I don't know, but my big issue with ETH is they have no cap. They have been diluting 10% a year. Probably why the price doesn't move up. Any new investors are wiped out by dilution.
A good money has to inflate to account for new produced wealth in society. Hard cap money won't ever be anything else but speculation tool with huge volatility.
Well we have Satoshis idea on the subject and it definitely doesn't correlate with yours.
I agree, it definitely doesn't correlate with mine. But that still doesn't prove that Satoshi is right on the subject.
The only what we will find out is if Bitcoin Cash is accepted everywhere or at least almost everywhere. We will see what happens. If it's not then there will always be volatility.
3.Eventual scarcity of Bitcoin’s supply, to Satoshi, was of utmost important
4.The diminishing rewards schedule would in turn fuel the increase in the rate of users
1.Satoshi wanted the supply to be deflationary
2. They wanted to ensure no fresh issue was possible beyond the set limit
party crashing... i have been thinking recently about if/when inflation can be a positive thing, but i never thought to conceptualise it like that. 🤔
Inflation has to follow the new wealth that the society is producing. That what a "healthy" inflation is.
Economy would eventually come to a stand-still, no investments, no innovations.
The cryptospace *naturally* inflates/deflates with value invested in it. More investment = more coins. Less value = coins die. I’d like to see ‘money’ in general work like this
More investment does NOT create more coins. If I pay a billion dollars for 10 million BTC, or $0.01 for that same 10 million BTC, not even one Bitcoin came into existence as a result.
by coins i meant entirely new cryptos/tokens/projects. poor choice of word.
The key word is investment. Technically Bitcoin is not supposed to be an investment. Just like the 1.00 bill is not an investment. You hoard it because its $$, not because it goes up.
agreed. but if money must inflate with wealth, then there is no good way of doing this on one currency, fiat or crypto. My point is that maybe ‘cryptos’ (plural) could do this.
I agree that there are competing design goals. Privacy, speed, price.
XMR wins on privacy and price (less than BCH for txn fees) but still has a PoW block wait time (only 2 mins tho)
XRP wins on speed and price: <5 sec to confirm and essentially free to use ($0.000001/tx or somesuch) but is no more private than a Visa card or vanilla BCH
BCH is 2 hundredths of a penny. If something is cheaper nobody is going to care. Wallet generates speed. Like I say nothing is faster than the Bitcoin.com wallet. NOTHING.
And as for faster... XRP confirms *on-chain* in 5 seconds or less(!)
No PoW coin is ever going to match that; it's just not a compatible design.
0 conf works just fine. .
If you don't mind people paying you... and the smart ones taking their money back after you're "paid"
Only 1 out of 4000 attempts is able to pull off a double spend. Not 4000 transactions. 4000 attempts.
Agreed that below a tenth of a penny almost nobody cares. But if you want to support HFT and price discovery in a real DEX to match wall street, $0.001 >> $0.000001
XRP is no better than an excel spreadsheet.
Excel spreadsheets are centralized. XRP is not. I assume you have not read the ILP RFCs, as I have.
https://bit.ly/2yvUvog
XRP is a centralized scamcoin.
Muh Zimbabwe bank partnership...
XRP can suck my nutsZ
Cashfusion has more combinations than Atoms in the Universe when shuffled. Not exactly vanilla.
XMR mixes 11 randm UTXOs with each txn. That is also more combos than atoms in the universe. That alone is not enough to protect you. Are the input&output addresses & amount encrypted?
That was a cool point of interest for selling the program.
Wait until it's official on the Bitcoin.com wallet and then we will take a look at those Darknet numbers.
Not so mention that XRP is a security and it is only a matter of time before it is legally classified as such.
Less than BCH in transaction fees? Last time I used XMR it was $0.6 for one single transfer
You’re paying extra for anonymity; not necessarily a bad thing.
I understand that but he's saying Monero is cheaper than BCH. That's technologically impossible
The same link you provided shows fees around $0.02 the last three months. Still way more than BCH and I'm sure Monero usage is very low these days.
I used monero as a user and developer. UX is pretty bad and it's almost not programmable because of privacy features. It's hard to see it grow when there are no apps except wallets.
If you look at the median fee for BCH it's .0007
Let's be real. Monero has been out since 2014. It will never pass BCH unless something happens where it is SIGNIFICANTLY better than BCH. And right now it's not.
What do you mean they are old? That's an updated fee chart. LOL Old fees are like .13-20 LOL
Also, built in inflation...I dislike that part.
The 0.6 XMR/block tail emission? It prevents XMR fees from going stratospheric like BTCs did from halving. It's also less than the expected amount of deflation (lost keys)
That's what MoneroCoretards want you to believe and accept as fact.
"expected amount of deflation (lost keys)"
This is retardation, you can't possibly know how many are being lost.
BTC of course loses on all 3: not private, slow, expensive (esp when network is busy).
BCH is the second-run in all 3. Not so private (even with shuffle), nor fastest nor cheapest.
with fiat inflation is controlled by a single party. A plethora of cryptocurrencies might allow the process to happen organically, even if individual coins are hard capped.
As everybody is keeping money at home, there would be almost impossible to take a loan. Why risk with giving a loan, if my money is going to appreciate by keeping it.
You really need to go back and read what Bitcoin is about. You are way off your rocker.
Hey, I know what Bitcoin is. I still can have my opinion if that is the best way or not.
Without that healthy inflation, people would be incentivized to keep the money at home and speculate on its future value that they think will only be increasing (hard cap).
And by the way, at this time ETH is not considered money. They are more of a smart contract crypto. BCH is hands down better at being money.
Was that even up for debate? I thought the bitcoin cash and ethereum crowd we’re allies.
YEP ETH and BCH would be dangerous combined. They can call it BETCH. LOL
This is memo, you watch your mouth, mister!
Money is supposed to be rare. And completely not true. The volatility will stop when the coins stay in the ecosystem and used as money instead of trading it back to fiat.
Yes, to be rare and to inflate to accommodate for new wealth created by the society.
What you want is hard to achieve with a hard cap money. What everybody want with such money is, and will continue to be, speculation. And that will never cure the volatility.
Has nothing to do with hard cap
Not hard to achieve if everybody accepts it. If I can spend it everywhere, I have no need to switch back to fiat. The hard part is getting everybody to accept it.
Hard cap money will always remain primarily a speculation tool. A small amount that will be actually circulating, will not be able to cure volatility. The ratio will be just too much.
There will be like 20x the amount of transactions that BTC is seeing right now.
I don't know what you mean by small amount. Eventually there will be billions of transactions a day. The price isn't going to move.
With hard cap money people will always speculate on its future value, and rather use fiat money to buy goods and services. That's the principle of "bad money drives out good money".
Purse.IO is also very popular. That's why it was saved. So many people are using BCH to buy things with.
I'm also using BCH wherever I can, and there are more than 800 places in my small country that accept it, but I'm not going to deceive myself that it will become widespread.
BCH operates fine as a niche, standalone, system. We have something the banks can’t shutdown or take away, we’ll be ready to grow and help people when they can be bothered to look
"So many"?!? Come on, get back to Earth.
Clearly just your opinion. I already use BCH where I can. Mostly purse.io. So that throws your theory out the window.
That's you. And you are throwing away a known, established theory, not mine theory.
It’s only a matter of time and inflation, nothing happens until things happen abruptly.
Most coins will be "locked" in exchanges, only small part will be actually circulating for buying goods.
Exchanges can't lock coins. What's going to happen is exchanges will have less coins and people will be trading fractions of a coin.
I think you are misunderstanding the point that I'm trying to convey to you.
Maybe so because you're not making any sense.
and it's also hard to convey this in this limited space
I know that it's hard to awake somebody that's deep into something, that can't see the reality.
If there are only 2 coins in the world and they are valued at 100.00 and nobody sells for fiat at a cheaper price, there is no volatility.
OK, enough now, this is becoming ridiculous.
There isn't such a world and, be honest to yourself, there will never be such a world.
Be honest, that is a lousy answer. This is what you say when you have no answer.
If your question starts "there are only 2 coins in the world", then that above was my answer.
If I can spend my 100.00 coin anywhere, then why would I sell it for a cheaper price? I can't paint the picture any clearer.
You're painting your own picture, how you see the world. It doesn't mean that your picture is a real world.
I am just stating at an elementary level full understanding of what you say isn't true.
In imaginary worlds anything can be true.
It's a simple concept If a coin is not being traded back for fiat, there is no volatility
;) it's a cute concept, but there will always be fiat, and there will always be exchange-trading and speculation, and with hard cap money that will be more profitable than buying stuff
Yep, but the trade back to fiat will be so small compared to the overall transactions. It won't affect anything.
That's your theory. And it's OK to be your theory. I explained another theory. A wide known theory.
Game over.
What the fuck are you even talking about. Please put down that beer.
I don't drink. That's why I never lose an argument. You can't defend your opinion with what I said, so you come up with this statement. It's perfectly clear. .
You presented no argument and your opinion is from a fantasy world. How you want me to treat you then.
I would be willing to bet that Satoshi is smarter than you are.
Mike, homopit; The better points of your debate will be lost with these appeals to authority.
You're right. Do I even remember why this started? Ah, two theories: hard money, or money with healthy inflation. That debate will never end.
one more thing.If you look back to like 2014, Bitcoin went from like 200 to 1200 in one day. Why? because there were less traders, less transactions.More transactions = less volatility
Go look at a penny stock with hardly any transactions. The BUY and the ASK are like 300% apart. But the minute many transactions start happening the Buy And ASK tighten up.
Billions of transactions the price won't move.
The debate will end because there will eventually be an answer after it's played out. But who knows how long it will take. Could be many, many years.
Go back and read what Bitcoin is about and why Satoshi chose Deflationary instead of inflationary and this will all go away. Simple as that.
If I can't spend it everywhere. What if I go to Australia and they won't accept it. Then maybe taking 15.00 for it in Australian dollars is a good deal.
There is only 1 1849 20.00 gold coin in the Smitsonian. I guarantee you can take that 1 coin and spend it anywhere for 20.00. Why would I ever sell if for cheaper than 20.00?
“You’re telling me I can cash the capital gains from my satoshi in fiat?”
“No, Neo, I’m telling you that when you’re ready, you won’t have to.”
My big issue with ETH is that, like BTC, it fundamentally does not scale. The "ETH supercomputer" uses tens of thousands of PCs to do less calculations per sec. than a 2003 smartphone.
