I haven't received my official enthusiast talking points memo, but the obvious solution was proposed years ago: off chain transaction that use smart contracts for settlement on the public ledger. I vaguely remember "store of value" being used for what would more accurately be described as "trust anchor" or "root authority".
I don't follow the day to day, and it has been years since I contributed any code, but a quick peek at the lightning network stats makes me think that everything is fine. Good organic growth, with over 1000 BTC presently in flight. A lot of people seemed to be under the impression that the off chain networks would take center stage, and the blockchain would quietly power it from behind the scenes - but I'm pretty sure the direct opposite will occur. As far as why there hasn't been an explosion in network activity: I guess there isn't enough pressure. Every so often there is a spike that gets people up in arms, then it quiets down and they forget. Larger wallets will eventually start moving transactions off chain, but they've obviously got as much enthusiasm about it as they did in updating their backends to take advantage of space saving changes in the protocol. But once its done, its done.
Off Chain transactions look so much like a credit card that as soon as you begin to build the off chain transaction system you see that Amex/Visa/MC could just allow customers to settle payment in BTC and get the same value.
You could make it a debit card and require people to deposit BTC. But in general the USD is a better settlement currency. That is why BTC isn't being used in transactions.
lol, so nothing even close to an off chain network - but somehow the "same value". Well, except for the real time cryptographically secure stuff - but nobody wanted those values anyway.
10+ years is a pretty long con, that satoshi is one patient fraudster.
satoshi obviously isn't part of the con. He would have sold a long time ago if that was the case.
It is the people who have latched on as "bitcoin evangelists" and are recruiting more people into the network to get the price to go up. Classic Ponzi scheme.
So not a "Classic Ponzi scheme", but the opposite - where Charles Ponzi is the victim of "people who have latched on". That is twice now that you've claimed something based on a bizarre redefinition. Even if there were some kind of campaign of revolving pyramid schemes over all these YEARS, bitcoin is net positive... while pyramid schemes operate at a deficit all the way up to the point where they go to zero.
I think you are right, this doesn't perfectly fit with existing definitions of other scams. This is more like the beanie baby situation combined with some libertarian political beliefs.
But the beanie baby craze only lasted 3 years. The CBOE didn't start trading beanie baby options. NIST didn't begin several beanie baby focused work groups and studies. The IRS didn't provide tax guidance on beanie babies... You guys really need to update that script, but I do congratulate you on dropping the tulip mania talking point - given the fact that there is no evidence it ever happened in the first place.
...that is why you were congratulated. Nice reading comprehension there. I've had this exact conversation at least a dozen times over the years, it is formulaic. There is always a claim of some kind of nonsensical fraud, after that unravels then it turns to speculation about mass delusion, and it usually ends with political appeal/slander and "we live in a society!" Every year there are positive developments and evidence of wider interest, but the opposition's script has remained unchanged. I got into it with a tech reporter a while ago who was obviously very emotionally invested in bitcoin being a fad/scam/bubble, after searching archives of his timeline I understood why: he had been predicting bitcoin's demise, very confidently and regularly, since back when it was trading at $130. Every year it gets funnier.
I never said there wasn't wider interest. I said the opposite, I said that the enthusiasts are activity looking to expand the number of people investing.
If you want to talk about previous conversations around this, the ones I have had always end in people believing that decentralization or cryptography are magical words that solve all kinds of problems without creating new ones. I have never invested in currency so the price doesn't matter to me. I assume it will go up proportional to the number of people that can be convinced to invest.
> > ..."bitcoin evangelists" and are recruiting more people into the network to get the price to go up. Classic Ponzi scheme.
> > ...this doesn't perfectly fit with existing definitions of other scams.
> I said that the enthusiasts are activity looking to expand the number of people investing.
I wonder. Are you aware of how far your characterization of the situation has shifted within the same thread?
evangelist -> enthusiast
recruiting -> expanding
Ponzi scheme/scam -> investment
Have you changed your position, or simply softened your language as a result of finding your position indefensible? If the former, congrats; if the latter, maybe think on that a little more.
> ...always end in people believing that decentralization or cryptography are magical words...
Well, you claimed earlier that off chain transactions were functionally equivalent, from the perspective of the money transfer service, to credit cards. When challenged, you adjusted that to debit cards - which is also not even close to being true. Even if you were talking about it from the perspective of the end user, or merchant, you'd still be very wrong. So you clearly don't know much about the stuff you've expressed strong opinions on, and that means your estimates of others' opinions on the same carry no weight.
> ...the price doesn't matter to me.
You might want that to be true, but it rarely works out that way. Opportunity cost can do funny things to people, like compel them to construct elaborate coping mechanisms in defense of their ego. Sometimes that looks like a confidently stated, but ill-informed, opinion that crumbles in the face of any pushback. Like I said, I've been here a long time and I've seen it all. There is one guy I worked with years ago who asked me about bitcoin but took no action. I only pay attention to the price toward the end of the year, when working on taxes. But without fail if I get a call from him then I know that bitcoin has just had a major selloff. The funny thing is that he is totally unaware of the behavior, it isn't as if he aggressively gloats - but he always brings up bitcoin, and then I don't hear from him again until the next selloff.
