The seen versus the unseen.
They likely could have made more money by buying a fairly small amount of Bitcoin and then increasing its value substantially higher than what it is now by working to make Bitcoin widely adopted money for the world.
Instead, they intentionally crippled the project, destroyed the growth in transactions, utility, and adoption, and got paid a bit to work on bandaids for their self-inflicted terminal wound.
True economic geniuses.
Additionally, who knows how much bigger the financial and business opportunities could have been as a developer if Bitcoin had actually been allowed to grow and thrive with massive adoption as programmable money that could be sent anywhere in the world, nearly for free, nearly instantly, without any middlemen or banks.
Hello @deadalnix thanks for the useful Economy's knowledge. I'm sure some people around had learned a lot from it.
It gave me some good ideas about the technology and it applications.
In 40 minutes around i'm going to speak about Bitcoin at the local radio station:
http://fiestastereo-barrancas.colombiaemite.com/
Hope you could hear me, and everyone around too!
How is this "the easiest path to profit", Roger?
This path requires one to be both a clever trader and to invest one's time altruistically in software development.
First, it is not reasonable to expect one person to do both, as each is highly time-intensive and each is a considerably different task. Second, if I am a clever trader, why would I spend my time developing for free?
Basically you are saying: Learn to trade, get good at it, and, when you do, live off of that and give us your development work for free.
How is this "a much more effective, safe, and simple strategy to earn a profit " when BCH is down 94% since the ATH in Dec 2017?
Like the Core developers, it seems like you also overlooked the easiest path to profit:
Buy Bitcoin Make it useful to people in commerce. Price goes up. That is a much more effective, safe, and simple strategy to earn a profit than Blockstream's raising $100M+ from traditional finance, strangling Bitcoin, and then trying to sell products that fix the problems caused by the strangulation.
Not only do Core developers not understand economics, but they are poor business strategists as well.
“Not understanding economics” is when you misunderstand a blind auction as a “fee market” and humiliate yourself to the world by toasting champagne to the unfolding market failure of your product.
Thanks for sharing this information.
That is a much more effective, safe, and simple strategy to earn a profit than Blockstream's raising $100M+ from traditional finance, strangling Bitcoin, and then trying to sell products that fix the problems caused by the strangulation.
Here is the deal. If you car is broken, you pay a repairman to take care of it. And then you get to enjoy the benefit of having a car that work again. The repairman is not the one benefiting from your car being repaired, and therefore you don't expect him to show up at your door and repair it.
Well, it is the same here. Yes, increasing the size of the block creates value, just like repairing the car creates value. But the people able to deliver that value are not the people who would benefit from that value being created.
There is no failure to understand economics from the part of the repairman anymore than there is from the Core devs. There is a huge failure on the part of the people who expect the repairman the repair their car for free just as there is a huge failure on the part of people expecting Core devs to do the work to increase the block size for free - or bellow market rate.
Amaury Sechet is spot on. The initial success of bitcoin relied on altruism along with it's sound economic incentives for various participants of the network. The incentives for core developers are quite clear and we should learn from the past mistakes. If the BCH developers don't get the funding they need, it will turn into a hobby open source project with bag holders resembling the core moon boys.
Bitcoin developer should have a proper planing and and try to working according to plan, need to spread this among massive people.
At first all bitcoin sites developer should agree to work together.
The question isn’t “Do the Core devs ‘understand economics?,’” the answer to which is totally subjective. The question is, is the observed behaviour market driven, or the the result of the intervention into markets?
The signature of market-driven activity is spontaneous organisation. Blockstream investors were bankers connected to primary dealers of the Federal Reserve. Central planners who can direct market participants with the magic wand of counterfiet money are NOT market actors.
Sechet doesn’t even understand that he is not looking at a market at all. He is comparing market actors with oligarchs. And without a hint of irony he says, “the oligarchs won.”
Thank you for that blinding insight, Amaury.
I think it is safe to say Roger Ver has become a malicious actor in the space.
He does not want to support the hard work of Amaury and ABC but wants to reap the rewards of their work.
It is best you go over to nGeek coin with your philosopher friends @roger
Yes, the attack on Bitcoin was better funded than the Bitcoin project itself. Paying off developers who's personal greed outweighed their dedication to the original dream was an effective strategy. When I think of the economics of Bitcoin and the core strategy in relation to that, I think about the economics of Bitcoin and the Bitcoin ecosystem. I do not think about the economic choices made by some who, basically, sold their soul to the devil. I do see your valid point, I just do not look at that as "Bitcoin economics" even though it is an important part of it.
I look at what would have happened if the developers had not been captured. Core appears to not understand economics because their token took a path towards economic destruction rather than growth. True, it was not really the individual developers who deserve the blame, it was the wealthy team that captured BTC and intentionally corrupted it. Even so, BTC crashed and burned in economic terms compared to where it would be today due to the decisions we call "Core strategy". "Core strategy and Core actions" are inaccurate shorthand descriptions pushed on us by the real owners of BTC.
In the big Bitcoin-ecosystem economic picture I think your point also works. The goal of the attackers (bankers and other entrenched fiat defenders) was to destroy Bitcoin's ability to become peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people (or delay it as much as possible while they slowly adapt to the future) for wealth protection and/or maybe some kind of twisted "national security" fear. I still don't know who bought the BTC project. The Blockstream's greed explanations seem like a cover story to me. I think Blockstream was sent in to kill Bitcoin and make it seem like they were doing it for rational reasons. So, in my crazy view, it was probably economically rational for the new owners of BTC to destroy it's ability to become peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people. So, they can be said to be economically rational.
But that is still not the "Economics of Bitcoin" that I think of when saying things like Core took BTC down a bad economic path. You are right, it only seems like a stupid path if you are thinking about the bigger Bitcoin picture (like me). And, yes, the incentives seem to have failed because people who do not own enough BTC spent a lot of money to make sure it failed to perform and grow massively in value like it could have (and, I believe, still will someday). What it comes down to for me is that the people who claim to believe in BTC's future are making arguments that fly in the face of economic realities. Them lying all the time makes them seem stupid, but, it is their arguments that do not understand economics. The people behind the stupid arguments are probably very smart and very well paid.
The seen versus the unseen. They likely could have made more money by buying a fairly small amount of Bitcoin and then increasing its value substantially higher than what it is now by working to make Bitcoin widely adopted money for the world. Instead, they intentionally crippled the project, destroyed the growth in transactions, utility, and adoption, and got paid a bit to work on bandaids for their self-inflicted terminal wound. True economic geniuses. Additionally, who knows how much bigger the financial and business opportunities could have been as a developer if Bitcoin had actually been allowed to grow and thrive with massive adoption as programmable money that could be sent anywhere in the world, nearly for free, nearly instantly, without any middlemen or banks.
Hello @deadalnix thanks for the useful Economy's knowledge. I'm sure some people around had learned a lot from it. It gave me some good ideas about the technology and it applications. In 40 minutes around i'm going to speak about Bitcoin at the local radio station: http://fiestastereo-barrancas.colombiaemite.com/ Hope you could hear me, and everyone around too!
How is this "the easiest path to profit", Roger? This path requires one to be both a clever trader and to invest one's time altruistically in software development. First, it is not reasonable to expect one person to do both, as each is highly time-intensive and each is a considerably different task. Second, if I am a clever trader, why would I spend my time developing for free? Basically you are saying: Learn to trade, get good at it, and, when you do, live off of that and give us your development work for free. How is this "a much more effective, safe, and simple strategy to earn a profit " when BCH is down 94% since the ATH in Dec 2017?
Insert really bad "So you're saying" meme here.
Like the Core developers, it seems like you also overlooked the easiest path to profit: Buy Bitcoin Make it useful to people in commerce. Price goes up. That is a much more effective, safe, and simple strategy to earn a profit than Blockstream's raising $100M+ from traditional finance, strangling Bitcoin, and then trying to sell products that fix the problems caused by the strangulation. Not only do Core developers not understand economics, but they are poor business strategists as well.
“Not understanding economics” is when you misunderstand a blind auction as a “fee market” and humiliate yourself to the world by toasting champagne to the unfolding market failure of your product.
Thanks for sharing this information. That is a much more effective, safe, and simple strategy to earn a profit than Blockstream's raising $100M+ from traditional finance, strangling Bitcoin, and then trying to sell products that fix the problems caused by the strangulation.
Here is the deal. If you car is broken, you pay a repairman to take care of it. And then you get to enjoy the benefit of having a car that work again. The repairman is not the one benefiting from your car being repaired, and therefore you don't expect him to show up at your door and repair it. Well, it is the same here. Yes, increasing the size of the block creates value, just like repairing the car creates value. But the people able to deliver that value are not the people who would benefit from that value being created. There is no failure to understand economics from the part of the repairman anymore than there is from the Core devs. There is a huge failure on the part of the people who expect the repairman the repair their car for free just as there is a huge failure on the part of people expecting Core devs to do the work to increase the block size for free - or bellow market rate.
Completely agree
It is a solution. There are many others.
Amaury Sechet is spot on. The initial success of bitcoin relied on altruism along with it's sound economic incentives for various participants of the network. The incentives for core developers are quite clear and we should learn from the past mistakes. If the BCH developers don't get the funding they need, it will turn into a hobby open source project with bag holders resembling the core moon boys.
Bitcoin developer should have a proper planing and and try to working according to plan, need to spread this among massive people. At first all bitcoin sites developer should agree to work together.
The question isn’t “Do the Core devs ‘understand economics?,’” the answer to which is totally subjective. The question is, is the observed behaviour market driven, or the the result of the intervention into markets? The signature of market-driven activity is spontaneous organisation. Blockstream investors were bankers connected to primary dealers of the Federal Reserve. Central planners who can direct market participants with the magic wand of counterfiet money are NOT market actors. Sechet doesn’t even understand that he is not looking at a market at all. He is comparing market actors with oligarchs. And without a hint of irony he says, “the oligarchs won.” Thank you for that blinding insight, Amaury.
I think it is safe to say Roger Ver has become a malicious actor in the space. He does not want to support the hard work of Amaury and ABC but wants to reap the rewards of their work. It is best you go over to nGeek coin with your philosopher friends @roger
Roger does not undersrand economics
You are wrong and you became a bad actor. Bitcoin Cash will be better without you honestly. Fund ABC or gtfo
With what money am I supposed to buy Bitcoin? You stick to the same tired arguments, when given counterexamples, by the very people you are advising.
Yes, the attack on Bitcoin was better funded than the Bitcoin project itself. Paying off developers who's personal greed outweighed their dedication to the original dream was an effective strategy. When I think of the economics of Bitcoin and the core strategy in relation to that, I think about the economics of Bitcoin and the Bitcoin ecosystem. I do not think about the economic choices made by some who, basically, sold their soul to the devil. I do see your valid point, I just do not look at that as "Bitcoin economics" even though it is an important part of it. I look at what would have happened if the developers had not been captured. Core appears to not understand economics because their token took a path towards economic destruction rather than growth. True, it was not really the individual developers who deserve the blame, it was the wealthy team that captured BTC and intentionally corrupted it. Even so, BTC crashed and burned in economic terms compared to where it would be today due to the decisions we call "Core strategy". "Core strategy and Core actions" are inaccurate shorthand descriptions pushed on us by the real owners of BTC. In the big Bitcoin-ecosystem economic picture I think your point also works. The goal of the attackers (bankers and other entrenched fiat defenders) was to destroy Bitcoin's ability to become peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people (or delay it as much as possible while they slowly adapt to the future) for wealth protection and/or maybe some kind of twisted "national security" fear. I still don't know who bought the BTC project. The Blockstream's greed explanations seem like a cover story to me. I think Blockstream was sent in to kill Bitcoin and make it seem like they were doing it for rational reasons. So, in my crazy view, it was probably economically rational for the new owners of BTC to destroy it's ability to become peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people. So, they can be said to be economically rational. But that is still not the "Economics of Bitcoin" that I think of when saying things like Core took BTC down a bad economic path. You are right, it only seems like a stupid path if you are thinking about the bigger Bitcoin picture (like me). And, yes, the incentives seem to have failed because people who do not own enough BTC spent a lot of money to make sure it failed to perform and grow massively in value like it could have (and, I believe, still will someday). What it comes down to for me is that the people who claim to believe in BTC's future are making arguments that fly in the face of economic realities. Them lying all the time makes them seem stupid, but, it is their arguments that do not understand economics. The people behind the stupid arguments are probably very smart and very well paid.
More comments