W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments@w3.org > April 2015

Re: BitCoin Startup 21

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 19:26:47 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhJZ1ok=OgmXr41LdOFntN3-f_NjxUjJYeAV7xmw9fwH=g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
Cc: Pindar Wong <pindar.wong@gmail.com>, Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
On 19 April 2015 at 16:43, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:

> RE: "Perhaps too much money's a problem in itself."
>
> +1
>
> Too much money AND too many monies. A year and a half ago I suggested on
> this list:
>
> "Bitcoin is scarce but an infinite number of technologically identical
> derivative crypto-currencies can be created. So is it not true to say
> that Bitcoin is only scarce based on brand loyalty? If/when Gitcoin
> and Hitcoin and Titcoin also come on the market, then what does the
> mathematical scarcity of Bitcoin really come to?  Spock's darned
> "Parallel Universe Problem"."
>

Yes there are potentially an infinite number of bitcoins, but the protocol
makes it scarce through "longest chain wins".  So all coins that are not in
the longest chain become spontaneously orphaned.  In fact, the whole of the
current chain could become orphaned at any point in time.

There are many "alt" chains with varying numbers of coins out there, but
few are seen to offer any real innovation, depending on who you talk to.
Many achieve value but not too high.

Part of bitcoin's value is the brand, for sure.  But another important part
is merchant adoption which is growing rapidly.  Another part is the
security offered by large hashing power.

It's possible to create an infinite number of copies of many things.  You
could create an infinite number of religions, for example.  But I dont
think the popular ones will see this as much of a worry.  Quality is more
important than quantity.


>
> It will surely sound boring and pointy-headed of me to say, but the way
> forward is to work with monetary theory, and more deeply yet, with the
> philosophy of money. In other words, the use case of "money itself" is best
> established before desiging systems to satisfy it.
>
> For example, Geoff Ingham at Cambridge has done useful work in this field:
> http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/074560997X?*Version*=1&*entries*=0
>
> http://www.palgrave.com/page/detail/financial-crises-and-the-nature-of-capitalist-money-jocelyn-pixley/?K=9781137302946
> ... but there are multiple reasonable schools of thought on the topic.
> Another favourite is von Mises. My only recommendation is to pick a
> monetary theory and anchor the logic of any operational money and payments
> system upon it. But a money and payment system without theoretical
> foundations is a tree without roots.
>
> Joseph Potvin
> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
> jpotvin@opman.ca
> Mobile: 819-593-5983
>
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Pindar Wong <pindar.wong@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps too much money's a problem in itself.
>>
>> I note this out from MIT
>>
>> http://joi.ito.com/weblog/2015/04/15/announcing-mit-dci.html
>>
>>
>> https://medium.com/@medialab/launching-a-digital-currency-initiative-238fc678aba2
>>
>> p.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Anders Rundgren <
>> anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/03/10/secretive-bitcoin-startup-21-reveals-record-funds-hints-at-mass-consumer-play/
>>>
>>> $116 million in venture funding isn't that bad for a startup.
>>>
>>> Anders
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> <819-593-5983>
>
Received on Sunday, 19 April 2015 17:27:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:39 UTC