Your post should win some kind of award for how confusing it is. Can't tell, when you say bcash, whether you mean bcash the term, or bcash the thing. I'm not asking though. Moving on...
David Sacks said in an int that crypto is at da Internet's 1999 prices w/ the tech of 1995. Bunch to build. Best to invest in durable shit. Not hype coins or vapourware white papers, IMHO.
I think it's possible that if crypto currency became 'too' prevalent the 'war' on drugs would end & police resources rerouted to proper crimes (my bias after a little reading on the subject).
Ari Paul[0] helped run a 75B fund. This isn't particularly new. The clumpy writer should probably sit down & figure out what's going on before shouting from the rooftop.
Edit2: dpflan, I think I'm being throttled b/c of my VPN. Here's how I see it;
Personally, I think bitcoins will still increase, but the bet is more symmetrical. There are other crypto assets which are asymmetrical bets (lose 1x, gain 100x). I focus on the latter.
The value proposition has always been that if it can succeed success being defined as being one of the major crypto currencies to see adoption, then just taking 1% of the global gold market, black market transactions, and remittances; its worth around 5k-ish already.
I would consider it a gamble and not an investment. Some call it a new asset class that isn't correlated to other assets, which is valued by portfolio managers. Its high risk high reward, if you understand why it has value and want exposure to the risk, put in enough that you are fine losing. This is still a grand social experiment and still could plummet in price at ANY time.The government regulatory clarification we have seen over the past few years has lessened the risk of a government crackdown at least.
Monero. It's the largest 'privacy coin'. I think I could make a strong investment case for it. I'll say this instead; Don't buy it unless you think privacy's important. It's the most (crypto) nerdy coin, with a technical community (r/Monero). I like to call it cypherpunk money.
As it's private it could get banned -- which could set in back in the short-term. In the long-term, I think it's going to be money (or something like it). It could be a rocky ride!
Edit: A rocky ride with consequences (It's not a fairground ride). I want to point that out.
Edit2: You could sell your investment, obviously. I talking about if you're in for the duration.
Oh, no he seems to be buying crypto assets; which have value because they're decentralised. Silly me. I was confused by the author being confused.
Edit: if you're downvoting me for this comment then you don't know what you're talking about. Happy to debate!
Edit2: seriously, there's a distinction to be made. One is a censorship resist asset (which is why the trade-off of greater resources is made) & the other isn't.
Edit3: explain to me why that isn't true & I'll change my position!
> if you're downvoting me for this comment then you don't know what you're talking about. Happy to debate!
Well, it's just that it's fairly obvious what is meant by the headline given the events of the past couple of years and your comment doesn't add anything.
The words are wrong. The definitions are incorrect. If you don't know the difference then it does add something. That's called ignorance on your part. I've explained the difference.
Edit: & it makes a difference b/c one implies government control & the other control by the individual. Individual freedom. Privacy. Saftey from persecution. Allowing freedom of speech -- without the risk of being defunded by the government.
> No, Bitcoin is still a digital currency, even if it's also a crypto-currency.
I believe that's correct. Is the fund investing in non-crypto assets? 'Digital' implies the category 'digital' rather than 'crypto'. It's a subtle difference, but important for when government/gov agencies frame the tech.
My 'Edit2' of the root comment is incorrect.
> Also, Paypal is not a currency at all, it's just a bank and payments provider.
I believe PayPal is seen as having an electronic currency:
Edit: I'll amend further. The headline is definitionally correct. It's not as precise as I would like since it doesn't convey exactly what the fund is investing in. I think being precise in this matter is important b/c the word use is used to frame the tech as yet-another-digital-thing vs a censorship resistance technology (allowing privacy in an age of increased surveillance & free speech where centralised companies have become the censors). The word 'crypto' has a certain connotation -- which is why I think the SEC won't use it. Or other gov agencies refer to it as 'so-called' crypto currency.
It's also why Coinbase says 'digital currency', I think. There are ppl who try & force the matter when they're being interviewed. Well, I'm forcing the matter back.
---
Edit2 (reply to icebraining):
icebraining, I'm being throttled. Here's my reply,
> A random line in Wikipedia does not make for good evidence about how something is seen.
At least I supplied evidence, vs your naked claim.
> Bloomberg is writing for a general business audience, using a more generic term is normal
Good journalists use 'crypto'. Here's an example from Forbes (general business audience?),
'Digital' implies the category 'digital' rather than 'crypto'.
It only implies that for people knowledgeable enough to clear know what "cryptocurrencies" are. Bloomberg is writing for a general business audience, using a more generic term is normal, and doesn't imply anything.
I believe PayPal is seen as having an electronic currency:
A random line in Wikipedia does not make for good evidence about how something is seen. Especially as the line says they "will sell" their currency, which is not something Paypal does currently.
Paypal is a bank, they hold money in existing currencies, they don't emit their own.
Each asset can be looked at in terms of use cases. Bitcoin is the first crypto asset. The currency use case. Etherium is a generalised platform -- computing. Others have been created or are in the works.
For any given use case I believe the solution could be done more efficiently with traditional tech. What traditional tech doesn't do is provide resistance to censorship. Governments can take them down. Currencies, social networks, whatever. The raison d'être of crypto is to provide this resilience. That's what the extra resources go to. Crypto is valuable because it's a more resilience-whatever. E.g., Bitcoin is a more resilient money (Monero is better b/c it's private). Assets which can be taken have less value. Platforms which require permission have less innovation. That's the quick answer.
This poster is correct, albeit not for his reasons. I speculate in digital currencies (or rather their exchange rates) and there is a fine difference.
Digital currency is an all encompassing term for any money that solely exists electronically. Example: Money deposited into a bank account is digital currency. Investing into digital currency can mean a lot of different things. A few include, taking positions on exchange rates (such as the conversion of USD to EUR), taking a position on lending yields, or even simply a position on inflation. An economically-proficient reader might opine that these are all the same things, but there is a very fine line that distinguishes them all. Sort of like the line between digital currencies and crypto-currencies.
Crypto-currencies are a subset of digital currencies. One who "invests" in crypto invests into digital currency, but one who invests into digital currency does not always invest into crypto.
There is a distinction, even if we all instinctively knew what the authors were trying to get across.
The digital currency set is larger than I thought (I believe it includes the items I've stated (see Wikipedia link re PayPay)).
If you call censorship resistance a 'fine line', I agree.
I explained why I made the distinction. You should probably learn to read a more carefully before making statements about all knowing this & that. Or fine lines.
What do you think the point of crypto is? Make me look silly, bro.
Edit: You see the information I've talked about? I created that. So if you've got more, I'd be impressed.
Edit2: If you've got any thoughts on the blockchain as a data-commons for AI, I'm all ears.
Edit3: Any thoughts on the future of the decentralised web? Tangles for the IoT? How evolution relates to hard forks? Anything like that? Or just some dictionary definitions?
My compatriot, I'm gonna be hoenst and say I have only a modicum of a clue what you've been trying to convey in this thread chain, and I've only been replying on what I've assumed you're trying to get across. No disrespect, I just think there's a language barrier going on here.
>I explained why I made the distinction. You should probably learn to read a more carefully before making statements about all knowing this & that. Or fine lines.
This is true. I have a habit of skimming and assuming if something's unclear.
>What do you think the point of crypto is? Make me look silly, bro.
Damn. If I came off as combative, wasn't my intention. Crypto's got a lot of uses. Fighting censorship through decentralization is one of its most notable features. Speculation and decentralized asset manipulator is another.
>You see the information I've talked about? I created that. So if you've got more, I'd be impressed.
I don't understand.
>If you've got any thoughts on the blockchain as a data-commons for AI, I'm all ears.
I don't understand.
>Any thoughts on the future of the decentralised web? Tangles for the IoT? How evolution relates to hard forks? Anything like that? Or just some dictionary definitions?
Exploitation of networks will be easier to carryout and forensics will be easier to fudge on a decentralized network. Having everyone run through the same nodes and the ability to mask my traffic as a benign pass-thru will greatly enable cyber-crime, even more-so than our current clearnet. Censorship will lose its foothold on oppressing, but it will now enable the other type of independent criminal.
On tangles: I think, if I'm correct in assuming how directed acryllic graphs operate, this will be a boon for anti-censorship, but its still has the same pitfalls. I can catch a ride and spoof myself as a benign fellow network user. I don't know much about this, but I've put one of the whitepapers on my to-do list.
Maybe the 'crypto' vs 'digital' is too subtle for most ppl to understand (as in, what drives the use of the language. Why players are motivated to use the words they do). Maybe I didn't explain it well.
It's like the use of the term 'bcash' to discredit Bitcoin Cash.
If you -- not being stupid -- don't get it, it's probably not worth my time explaining it again.
Edit: it's past 1 here. Need to sleep. Sorry for the short reply. You should check out Monero. A look at what the privacy has to offer.
>Maybe the 'crypto' vs 'digital' is too subtle for most ppl to understand (as in, what drives the use of the language. Why players are motivated to use the words they do). Maybe I didn't explain it well.
I assume most don't care. The dichotomy is unimportant to them.
>If you -- not being stupid -- don't get it, it's probably not worth my time explaining it again.
I get it.
>it's past 1 here. Need to sleep. Sorry for the short reply. .
Sleep tight.
>You should check out Monero. A look at what the privacy has to offer
Already a user. Got in before people realized how much of a game changer this is.
The gpg web of trust might be a better example, but it's a moot point either way.
The claim I'm refuting is that digital identity was impossible before the blockchain (Edit: or more difficult, either way, point stands).
Digital identity is a cryptographic thing and a distributed thing. That doesn't mean it needs a blockchain.
People have been proving digital ownership and identities for longer than the blockchain, and the blockchain brings nothing new or interesting to the table in terms of identity.
> Are there any concrete uses of a blockchain that have clear advantages than to using a standard database other than cryptocurrencies?
Seems you're refuting something no one said, as far as I can tell.
Edit:
> Digital identity is a cryptographic thing and a distributed thing
How is it distributed? I assumed it was some company's servers -- maybe in multiple data centres around the world. But nothing like 24k nodes (& possibly more in the future).
---
Edit (reply to your edit):
I think the claim is that the identity system will be more resilient, not that it will be easier to implement. Censorship resistance.
I'd imagine it'll be harder to implement & cost more. A trade-off.
Which is along the lines of what I originally asked,
> Is Keybase resilient against the country's government in which it resides?
You said that gpg was. But didn't mention the computers. I asked about the servers & the ppl. (We didn't talk about the team).
The need wasn't specified. I'm presuming it's censorship resistance. Governments can't meddle with identities. Wipe someone off the face of the earth.
This is an incubator running an ICO to raise funds.
Since blockchains appear to be the future of both transactions and applications, I was wondering if any incubators will offer advice, coaching, and support for a Blockchain-as-a-(Platform|Service) startup. Like the Lyft to Etherium's Uber-like presence.
Edit (throttled):
bcash is bitcoin cash. 'bcash' is used to discredit it as 'bitcoin'. I like it b/c it's funny.
China coin: https://twitter.com/zaoyang/status/897111083588231173