees.

Carvalho said he wanted to talk about fees “separately.” That he was more interested in “education.”

[In other words noobs losing money in old bitcoin was not considered educational to Carvalho.]

Ver gets a point.

Once again, Ver stated that Bitcoin Cash more closely resembled the original Bitcoin.org Whitepaper.

Carvalho asked how Ver could “…make that leap” since there was “…no mention of Bitcoin Cash,” in the Whitepaper and is not any more peer to peer, than is bitcoin. [Carvalho had indicated that bitcoin was ‘node to node’ these days.]

Ver gets another point. Carvalho’s answers are too vague.

Ver explained that the fees were lower with Bitcoin Cash — again. That nobody can stop the transactions.

“…Bitcoin Cash can be stopped…”

Carvalho stated that Bitcoin Cash can be stopped since it’s a smaller network. That the only reason that transactions are cheaper, is because nobody is “spamming” Bitcoin Cash yet.

Interesting idea.

Ver asserted that this was not true. That bitcoin is now slow and expensive due to full blocks and the user experience is suffering.

Ver is on the money. Bitcoin is very slow.

Carvalho cited bitcoin’s higher market cap, but Ver stated that bitcoin has failed. That the slow transaction speed is the tell.

Bitcoin has not yet failed.

“…the Lightning Network…”

Carvalho stated that the “Lightning Network” would increase transaction speeds.

Ver responded that the transition from Bitcoin Core the Bitcoin Core assisted by the “Lightning Network” is much more difficult than to simply switch to a better coin.

Ver asked Carvalho if he had ever completed a single Lightning Network transaction and received a negative response.

Ver gets a point. There are SegWit2x problems. It’s an unproven system.

Bitcoin is bleeding out…

Ver stated that Bitcoin used to have a near 99% market share. That it is now “bleeding” into other altcoins and stands at about 53% of market share.

Carvalho disagreed and indicated that this does not mean that bitcoin is losing ground due to its value per coin.

Nobody wins this round.

Ver said that Bitcoin Core has “intentionallydestroyed bitcoin’s usability by capping the block-size. It’s too expensive to use, less reliable; and therefore, investors are seeking out alternatives.

Block size?

Carvalho stated that Satoshi Nakamoto designed the small block-size in the first place.

Ver stated that Nakamoto was convinced by others to do this later, as a temporary measure, to stop others from “flooding” the network.

Carvalho tried to change the subject again, but Ver asked him to finish each subject before moving on.

Ver then advised that Nakamoto’s original intent was to allow the block-sizes to be as big as they needed to be, to accommodate the network.

Carvalho then stated that the bitcoin block-size was in fact limited from the beginning.

Ver did not answer this question clearly. Ver stated that the block-size (what was stored in each block) grew as time passed [until it apparently hit the actual preset limit].

Even score again. Nobody wins this point.

Why does Carvalho like old bitcoin?

Ver then asked why Carvalho liked bitcoin and he responded with the standard line. No inflation, private, decentralized, store of value etc.

Ver then indicated that Carvalho’s answers defined many altcoins in general.

Then Ver advised he was trying to replace all forms of money with a form of permission-less money and make it impossible for governments to control money and free trade.

Carvalho hit on the decentralization aspect again, but Ver stated the this is a tool of censorship resistance, not necessarily a goal in and of itself. That censorship does take place in bitcoin when your transaction is too small, and it drops from the “mempool.”

Carvalho cited blockchain rollbacks by miners with more power. This “power” centralization has effectively censored transactions.

Ver countered that the small bitcoin block-sizes incentivizes investors to use large “bitcoin” banks like Coinbase. Such a concentration of bitcoin is akin to “centralizing.” If the block-size is larger, the system is easier to use and keep in investors’ hands.

Carvalho tried to state that the altcoin exchanges are a centralization risk, but Ver reminded him that it was a matter of choice to trade on exchanges.

Mix and match. Nobody wins these points.

Untested Tech

Carvalho then advised that his company (Xotika.TV) now uses SegWit2x.

Ver implied that it is an untested tech and that there does not have to be a block-size limit anyway.

Ver wins this point.

Carvalho moves onto theory. There is “infinite demand for block-space.”

Ver disagreed. He said it depends upon the demand that the miner’s set for the block-space.

Ver’s point.

Then Carvalho played the “what if” game.

What if the blocks were infinite?

[Yet another seemingly ridiculous argument. Carvalho is not apparently grounded in economic reality, but mired in some infinite theoretical worry. At this point Carvalho becomes defensive as it has become obvious he is losing the debate.  Accusations begin to fly. Ver doesn’t actually know what he says, etc.]

Ver stated that nobody knows what the perfect block-size is.

Carvalho: not knowing then [the optimum block-size], what is the best approach? A conservative one or a risky one?

Carvalho’s lack of knowledge shows…

Ver stated that the market should decide. Then he asked Carvalho to name any other altcoin that has full blocks [like bitcoin].

Carvalho didn’t know.

Ver stated that it has never happened.

Ver wins point on technicality.

Carvalho indicated that everybody wants to use bitcoin. [Yet another wild assertion. Bad form.]

Ver related that bitcoin having full blocks and high fees – and being experimented upon – is VERY risky. That the experiments should be done on a separate altcoin, not bitcoin. [Really good point.]

Ver wins two-points.

Carvalho’s do nothing approach

Carvalho stated that “inaction” on bitcoin is “conservative.” That leaving it alone is not risky. That Ver should not paint it this way.

Ver stated that action is needed on bitcoin.

Ver wins point again.

Carvalho repeated that bitcoin had a coded-in block size limit originally, but Ver explained that this was not generally true. That the one-megabyte limit was not reached until recently, since there was no “infinite” demand for block-space. At that point any responsible core team should have fixed it. Such a failure, in the real world of business, would have resulted in an employee’s termination, according to Ver.

Ver’s explanation agains fall flat. Minus a point.

Ver stated that many well-known exchanges are busily integrating Bitcoin Cash, but if people still wished to use bitcoin, that is fine. On the other hand, if you want reliability, faster transactions, something like the way bitcoin was supposed to work, then Bitcoin Cash is the answer – and it will save you money.

This comes off as smug. You are losing the crowd here, Ver.

Carvalho asserts…again

Carvalho asserted that Bitcoin Cash was unreliable. He asked why Bitcoin Cash created more coins and raised the specter of inflation?

Ver stated that Bitcoin Cash has the same coin number as bitcoin, but for a time, many miners switched to Bitcoin Cash and they got ahead.

Point for Ver.

Carvalho then supplied a list of Bitcoin Cash complaints all at once. He continued to interrupt Ver.

Carvalho indicated that Bitcoin Cash changed their mining algorithm to make it easier to mine.

Point for Carvalho. Ver never counters.

That ASIC Boost can also be used.

Point for Carvalho. Ver ignores or forgets?

That there is almost a 1% inflation rate in Bitcoin Cash.

[This inflation assertion is disingenuous. Inflation implies a constantly growing money supply. Bitcoin Cash, like bitcoin, has an upper hard limit. Carvalho’s argument is that since Bitcoin Cash mines faster it causes temporary inflation of coins – but this does not necessarily translate into a lower coin value, which is the result of inflation in a controlled, single-source and mandated money supply. Bitcoin Cash is not “legal tender.”]

Carvalho’s inflation allegation falls flat. Minus a point.

Carvalho also alleged that “old work” can be used to obtain more Bitcoin Cash coins in some cases. No other explanation was given.

Ver does not counter. Carvalho wins point by default.

Ver claimed that given the current bitcoin environment, bitcoin will lose out to Bitcoin Cash.

Vague.

Carvalho indicated that Ver stated these things because he thinks that Bitcoin Cash is doing something new.

Ver said that Bitcoin Cash has a larger user base that litecoin, for example. That anyone can check Coinmarketcap.com to see this.

Carvalho responded that using trading volumes, where there are no fees, for example, does not give an accurate picture. But he failed to describe what did give an accurate picture.

Nobody wins a point.

Carvalho plays dirty…

Carvalho then accused Ver of over-tweeting, getting socks (sock puppets) to up-vote and downvote etc.

Carvalho loses credibility all at once. Dumps all his points. Irrational statements. No verification offered.

Ver stated that these were lies. And backs his statements up with examples.

Ver is awarded five points.

Carvalho offered zero evidence of these accusations or any others, up to this point. And yet he presses on.

Minus another point for Carvalho, who is now sinking.

Carvalho then launched into more insult-like behavior, called Bitcoin Cash, “Bcash” and Ver became irritated. He advised Carvalho to discontinue this line or he would discontinue the interview.

Since Carvalho senses he’s lost the high ground, he starts to sling.

Minus more points.

Carvalho continued to press Ver’s buttons, stating that Ver only wanted the bitcoin name to “…coopt the brand.”

Ver stated that it was essentially more legitimate than bitcoin, although the name is Bitcoin Cash. But it is the true “bitcoin.” Read his lips, Ver stated.

The discussion is off track now.

Ver began to cite the growth of Bitcoin Cash over bitcoin, pointing out that it will soon overtake bitcoin.

Bravado?

Carvalho’s belief — higher bitcoins fees are better?

Carvalho stated that the higher fees associated with bitcoin makes it more valuable. [Seriously.] That for Ver to continue to hold bitcoin at all “…makes no sense.”

Ver reminded Carvalho not to place all his eggs in one basket and that bitcoin still retains a “network effect.”

Ver creams Carvalho again.

Carvalho continued with his “Bcash” insults and Ver reminded him it’s Bitcoin Cash. Ver also indicated that he does not need to speak to “someone on the internet” who does not necessarily run a successful business.

This makes Ver look bad. Loses emotional high-ground here. Big bad Bitcoin Cash entrepreneur bad mouths porn king, just trying to make a smut-buck. We’re in the ditch now.

Carvalho asked why it mattered that Ver was a millionaire.

[Why? Because it shows a person who can run a successful business.]

Carvalho reminded Ver that bitcoin is not a business.

Ten points for Carvalho. He’s above water again.

Carvalho insisted repeatedly that he could call Bitcoin cash, “Bcash” and Ver reminded him that that label was started in a derogatory manner on the internet and that he didn’t like it.

Moot point. Does not help discussion. It just pushes Ver over the edge.

Carvalho’s last stab…

Carvalho stated that he thought only Ver, “Jihan” and Ver’s sock puppets, didn’t like the “Bcash” label.

Ver then discontinued the interview after flipping Carvalho off.

Bad form. Ver loses debate in seconds — on emotional grounds, but not substance. Makes him appear easy to enrage.

I’ll have to say, of all the interviews I’ve seen Ver do, this one was the most interesting. Showed his human side. His inabilities.

And if Ver is right, it will be an “I told you so moment” when (and if) bitcoin begins to falter. Whether Bitcoin Cash will pick up the slack, is another matter.

Do you still trust Bitcoin Cash?

Conclusion:

Carvalho’s interview only served to point out bitcoin’s weaknesses, show that Ver is human and make people realize that they might want to reconsider holding onto BTC or BCH.

On the other hand, Carvalho made some valid points, even if most of it was mud-slinging.

Put your eggs in different baskets.

Ver issued his apology here. Too late now.

Sincerely,

 

Jack Shorebird


…I am now rethinking my Bitcoin Cash holdings.

Advertisements

Cardano (ADA) is NOT Money, but that’s Okay — neither is Bitcoin…

Cardano (ADA) is NOT Money, but that’s Okay — neither is Bitcoin…

Dear Cryptocurrency Enthusiasts,

I heard the air just go out of the room. How can I dare say such a thing? I mean, why? Why challenge the Gods of Crypto? Because I listen to them when they say really dumb things and I’m a bad little sheep. I crap on their stage and bleat. It’s okay, I’m just a little sheep. Not much to worry about.

After reviewing several recent videos put out by the more vocal cryptocurrency developers and evangelists I wanted to reiterate a few things about what these pro-cryptocurrency, blockchain promoting, initial coin offering gurus and family, might be obfuscating: reality.

(There. I just let one go. Plop.)

And this goes for nearly all cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin, Litecoin, Sexcoin, Ether-bum and Frogpennies included.

What? There are no Frogpennies? You mean I was scammed? Again?

Dammit man!

I’m no newbie (noob) to this financial vehicle. I’ve been around the bend. Lost and gained. And I’m still here. Still playing the game. Still bleating and trading — and winning — for now.

“Freaking gambler!”

Hey…relax.

So, this is a reality check, from a fan of cryptocurrencies. (That’s me. Don’t forget that part.)

Is cryptocurrency anything other than a speculative vehicle?

I mean, look at where most of the money is going in cryptocurrency markets.  Most of the investment is going into bitcoin. Currently, bitcoin’s market capitalization is nearing $100,000,000,000.  Each BTC is now (almost) worth – $6000 each. It kind of wobbles there — for now.  Certainly, another milestone for cryptocurrency at large.

But is bitcoin worth anything at all? Go ahead. Torture yourself about energy, electricity and nodes. What type of value, other than a service value, does any cryptocurrency have?

Tick-tock.

How’s the mental argument going? Feeling twisted up yet? Okay, I’ll let you off the hook. It’s better for your blood pressure that way.

Wait a minute… The older guys and gals take this crap in stride. It’s just the younger ones who need to chillax. We’ve — us elders — been around the apple cart a few more times.

“Oh, but times have changed!”

No. They have not. Crooks are always crooks, not matter the century. Dummies are always dummies. Blonds are…  Never mind.

In the cryptocurrency world, there’s a lot of conjecture about the nature of money itself.  So, I’d like to explore that a bit. Remind the wandering souls who left their gamer chairs and headed over the crypto-couchs for beer and saki. (Which are both wonderful, I’ll admit.)

Hopefully, these wandering post-gamer types (Vitalik?) will sober-up before it’s too late — for the rest of us broke investors.

So, let’s get to it.

One of my favorite definitions of money was provided by Ayn Rand. If you don’t know her, consider yourself — sorry — uneducated.

Okay, maybe that was harsh. But if you are in the Fintech world, you ought to be ashamed.

If you go to aynrandlexicon.com and look up the word “money,” you will find the seeds of what I’m about to go over, there.

The Lexicon pulls this definition from a piece that Rand did titled “Egalitarianism and Inflation,” from the book titled Philosophy: Who Needs It, page 127. (Go ahead, look it up. You can google it. I’m tired of giving out shortcuts like candy.)

So, let me compare cryptocurrency to money. I think that a lot of people are disregarding this very important definition — to their own detriment.

According to Rand, money is a tool.  A tool that can be used to exercise long range control over one’s life. A tool that can be used for saving. A tool that permits delayed consumption. And, a tool that buys time for future production.

Think on that a moment. Pick up a wrench. Caress it. Did you just fondle money? Well, kind of.

Is cryptocurrency a tool? Can you fondle a crypto? Would you want to?

Certainly, crypto is a type of tool or at least an application, but it requires something a money-tool does not. Cryptocurrency requires energy. Electrical energy. It also requires a computer, software, regular updates, dedicated developers and user cooperation. These are only a few of the cryptocurrency requirements.

In other words, crypto is a “user of tools.” Catch that? It’s a multi-tool. (Oh, that’s gross.)

Can a cryptocurrency be used long range, however?

The apparent answer is that it cannot be used beyond a few years, without improvements. So, in this respect cryptocurrency cannot be used to exercise control, in a long-range manner.

Crypto is a shorty sporty. Heck, so is my wife.

Can cryptocurrency be used for saving? And by saving, I mean saving something of value (a tool — remember) that one can come back to in a week, a month, a year or longer — and pick it up, dust it off and say, “Wow, it’s still good as new.”

The simple answer, again, is…no. Attempting to save cryptocurrency beyond one week might be very risky. Yes, I’ve heard about bitcoin. Probably, before you.

In this respect, cryptocurrency cannot be used to delay any consumption for greater than perhaps a few days. It cannot buy time for the future.

Gold, for example, buys one “time” in a sense that one can delay using it for years. Maybe, if the governments did not control the price.

Let’s look at another aspect of money that Rand indicated was a definite requirement.

Money must be a material commodity that is imperishable.

Not a banana or pork bellies. Not energy or “trust.” Not nodes or networks. Material…and a commodity. A tough and tumble thing that just holds the fort and takes no prisoners — not even during “World of Warcraft.” (That should probably be Witchcraft.)

Now, you might ask what (exactly) is “imperishable.” And it is clear cut –  it is something that cannot perish or if it does perish it would take some serious effort. Computers and networks and games — they all go “bye bye.” Time kills them.

Cryptocurrency shall perish from this earth — I mean — eventually. Maybe in a few years. Maybe after Fedcoin awakens and the apparatchiks get going. Make a few arrests. Tax people into the poor house. A bit of insurance policy suicide.

So crypto is perishable, but for now, it’s a great fruit. Sort of like one of those irradiated, dehydrated apple chips. It’ll last for a few years on your counter, but once the dog finds it, yum-yum.

If the power goes out in your area, can you spend, save, and borrow a bitcoin? If your country makes cryptocurrency illegal, will you still use it? If, a few years from now, a newer and much better cryptocurrency is invented, what will happen to your preferred cryptocurrency? It just rotted. Perished into the doggy mouth.

Rare. Money should also be rare. Something that is abundant, easy to produce, easy to copy, easy to “fork,” does not meet the definition of rare. Think copy-machine. Think clones. Think, fiat-money.

Artificially reduced numbers on a digital ledger does not meet the definition of money, but it could be a type of functional currency. Reduced numbers of cryptocurrency atomic units do meet the definition of “limited,” but digital information is not in and of itself, rare.

Unless you print this — the words you are now reading (and why you waste you time here, I’ll not ask) — are born of code. Pixels instructed to turn on and off, by a bit of computer code, fed through a electronic processor. Okay, it’s not the best code. Not a crypto-code, but you catch my drift, don’t you?

Codes are not rare. They can be secure, however.

Money must be homogeneous too. Standardized. Similar. A dollar bill looks the same and spends the same all over the U.S. and many other places. (Yes, I know dollars suck — but they spend.)

Multiple kinds of functional money, i.e. cryptocurrencies, are not standardized. Although, many cryptocurrency technologies are similar they are not, for all intents and purposes identical. There is no standard. (Maybe that’s good, actually.)

Money must be easily stored.

Generally, this might mean that money is compact, perhaps stack-able, able to be placed in one’s pocket, transportable and able to be secured.

Yes, I know gold is heavy and past presidents in the US have stolen it from the people — and that it’s really hard to steal crypto.

But you know what’s even harder to steal than crypto? My thoughts. Electronic (and chemical) codes I can relay to you via spoken or written words.

I have secret thoughts too. Try and take them. On second thought, don’t — you might get sick. I’ve seen some pretty messed up things in my life.

Is cryptocurrency easy to store? In some sense, saving information on your computer is quite easy. But is that true storage in the physical sense? And isn’t that what we’re after? The ability to place money in a safe, under your mattress or in a tin can in your backyard?

Are my thoughts money? I think I have nodes too. My neurons are decentralized in my brain for sure. Billions of nodes, just humming along.

Money should not be subject to wide fluctuations of value, according to Rand. This seems straightforward. Sort of like, “Duh!”

My thoughts fluctuate. Crypto pops up and runs to ground often. I wonder, can I trade my thoughts on an exchange?

If you place a government issued coin in your pocket, unless you live in Venezuela, it will probably maintain its value throughout the day, perhaps an entire year.

On the other hand, if you stored a bitcoin on your computer hard drive, next week it could be worth twice as much or half as much.  And this goes for most other cryptocurrencies as well.

Not so for my thoughts. They are worth zilch, until I use them to develop something — say a crypto. There, I just did. Did you feel it? Wanna buy some thought-crypto?

So, fiat currencies are terrible, but they generally hold their value over longer periods of time – a stable value — when compared to cryptos. Especially my thought-cryptos.

What else is important about money?

Well, if you can’t go to the market and spend it, there’s a problem. If you can’t buy a cup of coffee, a soda, or a car – anywhere you normally go – there’s a problem.

Oh, please don’t bring out that BTC ATM map. Just go to the store and let them stare at you like you are a “nerd.” (Hint: you are. But it’s okay. They meet on Wednesdays, I think. Make sure to bring your pencils.)

So, if a cryptocurrency is to become a functional money it must be in demand among those you trade with. Not only the Wednesday “Nerd” Group. Currently, cryptocurrency also fails in this respect.  Let me repeat that, currently. Today.

(Note: Nerds may conquer the universe. Just look at Bill Gates. He’s got his own crypto now. “Way to go Bill, you copycat. No, I know you did not copy Apple…”)

Let’s get back on track, before Billy gets made and shuts this blog down. Really, I apologize Billy. I know you love crypto too.

Using Rand’s definitions, it seems that the only true money is gold.

“Oh not that rock thing again. You’re so retro, dude!”

Straighten up. Get a job, before your dad kicks you out.

Gold has a tangible value, but, as Rand states it, gold is “…a token of wealth actually produced.” Moreover, the transaction itself becomes much safer, much simpler, because it is like bartering.

Let’s recycle.

“No, Mr. Retro. I need to get back to War of the Witchs II!”

Money is a tool.  Cryptocurrency is an application that uses a tool – a computer.

“So.”

Tools can be used over long periods of time. We do not know how long cryptocurrencies will last.

“You mean it’s like a new modified game?”

No. Listen.

“Why?”

One can save a money-tool. If one saves a cryptocurrency application, it may be outdated within the year.

“Yep, just like my computer games. I sort of get it now.”

If you delay using your cryptocurrency, you may lose all your money – all your value.

“Right. You can’t sell used games for squat after a few months!”

The money-tool ought to be imperishable. Cryptocurrency is perishable.

“Games are dead soon after release!”

Right and a cryptocurrency is not a material commodity.

“True. I download my games now.”

Cryptocurrency is not rare, only mathematically limited.

“You got me there, grandpa.”

Cryptocurrency is not homogeneous in the sense that it is standardized among the persons with which you trade. If cryptocurrency were standardized, this might increase its demand.

“Yeah, a lot of dudes can’t stand War of Witchcraft at all! No demand. Puds.”

Cryptocurrency requires a stable value – if it is to escape the bonds of speculation.

“Hey, I made a few bucks with mining Piggycoin a few years back!”

Aside from the fact that cryptocurrencies do not meet the ‘Randian’ definition of a sound money, this does not mean that its value will not increase.

“Like I said, the Piggy was good to me. But my mom got tired of the high power bills and the gizmos making all of that noise.”

Even if governments choose to define cryptocurrencies in different ways, those jurisdictions with the least amount of regulations appear to be reaping the benefits of increased Fintech investments, for now.

“I heard that. But I’m not leaving America for some European paradise.”

Cryptocurrency is also voluntary. Fiat currency is not.

“That’s the point, right?”

Cryptocurrency is also trustworthy, in many cases. Many people trust the math, but some are concerned about the developers who write the code.

“Dude, you are confusing the hell out me. First you say they suck, now you say they don’t?”

Is fiat currency trustworthy? It depends upon the country, the economy and the leadership.

“Oh, yeah. Bummer.”

One thing is certain, however, even with two arms tied behind its back, decentralized cryptocurrency has captured the imagination of the people.

I think that any blockchain adoption by governmental entities, will only serve to solidify the people’s belief in the private use of the blockchain technologies.

I’ve also included a YouTube video of mine, highlighting some of the above issues.

“Dude, can I go back to my games now?”

Sure.

 

Sincerely,

 

Jack Shorebird

P.S. I’m selling my thoughts for one BTC each. Guaranteed to be far more awesome than any cryptocurrency ever mined, minted, spat out, staked, gassed-in or farmed-out. There is a limited supply of my thoughts because one day I’ll be dead. (Shut up, I heard that.) Just leave a reply and we can work out the details. I’m not going to leave my BTC address. That’s just tacky as hell, don’t you think? Hurry, this is a limited time offer — maybe less that 30 years before it ends and my decentralized network will cease to function.


(Disclaimer: The above is the opinion of this writer. Any appearance to reality is merely a coincidence. If it bothers you, mine some ‘coin.)


 

Cardano (ADA): The Golden Hand?

Cardano (ADA): The Golden Hand?

Luck is when preparation meets opportunity. The hard part is recognizing the opportunity.


The Cardano opportunity is a risk.

Life…is a risk.

The news today…the news any day…the last few crypto-days…is mixed.

From a layman’s point of view – one who has made a few good calls – I think that the next great cryptocurrency opportunity is here. The early cryptocurrencies were the introductions, the experiments and the tests.

A lot of people have made a lot of money in this space since 2009. Some of these newly minted multimillionaires have used this opportunity to push Fintech further. To create a second generation of cryptocurrencies with smart contracts and added tokens. To allow others to use their blockchains for good or ill.

From Bitcoin to Ethereum. Public blockchains that allowed innovators to dream and make their dreams into reality. The reality, the regulators, pushing back, but not yet winning.

From Bytecoin (stay away) to Monero (use at your own risk). And we must not forget the private angle. Others in this new space felt that the current governments obstructed the development of this technology as they, the Darknet users, actively created systems to hide behind a wall of code. Or give the user the choice to secure his accounts or make them public.

The principal problem with the private angle, is that we the users, do not often know who created these coins. We have no customer service. The risk, therefore, is great. To state otherwise is to be oblivious or perhaps to take that risk in hopes of a great return.

Is there a third way, however? A third generation of cryptocurrency? Not a compromise, as I have postulated before, but a “realist” coin? One that exists and uses the regulations to its benefit, rather than subjecting itself to the laws of all nations? In other words, can Cardano (ADA) use the law of nations to its advantage, while enticing a new breed of users?

We live in the real world after all. We earn and save and spend our money on real things in real stores, where real people stuff our groceries in real bags. We use fiat money, by and large, to do this. And there are many advantages to using fiat, except for micropayments across borders. Cryptocurrency handles the latter much better. But cryptocurrency has other problems.

Although, I’m no supporter of the IMF (International Monetary Fund) its current director made some interesting remarks recently.

Christine Lagarde, Managing Director at the IMF, indicated in her speech recently, “…this is not about digital payments in existing currencies—through Paypal and other “e-money” providers such as Alipay in China, or M-Pesa in Kenya…”

What does that tell you? Aside from the fact that she said it? Is Lagarde sounding the alarm or is she helping to clear the way for the banking industry to adopt the blockchain technology? If so, what type of cryptocurrency would governments accept? After all, the governments are the banks.

In the US, the company with the cheapest product wins the government business – a lot. Yes, there are affirmative action quotas (reverse discrimination policies) to follow, but the product used, needs to be under budget – until later, when the corruption and incompetence is discovered and the whole project exceeds the projected budget, plus some.

Would PoW cryptocurrencies be used by governments? Unlimited budgets are things of the past. Yes, China and Russia can offer inexpensive power (electricity) to cryptocurrency miners, having built the power stations on the backs of their subjects (tax and spend), however, freer countries cannot often hide such corruption for long.

PoS cryptocurrencies might fit the bill, however. In fact, Ripple is fitting the bill nicely now. More and more businesses and banks are signing on. But Ripple is not really PoS, is it? It does not encourage people to save and earn interest, it only entices them the buy, hold and sell. Perhaps to use their system. It is no longer user-friendly – if it ever was. But it is a pre-mined animal for the current financial system. Centralized and existing in the regulatory environs – and earning money for its investors.

Back to Lagarde. She also said, “For now, virtual currencies…pose little or no challenge to the existing order of fiat currencies and central banks…[b]ecause they are too volatile, too risky, too energy intensive, and because the underlying technologies are not yet scalable. Many are too opaque for regulators; and some have been hacked.” (Underlining emphasis mine.)

Volatility is a given with cryptocurrencies. They are not often pegged to a basket of goods or a fiat money supply. On the other hand, they are not – in theory – able to cause inflation.

Energy. There’s the big one. Bitcoin, for example, uses as much power as hundreds of thousands of homes, certainly. And there are worries, that continued unchecked, the blockchain beast might use as much electricity as entire countries.

That is a non-starter for whole countries, if they are constrained by objectivity and budgets. So, what is better? What kind of cryptocurrency would entice the average Joe, the high-power banker and, at the same time, dissuade governments from clamping down on the process? Where whole nations could participate?

It would need to be – IMO – a cryptocurrency (or more than one) with wide acceptance, ease of use, an international governance structure, economical, secure, and transparent under certain circumstances. (By that I mean, an objective set of published rules whereby the ‘coin’ would, under the circumstances outlined, provide identity information to third parties.)  Whatever else the cryptocurrency could add, given the needs and desires of the populace, would be up to them. Smart contracts. Machine to machine payments etc.

Naturally, the acceptable cryptocurrency would require scalability. In other words, be flexible enough to increase business in an efficient fashion.

Such a cryptocurrency, could become a new world reserve cryptocurrency, if it was not subject to the whims and laws of every separate bureaucracy – used a system of governance akin to Maritime Law – as has been suggested. It can be argued that Bitcoin is like this today.

This would be, as some have called it, the third stage in the evolution of cryptocurrency. And, perhaps, a stage in the re-development of a base or reserve monetary system, decentralized at its heart and beholden to its users, not its users’ users.

Efficient, secure, regulatable, sustainable and trusted, all based upon the original concepts of peer to peer networks. With the added benefit of creating a voluntary user base to extend the network.

Let’s face it, Bitcoin would be much faster if everyone connected and kept their computer on. But why waste energy? Why download the blockchain when cryptocurrencies like Cardano offer more efficient ways of participating – and obtaining PoS rewards?

The trick will be in the regulation. And how Cardano can manage what will certainly absorb much of their nest egg, that we the user must be willing to provide.

Can Cardano outpace Ripple and become a serious international player in short order?

Read between my lines.

 


The above should not be considered investment advice. It is solely the opinion of the author. The author who had DASH when it was wet behind the ears, Ethereum when the nerds were wrecking “DAO” havoc, Bitcoin too late and Aeon, at pennies on the dollar. Now it is the time for Cardano?


 

Cardano (ADA): Is Proof-of-Stake Unproven Tech?

Cardano (ADA): Is Proof-of-Stake Unproven Tech?

Updated November 20, 2017


Dear Cryptocurrency Enthusiasts,

Trust, trust, trust — or baloney?

In each other, we trust?

Trust, but verify…especially with cryptocurrency?

It seems that we have three developments occurring simultaneously, now — in the Fintech Crypto-World.

  1. Proof-of-Work (PoW) is moving to Proof-of-Stake (PoS).
  2. Public is moving to Private or “choice.”
  3. And governments are trying to regulate.

Did I tell you something you don’t know? I hope not.

PoW. It was the most trusted way to create and maintain a person-to-person (P2P) network. But what happened? Has the crypto-space evolved?

PoW has become labor intensive, energy hogging and increasingly centralized. Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin etc. Ethereum is attempting to move to a PoS system or at least use some of its protocols. Really? Again, why?

Why was the PoS protocol developed in the first place? Peercoin, Blackcoin, Cloakcoin and others. Were there long term issues? Security disadvantages? They drew less power, were faster, but they were essentially a pre-mine. But they reward those who maintain balances – and help to secure the network, right? Reward with an ever growing supply of cryptos, unless that supply is fixed — which appears to be the plan for Cardano.

What were (are) the results of PoS? Marginal success. Can a new PoS protocol reverse that trend?

Peercoin, for example, had problems with their code early on. Their primary developer is anonymous. Cloakcoin has changed hands.

What was worse, these PoS coins were more vulnerable than PoW types – less secure. So, why is Ethereum attempting to move in that direction? Aside from the official reports, I mean?

Competition from Cardano?

We know Cardano was developed – at least in part – by a former Ethereum developer, turned Ethereum Classic developer/supporter. To, me, that smells of trust. That smells of new blood — underdog — PoS+ blood type.

But the underdog is only in name. Like Ripple, Cardano has removed the curtain to reveal that it too is willing, at some level, to cooperate with regulators. They are willing — and able — to compromise. If we look to Ripple, they are succeeding.

To roll back the blockchain, as Ethereum did, to stop one criminal – okay, one “advantage taker” – smacks of centralization. (See the DAO Incident.) At that juncture, no matter how benign a dictator, Ethereum lost its way. One cannot punish the whole, to catch one mistake.

So what stain does Cardano have? As a free market supporter, the stain is called compromise? Or is it realism.

In other words, Cardano is not seemingly attempting to create a separate cryptocurrency and/or protocol, as much as it is attempting to “get along” with the regulators. It wants to identify you, at least on one level. KYC — know your customer. The smart contract-currency platform that might be too smart for its own good.

And, in my mind, Cardano, unlike Ripple, wants you to participate. Game changer?

Ethereum Classic is “righting” the wrong of Ethereum. Still, the system – the protocol – is slow. It devours resources. Energy for mining. Power hungry.

So, what is the solution?

A PoS Ethereum, with new math: Cardano?

Here’s a recent opinion from Charlie Lee about PoS.

Now, we must decide. Do we trust the PoS? The pre-mine with a large chunk of coins held back for the “company.” Do we trust corporations? They act in their own interests, right? They must make a profit to survive, certainly. How much is enough?

And they are willing to share profits if we support the system?

Many cryptocurrencies are headed by corporations today. Mining warehouses keep many coins alive – corporations regulated by their respective governments. Of course, letting governments create cryptocurrencies will be a cluster-fork, of enormous proportions. But it’s heading that way today, in many countries.

Bitcoin’s reality is that it is managed by people with differing points of view, but they must come to a consensus to move forward. Hence the slow-to-change mentality. Is it outliving its usefulness? Some will tell you it has.

It seems that the move to privacy coins, created by unknown players, is an accident waiting to happen.  We need – IMO – the human factor. The “part” in the virtual machine that is not virtual. To service the humans who use the crypto. Or do we?

Privacy coins obscure their process, as to be non-auditable (or having a choice to audit), in a way that gives many the willies. Not because we want cash-like privacy, but because we wonder who else is using the protocol and why.

So, what can we say. Cash has no feelings. It’s just cash. True. But if you have the protocol to trace the bad actor and you don’t? What does that make you? An accomplice?

The one weakness in that cash-privacy crypto, one which you might hold on your flash-drive, is the customer service angle. If the currency “forks” and you didn’t update in time, what then? Get on Reddit and start complaining? Really?

Where is the “Complaint Department?”

Grandma likes to call people, right? The old school likes warm voices, emails to real organizations, faces to names. The old school lives and saves, on trust. Is Cardano that trust? The new Savings and Loan of Fintech Crypto?

And isn’t that what it’s all about? If we strip away the layers of protocols, unload the software, and just listen – who do you trust to keep your money? I’m not talking about playing the crypto-markets, drifting from one coin to the other, riding the emotion-horse. I mean, the bare-bones of it.

It is not the machines we trust, yet. It’s the people.

Isn’t that what it boils down to?

The fact that governments want to regulate may not be the best reason to flee into the “dark” coins. They will chase any entity that threatens the fiat empire. The darkness only eggs them on.

Regulations change because of force. What is the force of millions of cryptocurrency wallets, worldwide? It is a wave. A tidal wave.

Put your ship in the deep water.

A cryptocurrency that is backed (or less regulated by whole countries), will place pressure upon the bankers of old – the money-changers of the past. Especially, when it is trusted by people everywhere.

How would the empires of old stop that?

Can they, ICANN?

I don’t know if Cardano is the answer, but maybe they are onto something.


 

The Ugly Truth About Bytecoin

The Ugly Truth About Bytecoin

 


Why do they hide?

In my recent audio blog, I review some important aspects of Bytecoin. Things they — the Teto-Team and Jenny — don’t seem to want to talk about.

Audio blog: The Ugly Truth about Bytecoin

 

Bytecoin: Crypto Coin Daddy

Bytecoin: Crypto Coin Daddy

Who’s Your Daddy?

To call yourself a news agency is one thing, but to push “coin” is another. A crack-cocaine dealer pushes cheap coke. A purported news agency ought to have the guts to wade into the honesty category now and again. It should not be a front for “iffy” coins, unless it does not mind being called on the carpet. Being exposed.

We all want to know: Is Bytecoin legit? Is Bytecoin worth it? Is Bytecoin a scam? These are all honest questions. Questions that continue to linger as Bytecoin advertising begins — again — to trickle into the internet.

This old line is really old: Bytecoin – anonymous cryptocurrency, based on CryptoNote.

On August 23, 2017, CryptoCoin Daddy released a “news” article, but like the blogs I hammer out, when I’m in the mood, the “Daddy” – a far more popular website than mine – dished out the good “news.”

Not so fast.

“Bytecoin BCN is the first crypto currency that is making its way in Temples in India.”

That’s how the blog begins. It then goes on to tell us that many temples in India are accepting Bytecoin payments. Great. But like someone reminded me yesterday, which temples are they talking about? Can they name one? Can we confirm one? Why would a “news” agency write such a piece, without a bit of evidence? Without a single source. No names. No exact places. No interviews. Just hot air?

Are they simply reporting what an Indian Bytecoin Community Manager told them or are they feeding us the line and helping to pump Bytecoin. I really want to know, because this BCN business is getting rather deep in the muck.

Let’s dig a little deeper.

Who are the CryptoCoin Daddy people? The ones who broke the story or got paid to write it? I’m glad you asked. ScamAdviser.com is a great resource. They give it to you straight. So, what does it tell us about the “Daddy?”

As of today, CrpytoCoin Daddy is 57 days old. In other words, it’s still suckling. It shows that the site is in the United States, but ScamAdviser says, well, it’s in India – maybe. Why are they not sure? Maybe it’s because the website is labeled as “slow.” Slow, but popular.

Additionally, the registered email address is a “free” one. A business with a free email address? Okay, I use a free email, but my website email (one I don’t use) is a pay address. I’ll give them this.

And it’s not so much that I hate new websites. I think newbies with such popularity are awesome. What bothers me is the lack of research. There are no caveats here. No concerns about the underlying coin. But are they needed? Should a blog report the past? Should a news agency, if it were a legitimate one, cite the potential problems? Or – should they just take the payment and print the “news?” Does a purported news blog have to tell the whole truth or are they just information pushers?

Information without substance is noise, but even noise droning on long enough can appear to be true. It’s almost like hypnotism. Say it enough and let the blogs clone it enough – well then – it must have substance, right? No. Not at all.


Ominous Parallels

About one month after CryptoCoin Daddy made its debut, Jenny Goldberg appeared on Reddit here. Coincidence? A one month old Redditor being treated like a money goddess. Are people that gullible?

Just in case the Reddit goes missing, here is Jenny’s statement – from @BCN_Official – about one month ago:

Dear BCN community,

My name is Jenny Goldberg and I’m the official BCN community manager

From this moment on, the official Bytecoin team will be making an effort to be more transparent to the community. We’ve been following all the activity in the community and we know you’ve been waiting for us to make a public statement. We see that there are lots of questions and we are now here to answer.

But firstly let me express my gratitude to all those enthusiasts who have made such valuable contributions to the development of BCN. We are so grateful for all the work put in by @Leogheo and BFB program team, @kinlakinla for the Bytecoin info page, @GaboCarranza and @sydney40 for Bytecointalk activity, @july for the Telegram channel, @boomworking for help with the design and @Camilo_Gil for your sincere appeal to our team. Thanks to the entire community for your trust and support even when you didn’t hear from us. Only with your support we were able to keep up our strength and continue working.

Just a few words about our history, Bytecoin is the first coin developed under the cryptonote protocol, but due to the fragmented nature of the community, BCN was forked a million times. You know that sometimes we were criticized for “slow development”, but the truth is that when the others were spending time on marketing, we were putting all our effort into enhancing the already existing cryptocurrency ecosystem.

In any case, we’re still here and we’re looking to grow. We would like to invite the best cryptographers, developers, bright minds and passionate hearts to join our BCN team to create absolutely new and exciting developments – get ready for the BCN of the new era. To ensure our success in this new era, we’ll need to support and trust each other and make our community even stronger.

Starting now, we are open for communication. Feel free to share your thoughts, bugs and features with us. Please send all feedback to contact@bytecoin.org and we’ll get back to you asap. We will do our best to bring the best ideas to life.

Let’s start a new chapter of Bytecoin together!

I put this all here to have a record. I want to refer to it in a couple of months (probably just days) when all the Bytecoin investors (bag-holders) wake up broke.

And if I’m wrong? Heck, I’ll own up to it. (Just remind me.)


In Other News

Bitnewsbot.com also carried the same story that CryptoCoin Daddy offered about a week later. On August 30, 2017, they gave essentially the same report. Bitnewsbot.com is a whopping 139 days old, according the ScamAdviser.com. They are out of Cyprus.

Bitnewsbot.com cited their news source as: CoinReport.net. This website, again according to Scamadviser.com, is based in the U.S, but the owner’s location is “hidden.” At least it has a better reputation and is over three years old. But where did they get their news?

Could it be from Crypto Reader? I found a reference on Google to an article about the temples in question, but when I clicked I got the big “404 Error.” Same deal though. Hidden owner, maybe from abroad – meaning not in the U.S. A site about 106 days old.

And the story has now been cloned over and over.


The Goods

If this story turns out to be false or over-blown, I have taken the liberty to cite the main ones for reference later.

Here they are:

CryptoCoinDaddy.com

Bytecoin now accepted in Indian Temples: Bytecoin added as a donation method in the Indian Temples

Bytecoin BCN is the first crypto currency that is making its way in Temples in India. They are now happy to accept donations in Bytecoin. This started when the Sikh gurudwaras in major cities of India started accepting bytecoin. Report says that the temples are happy accepting the donations in bytecoin. The cash generally sits idle with them which served no purpose. Being a non-profit organization, the government prohibits them investing the donation funds. By making use of Bytecoin wallet, they can benefit from price increase.

ByteCoin is a cryptocurrency where transactions are impossible to traceback. It allows very fast international remittances worldwide and sender remains completely anonymous as well. Biggest benefit neither donor nor temple has to pay any charges on the transaction. Temples in India today simply generate a QR code for their wallet address and send it to their follower’s community using Whatsapp, Telegram, Facebook and other instant messenger applications. It is further shared and spread among the community members. Now donors can easily scan the QR code using their phones and in the blink of an eye can send donations to the temple. For centuries mankind has been associated with some or other religion. No matter what race, color or ethnicity a human being is born, his or her brain start learning the religion from the very moment when parents thank’s the god. Religion has developed a like a belief system and where human capabilities fail, they have the option to resort back to God or Allah or Bhagwaan.

Donations are equally important for any religion to survive and flourish as religion is to human beings and in last few months Hindu Temples in India have found out a way to accept donations from their domestic as well as international followers. “Gupt Daan” (Anonymous Donation) was already considered a supreme deed in Hindu religion and ByteCoin, one of the most secure and anonymous cryptocurrency is making it possible for followers to donate to the temples from anywhere.

There have been times in the past when temples were in the constant fight with the science. There has been blood shedding from the religious institutions to stop or halt the scientific advancements but today technology has emerged as the biggest support to these religious institutions. CryptoCurrencies like Bytecoin are not only amazingly cost effective and fast option to serve your belief but also do not allow the distance to be a barrier between God & Followers.

(Retrieved 8/31/2017)

Bitnewsbot.com
“Bytecoin” 30 Aug 2017

CoinReport Temples in India increasingly accepting bytecoin donations

Temples in India are increasingly accepting bytecoin (BCN) as donation, according to a press release CoinReport received from bytecoin’s team, which received the news from BCN’s Indian community manager, Pundit Pawan Sharma.

The trend started with gurudwaras, which are places of worship in the Sikhism religion, in the cities of Delhi, Cochin, Madurai and Amritsar, says the release.

Temples are reportedly happy to accept bytecoin donations because cash usually sits idle with them, and being not-for-profit organizations, they are prohibited by the government to invest the donated funds. Bytecoin carries a liberation, as even if the temples save it in their wallets, they will see the price rise as others trade the digital currency on exchanges.

The biggest benefit that donors as well as the temples receive is no charge on the transaction. All that temples must do is generate a QR code for their wallet address and send it to their followers’ community using Facebook, Telegram, WhatsApp and other instant messaging apps. Community members share and spread the QR code with more followers.

Bytecoin is a digital currency where transactions are impossible to trace back. It enables very fast international remittances the world over, with the sender staying completely anonymous. “Gupt Daan” (Anonymous Donation) is already considered a supreme deed in the Hindu religion.

Hinduism is the main and majority religion of India, with over 79.8% of the population identifying themselves as Hindu, that accounts for roughly 966 million Hindus in India as of the official 2011 census report.

Images via the Logo Page of Bytecoin’s website

Source link


Have a good day,

Jack Shorebird


P.S. For those of you leaving garbage responses, know that this is just a small blog. I don’t have many readers. I do this for fun and it sure is fun to watch your responses. The fact remains, however, when relatively new websites pop up — and I’ve been at this since Prodigy days, probably before most of you were born — to promote alleged news, Inquiring Minds want to know. That’s an inside joke. You probably don’t get it.

Bytecoin: The Cryptopia Delist

Bytecoin: The Cryptopia Delist

Why did the Cryptopia cryptocurrency exchange choose to delist Bytecoin (BCN), even after it surged in recent weeks? Don’t let the above picture give you any ideas. I am not saying that Cryptopia has a large stash of BCN and they are making off with it — since they can’t find the rightful owners. After all, abandoned property means “finders keepers” in the crypto-world, right?

The official explanation is:

Delist Notice – BCN

Due to an on-going issue of deposits being sent to Cryptopia without payment id, resulting in long delays for users or loss of coins, BCN is being delisted. Please withdrawal your BCN before 20/09/17

Published by: DaRoll @ 8/20/2017 11:30:01 AM

Okay, but that doesn’t seem rational. Many other CryptoNote based coins use the same method of depositing. They require a payment “ID” in addition to an address.

Boolberry (another CryptoNote derivative) is also being delisted at Cryptopia.

But what about Monero (XMR)? Will they be next on the chopping block? If Bytecoin deposits were creating a problem, would not Monero deposits create similar issues? Are Monero users savvier or is it simply a more trusted coin? I don’t think so. Even the Cryptopia blog/forum has threads from people having similar problems.

According to Cryptopia’s own policy, coins can be relisted, after having been delisted,

…provided the issue that was the reason for delisting has been addressed and the network can be synced.

The policy also states that “coins may face delisting” for several reasons:

  • Sufficient nodes are not maintained to keep the network synced and moving
  • A coinswap
  • Any network issues or bugs that could result in loss of user funds
  • Statements made by a coin or coin community that could bring the reputation of Cryptoipa [sic] into disrepute.

And there is a primary reason cryptocurrency exchanges are in business: money. If they cannot earn enough money, they shut down. If Bytecoin is a problem coin, it becomes a money drain. Based upon the official Cryptopia forum statement (above) Bytecoin is problematic for them.

Could the Cryptopia folks design their systems to assist BCN customers? Maybe. But why should they, if other coins are more profitable, more in demand, long term, and easier to deal with?

Will Cryptopia anger the BCN customer base by their actions, like Poloniex did? We know, after some months, Poloniex finally relisted BCN. So, why then, did Cryptopia delist now?

Clearly, there is something, besides the payment “ID” issue that is bothering Cryptopia. That is my opinion, but I’d sure like to have a fly on the wall at Cryptopia, after the recent Poloniex debacle.

There are the “sour grapes” folks as well. From Reddit:

BYTEcoin being Delisted on Cryptopia (self.BytecoinBCN)

submitted 12 hours ago by RightwayNZ: As of now you can no longer buy and sell BCN on www.cryptopia.co.nz; Not sure why because they stock a lot [sic] of sh*tcoins and I wouldn’t classify BCN as a “Sh*t coin”

[–]JR_216 3 points 11 hours ago: Old news. Cryptopia is kind of a sh*tty exchange as well. The community didn’t seem to care much when this was announced a couple weeks ago.

[–]Franzferdinan51 2 points 11 hours ago: Sh*t dumb move on their part

[–]propagandapalace 1 point 9 hours ago: Cryptopia has more currency and crypto pairings than any other exchange I can think of, but low volume, crappy customer service, and “dumb decisions” like this one, are why most people steer clear of it… They will come to regret letting BCN go…

Not all is well at Cryptopia, it seems. Bitcointalk.org has had a fair share of complaints from folks indicating that responses from the staff at Cryptopia were taking over a month. This does not bode well from a rather small exchange (by comparison) in New Zealand. Perhaps the best way to rid themselves of this negative community press, was to delist and seek the easy-to-use coins. Too much business too fast.

Is this what prompted the delistings of late?

Our team is proud to announce that we have launched full support for Cryptopia on Coinigy. While Cryptopia’s charts were already available on the platform, users can now attach API keys to track portfolio balances and trade through Coinigy.

The above is from here. Information that, as of August 12, 2017, Cryptopia was getting a new pal from America. Three days later Boolberry is delisted. Eight days later the announcement that BCN was out.

What does Coinigy do? It allows trading by customers over multiple exchanges at once. Great idea, right? So, what is the drawback? What problems might a New Zealand exchange have with an American company?

For one, compliance. All American companies must comply with related regulations from multiple agencies requiring the identification of coin holders.  Bytecoin’s main purpose is privacy. It is probably impossible to trace Bytecoin deposits and transfers, unless the coin holders supply that information.

If this is correct and Cryptopia is trying to put on a better face, they might soon abandon any coin allowing the level of security and privacy Bytecoin affords. Meaning Monero might be next. Coinigy could then be relied upon to handle the phone calls, texts, emails and complaints? Is Cryptopia hiring a well polished front man? You know, so they can concentrate on their main business.

If we can extrapolate from here, the movement from public coins, like bitcoin, to private coins with anonymous developers, like Bytecoin and Monero, answerable to no one – the centralized exchanges might need to comply with the ever-increasing pressure from the authorities to know their customers. We live in a “terrorist world,” after all and everyone is a suspect.

One option, if the private and secure cryptocurrencies are shunted off to the less trustworthy decentralized exchanges or the “wild west” of crypto-land, would be the adoption, by some country with strict privacy laws, of a cryptocurrency freedom code.

Although, there have been several attempts to utilize a cryptocurrency as money (currency) in various countries, these monies are tracked and regulated. China, that bastion of freedom, is allegedly preparing to launch a national cryptocurrency. This is just one example, but suffice to say, governments want to track your money and with public cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, it’s not a problem.

If regulators push the secure and private cryptos (Bytecoin, Monero, Aeon, Nav Coin etc.) into the black markets, they may be surprised when their values begin to soar. Not only might they create a wealthy criminal class, but solidify a crypto-substrate that will undoubtedly be used against them. Such a class of people the world might be better off without, if only the regulators allow us the freedom to manage and create our own currencies with no interference or spying on the innocents.

But this is a dream from a future century.


Note: There is more information about the Cryptopia BCN delist in my blog titled “Poloniex v. Cryptopia.”

Bytecoin is still kicking…

Bytecoin is still kicking…

Just a quickie, before you throw yourself under the bus…

Today, I received a response to one of my blogs about Bytecoin. It was a link to a video, an audio actually, of an interview with the mysterious Jenny Goldberg. Goldberg is the new Community Manager, if we can accept this — of Bytecoin.

(Hi, Jenny.)

The connection seemed to skip or warble at times and Jenny herself, to an American, had a strange accent. I’m no ‘world traveler’ and I could not place it.

I also checked Reddit and the video was also posted there.

As some of you may recall, I often blog about various coins, especially the more anonymous ones, because I think at some point, many in the cryptosphere will actually desire a more secure and less public coin. Meaning, a cryptocurrency that is usable by anyone but not visible to everyone all the time — like bitcoin.

It’s a move simply waiting to happen. The developers have been gearing up for it.

In the mean time, there will be a large number of people who will desire the services of an anonymous coin network now. They come in several flavors of dishonest, but the bulk I feel, will be derived from the honest. Those simply trying to find a way to move and/or store value (money) in a place where others, including governments, cannot get to it.

Think on that for a moment. Let me name a few places. China. Russia. North Korea. The United States of Taxes. Cuba. Greece. Cyprus. Venezuela. Planet Earth.

The thing is, I don’t want people to get screwed. That’s why this video I mentioned is important to hear. First, do a little homework. Learn about Bytecoin. Determine for yourself, if Monero is simply trying bash a good system. And I have spoken highly of Monero in the past. Now I’m more neutral.

Secondly, make your own educated decision. Is Bytecoin good to use? Can you send value over the internet in a secure fashion, with Bytecoin. The quick answer is yes, you can. The system does work, but be fast about it. Transfer and get out of it as fast as possible — if you must use it at all.

You want to retain as much value as possible, after all. Let someone else take the risk of “holding” any cryptocurrency. It’s like holding a greased pig on crack cocaine, while drinking a beer and talking to your wife about painting the downstairs — again. It is nearly stupid, for now. Even bitcoin holders might find themselves in a world of poop, if the market decides that crypto is “old hat.”

I’m not saying to stop making money. Go for it. Spin that dial and laugh. I am. For now. Just know that the next idea is just around that dark intersection — where the bus is coming.

And listen to regular people. Too many times we gravitate to the news fed to us. I even cite them in my posts. This magazine or that financial expert. Know that in this vein, the blood that runs herein is not necessarily blue. The value if these things is transitory as hell. And the last time I looked, Satan’s Pit of Boiling Mud (think Yellowstone National Park) is still looking for permanent tourists.

And for the record, I’m curious as hell about NAVCOIN these days.

Have a good day.

Jack Shorebird

 

 

 

 

Is Bitcoin in a Bubble?

Is Bitcoin in a Bubble?

The Big Question:

This seems to be the question of the day, if not the decade.

Can cryptocurrencies replace money or are they just another bubble?

The answers vary.

To the optimist, but not necessarily the realist, bitcoin is already money. So, yes, not only will it replace all government fiat cash, but it will free the masses from the tyranny of the state. It will never “bubble” and the way it’s designed, it will only become more valuable with time. Freedom for all forever and all the drugs you want. Gold? It’s a quaint idea. Caveman monetary policy, complete with pretty rocks.

Okay, maybe that was a bit overboard.

To the pessimist, no. Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme. It is a well-marketed fiat asset trick. Don’t fall for it. It will eventually bubble, crash and burn. In the meantime, it will benefit the criminal element. It must go and/or be regulated as soon as possible. The state should always be the final arbiter of monetary policy, after all.

To the middle-of-the-road folks? Bitcoin can exist along side the current fiat money systems. It should work within the current frameworks of nationalized  monies, however. It can improve things from there. We can create a sound money standard after we iron out all of the regulatory kinks within the new cryptocurrency technology.

Unfortunately, our governments, as they are now designed, will not be able to survive on a diet of sound money and that is why fiat money was created in the first place. To escape the bonds of reality with a legal fiction, all the while, kicking the inflation can down the road.

But why not stop inflation by connecting bitcoin with gold? Make each one represent a certain amount of some rare earth metal? Why not couple gold and cryptocurrency, privately? Because the political environment is fiscally destructive. That’s why.

We know that our centrally planned economies will not allow citizens to derail the inflation machine which keeps our governments in control. It is only when the puppeteers begin to loose control of inflation that the money strings of government unravel, resulting in a revolution against the “evils of money.” Such revolutions do not always end up with a population of free citizens, however.

Cryptocurrency Negatives:

So, let us be cruel to ourselves. Take it on the chin, like a good cryptocurrency enthusiast should.

What is often cited as the main reason that bitcoin (or any cryptocurrency) can never serve as money? There are many reasons actually and here are a few:

  • Unstable Value
  • Trust
  • Fiat
  • Acceptance
  • Taxation
  • Bubble

Now, before we go off spouting all the great things about cryptocurrency, lets define money. I mean, what is this paper stuff we carry in out wallets and what are those electronically recorded digits in our banks? Better yet, let’s just define a good money.

Money:

  • A tool of humans
  • Used when high level of productivity is reached
  • Desire for long-range control over their lives
  • A tool of saving for delayed consumption and later production
  • A material commodity which is:
    • imperishable
    • rare
    • homogeneous
    • easily stored
    • not subject to wide fluctuations of value
    • always in demand among those you trade with

Source: Ayn Rand Lexicon

Few people ever go this deep, however. The dollar, euro, yen, dinar, peso, franc, pound, lira, rupee, krone, zloty, rand, and the shekel are, for all intents, legal notes. It’s money for the masses. Buts it’s not real money. It’s fiat money, which represents nothing but trust. I trust you, do you trust me? Besides, what choice do we have, right? It’s legal tender. It’s easier to use than chunks of silver, which the government wants to value in fiat anyway.

You can, at least in the US, pay your taxes with fiat currency and most of us trust that the currency is money.

We also know everything is becoming more expensive, but few of realize that the root cause of inflation is not the weather, the wealthy or our enemies. It’s simple math. The more fiat notes we print or e-print, the less valuable they become. This holds true for some cryptocurrencies as well. You simply divide the value, in fiat currency, by the current number of altcoins. This gives you a rough estimate of the fiat value of a particular cryptocurrency, at a given moment in time.

So, it’s easier to understand values with cryptocurrencies, since their creation is usually straight forward. There is no Federal Reserve to manipulate alleged M1, M2 and so on. There are no banks to create endless supplies of fiat. The only inflation regulators in bitcoin, for example, is its code base. It is currently programmed to create a finite number of BTC’s. It’s not manipulated to screw the masses, but to retain its spending value.

Paper money used to represent or hold title to gold or silver. That was why it worked. Why it functioned. Once the paper no longer held title to some form of property, it became fiat. It became dysfunctional. At that point, almost always, economies begin their decline. Some economies decline faster than others of course.

Perhaps if our governments set hard long-term limits on fiat numbers, then our fiat monies might stand a chance. But there are no such limits.

High Hopes:

Many hoped that bitcoin could save our failing economies, tame our ever growing governments, and usher in some new global paradigm of wealth, but not without effort.  If this is your thinking, you are guilty of being overly optimistic and just maybe, a bit naive. Don’t worry, I’m rooting for you because I’m a near-convert myself.

What holds us back from becoming “one with the crypto?” History. It is full of examples of ledger based monetary systems that ultimately failed. It is replete with evidence that all of the fiat based systems failed as well. And the gold-backed systems — failed, but after the decoupling of functional money (paper notes) from the metals. The governments enforced these failures, often by confiscating the one form of money that has never become valueless: gold.

So we have to ask ourselves why have all monetary systems failed throughout history? Now, I’m not asserting that gold became worthless–ever. Fiats did. Ledger systems were scrapped or forced out. Seashells were abandoned. But not a single monetary system transcended all governments, in any cohesive fashion. Bitcoin, though an asset, does.

Asked another way. Aside from gold and silver being an asset for thousands of years, what monetary system, fiat or otherwise, has ever existed beyond the constructive control of all governments, simultaneously?

Bitcoin as an Asset:

The latest thinking is that bitcoin (cryptocurrency) is not money, but acts as like an asset. That is Peter Schiff’s thinking. Schiff works with Goldmoney Inc., based in Canada and he lives in Puerto Rico. Goldmoney(tm) is a company that allows you to spend gold, via a debit card, in many countries, for a small fee. You can also store gold in various vaults around the word. And there are other benefits.

You can find out about more about Schiff’s views easily. He has his a radio show, owns several companies, is an author, but to sum up his financial views I would offer this:

He has repeatedly held bullish views on long-term investments in foreign stocks and currencies in countries with sound fiscal and monetary policies, as well as global commodities including physical precious metals and has expressed bearish views on the US economy and the US dollar.

Source: Wikipedia

So what is an asset?

An asset is anything of value that can be converted into cash.

Source: Investopedia

It’s a bit more complicated than this, but for the sake of argument, all cryptocurrencies are assets, since conversions to some other form of trusted money is the fundamental purpose to both buy and hold bitcoins. I mean, that is the allegation, right? Moreover, as Schiff asserts, companies that accept bitcoin in payment for services or products, ultimately convert it to either fiat currency or some other more trusted asset. Sure they do. After all, what real choice do they have? None.

In other words, the companies that will accept your bitcoins direclty just want to sell you stuff. Of course they do and they are held to the regulations requiring them to report their earnings in a nationalized fiat currency format. A government euro. A dollar. One wonders what would happen if companies and citizens were not required to convert to government fiat money? If they were actually free to use the asset of their choosing for all debts, public and private.

But we are not free in this sense. Not completely.

You Must Comply:

Are we to then shrug and comply? I don’t think so. The future is not made by those in the halls of government. That is not the purpose of government. They are present simply to protect and serve the people. They are peace keepers, not currency makers. Currency and money should be denationalized anyway. Things like bitcoin serve as a reminder of who should be in charge. Even if it fails. Even if it is a bubble.

Under the current circumstances, bitcoin, as asserted by Peter Schiff, is untraceable. This, I’m afraid is close, but not the complete cigar. All bitcoin transactions are public. You can see them zip around the network, but they can be obfuscated for privacy and criminal reasons. And your name is not attached to your account. Other cryptocurrencies are much better at retaining your privacy.

A Common Criminal:

Naturally, Schiff keys in on the criminal aspect. We’ve all heard it. A terrorist or crook will send his bitcoin, instead of carrying cash. At some point the bitcoin will be converted into cash to buy or sell something illegal.

One of the main problems with this criminal tactic are the fluctuations in bitcoin prices. The criminal might have a set price for his product and bitcoin is terrible for that reason. Perhaps it would be better to use what is called Tether ™. It’s a bank backed cryptocurrency that is almost pegged at the US dollar. Better yet, use paper dollars or digital fiats. That’s the routine.

I used to work in criminal justice field, just a few years ago. We rarely came across evidence of cryptocurrency use. Maybe it’s more prevalent now. What we did come across were stolen credit cards, emailed cash, fiat bill, drugs, debit card numbers and so on. Criminals wanted dollars just as fast as they could get them. Not gold or silver coins, but paper fiats. They used the banking system and filed false IRS refunds (very lucrative since the IRS does a terrible job of policing their own refund system) as a way to easily subvert the antiquated, government regulated, fiat monetary system.

This is not to say that cryptocurrency is immune to criminal exploitation, but cash is king — by law. And even criminals love to exploit that law. Some even print their own bills. This is next to impossible with bitcoin.

Bubbles:

The comparison of cryptocurrencies to the Dot-com bubble is also interesting, but old. The idea that investing in cryptocurrency is similar to a fad or is speculative, is certainly a strong argument, however. More and more people are becoming aware of the technology and as a result, more money is flowing in. Is this a new opportunity for those who are already versed in their use and speculation? Sure it is. The first comers are on top of that pyramid, right? But can’t this also be said of a new stock? The more people buy the faster the value of the stock increases, right?

One must realize, however, that as cryptocurrencies become more and more popular, they become more and more risky. They are not stocks. There are few barriers to entry and trades are nearly instant. There are few restrictions. You are free to lose and gain and panic. At least with stocks, you have a broker who earns very high commissions by comparison, and you can execute trades reasonably quickly, in most cases. Oh, and you have no privacy. Every transaction is logged for tax and regulatory purposes, to ensure that you are not being cheated. That never happens…

This new injection of funds into the cryptosphere, ostensibly from a broader base — regular people — and not simply from the brokerage houses that fueled the Dot-coms, serves to magnify the potential bubble. This is a given. If such a bubble bursts, the fallout could eclipse a standard market collapse…in the future. Not right now though. Which is why the heat is not all that hot.

Currently, the amount of money in the cryptocurrency system is peanuts compared to the banking sector. Sure, lawsuits and investigations happened after the Dot-coms, the housing bubble — after any number of market implosions. Bailouts are always an option for government to soften the blow of poor investment decisions. But when banks collapse, governments step in and the insurers pay up. Then the arrests come. Fines and Senate Hearings, when the circus comes to town.

Brokerage houses are known entities. The mortgage companies and banks are all around us. If bitcoin fails, the loss is real. It will hurt millions, but in the scheme of things, it will be very small. Currently, if all the cryptocurrencies listed on coinmarketcap here went to zero overnight, it would only be half as bad as the Washington Mutual insolvency in 2008. One bank compared to over 1000 cryptocurrencies.

Diversification:

Diversification may not help. One might be safer with a mutual fund or an ETF but not a cryptocurrency. Why? Because there are few, what I will call base-cryptocurrencies, bitcoin being one. When bitcoin drops in value, nearly all cryptocurrencies lose value. So, loses are often magnified. When bitcoin recovers, so do the others. Tether cryptocurrency is one exception. It usually hovers around one US dollar in value, but it has little upside. Conversely, if say Ripple (tm) devalues, bitcoin may not.

The tie-in with bitcoin and all other cryptocurrencies happens because it was a first comer and trusted. If you want other cryptocurrencies you will often need to trade for them using your bitcoin. If you want to convert back to fiat, it is often best to use bitcoin. This is changing, however. Other coins are slowly earning a type of base-currency status.

Anti-Money:

The Fallout:

What do you suspect will happen to the hundreds of international cryptocurrency market exchanges, when (and if) the bubble bursts? Do we even know where they are? How about the US based exchanges? Will their doors be closed, their assets frozen? Will your bitcoins be stuck in Europe or Asia? Will you keep your BTC at home on your hard-drive or some other device. Will cryptocurrency developers in the US then be shuffled off to prison?

How about the giant bitcoin mining farms in China and the world over? Shut off? Scrapped? Bitcoins Confiscated? What about the cryptocurrencies that do not use the ‘farms?’ The ones like Peercoin ™, which is essentially PC based?

What of the decentralized cryptocurrency exchanges that exist only between you an unknown parties over the internet? Will these applications be shut down and their unknown creators sought?

The fact that Amazon ™ lost 90% of it’s stock value over as many years, as Schiff indicated, is his example of what can happen to bitcoin. The nearly constant ICO’s (Initial Coin Offerings), the new cryptocurrencies popping up like so much graffiti, will not survive, even if they use the latest blockchain technology or some variant of it. There will be a saturation point, no doubt. Already, there is talk that if you are in “blockchain” (your company invests or develops this type of new tech) you don’t make any money.

Some companies can exist in the red for years, but at some point they must turn a profit or fail. The only other option is to ask for a loan. In any event, even Amazon ™ has not failed, but it has real products as well as software. (Bitcoin is software. An intangible asset.)

The Beginning of the End?

Flipping houses before the market imploded was all the rage before 2007. It still happens today, in Florida, where I live, but not nearly at the pace of a decade earlier. When friends quit their jobs back then, bought huge homes, new cars and lived the life, only to be financially destroyed later, it was rough. The house flippers paid the price. After the building boom things slowed and housing prices dropped. We can argue all day about how and why the crisis began. One thing is certain, however, irrational exuberance was the norm.

Is that beginning to happen with cryptocurrencies now? In a sense, flipping cryptocurrencies doesn’t really happen. You can’t buy one, improve it, unless you are the developer, sell it and walk away. You can however, buy one at the bottom, when it’s cheap, then trade it for bitcoin or Tether, when it increases in value. Unfortunately, the tax headaches in some countries makes this type of arbitrage unprofitable. If you ignore the taxes, you are chancing fines or worse.

But what of the P/E Ration? I mean, we can calculate the price to earnings ratio of a stock, but how would you do that with bitcoin? Can we ever know when and if it is overvalued? We can see when underlying government fiat money is devaluing by comparing it to something like gold. When more fiat buys less gold we have inflation or more correctly, currency devaluation. When less bitcoin buys more fiat dollars, what is occurring? Is bitcoin becoming more popular or is it acting like gold? Is it becoming like a peoples’ barometer of their own fiat money — worldwide?

The Aftermath?

After this cryptocurrency bubble bursts, if it does, what might remain? Cryptocurrencies which offer a type of service, like Ethereum ™? Ones that offer fiat trading via third parties, and other services, like Stellar ™? Newer models, such as Iota ™ or Neo ™? It’s your guess.

Worse case? Your country outlaws innovation or co-ops it, then slowly destroys it.

The best case scenario, for now? Bitcoin keeps growing and more nationalized fiat  currencies fail. The cryptosphere becomes indispensable, trusted by people everywhere, and nations begin to compete by adopting sound monetary policies.

In the meantime, don’t fall for the hype. Do your homework if you are curious about cryptocurrencies.

And a parting thought. At some point, technology will be able to create physical items upon demand. If we are then able to create gold by recombining atoms and molecules, an abundant resource nearly everywhere where we look, on the cheap, how will we then design a voluntary, sound monetary system?

 

Good Day,

Jack Shorebird.


 

 

%d bloggers like this: