1PZZ5Z…Phqo

I'm curious what solutions are being thought of for this. I feel it needs to be pretty simple otherwise the complexity is going to make it a pain.

How does competition and availability and free market dynamics come into play for that data when one archiver essentially "backed it up" due to a personalized api call to store it, making it unavailable for other archivers since it may not be on ledger...

Yeah, it brings up a lot more questions than answers for me. If I can't expect the data to be on the ledger but an archiver then I have no guarantee it'll be around - especially if that one archiver goes away. Additionally... how does competition even...

Meaning the hash is on the bitcoin ledger of what is to be served? So a "ledger cdn" can serve it for a fee? I'd feel more comfortable with this if the data to be served can be sourced from the ledger without worry of being pruned.

Are you commenting on something I said? What can be cheaper than Bitcoin? Slavery.

The problem that exists today is how leverage is used to abstract away the true cost of anything. This leads to misrepresentation of true cost and value and leads to the insanity we have today. Agreed mostly.

This is certainly a step in the right direction. It shows the possibility of general computation within script but it's still very much built towards "contracts" vs running a function for a result. I'm talking with the scrypt peeps. Getting closer...

Hard worker? Or just a satist?

I say this as a pioneer wanting to see success for bitcoin and usher a new paradigm of utility. Reality vs fantasy. Much work to do. Much unknown unknowns to figure out. There is progress but it is minuscule compared toworld economy. Need more innovation.

Now we're getting somewhere. A speculative conclusion to a speculative vision. I do agree things will be different if bitcoin ever becomes a dominant method of transacting leading it to potentially be used as cash. So far this is complete fantasy.

I can attest to it.

When you hold cashyou expect to be able to purchase goods or services. When a big mac costs $3.40 you expect it to cost $3.40 next week andthe week after that. If holding meant you can buy more then businesses wouldn't exist or have motivation to produce.

You need to be more precise on money because not all money is equivalent. Realistically, no cryptocurrency is used as a money in any way. Realistically, and historically $USD has been stable and center of innovation. Hyperinflation is theoretical.

The only way we even get close to this and there's serious fundamentals to question the possibility or what money means, is if bitcoin existed and nothing else. This isn't reality.

You're delusional. You are proving the point that the pizza bought with bitcoin was a mistake because its future value was 1000x higher. The fact of the matter is, USD exists. Everything is priced in relation to USD. Everything. Even international.

I'm coming to terms with the harsh reality that morons are everywhere and you can't fix morons because they're too moronic to unfuck their own moronic center of moronnofuckingbrains or morontoconfidenttolearnthefundamentals or moronwontdothework.

A bear could parachute through. your roof with a salmon in its mouth and share the dinner with you then tear you apart. You can imagine any event, the key is the likelihood. Your example is simply absurd without any context.

You're either a troll or you're too far removed from the ability to reason about fundamentals. I worry deeply for humanity, you add to the evidence that moronic thinking proliferates the zeitgeist. Your understanding will lead us to Idiocracy becoming true

Who said not to have cash? You need cash to transact. The point is that it's non speculative. Nobody would be able to price anything in a speculative cash economy. That's exactly why BTC has failed as money. You can't price goods or services.

If people worried about the future value of money then they'd avoid using it to buy something because "it might go up" which. is why bitcoin (btc) never became money. It's entirely speculative on future value. Speculation == not money.

If people save more then there's less opportunity to move money which is the source of economic activity and innovation. To say it doesn't change the productive capacity is fundamentally incorrect at the most basic level of supply and demand.

Literally no one has cash in their investment portfolio. What they may have is a bond which is a financial instrument for loans. Literally nobody has cash. Forex doesn't count.

You are stuck in a fairytale land. $USD isn't going to fail unless United States of America is no longer a government. Money can have less buying power relative to what it can purchase. This is not a result of speculation but by the money supply.

If people treated money as speculative then you would have no demand in the economy. Money saved is money. not spent which is demand not shown which leads to a dead economy and no innovation.

This is literally why you're supposed to have an "investment portfolio" because it puts money to use on speculative assets to have appreciation. Money that is speculative isn't used, which means no one paid for innovation or value.

Correct. Additional risk that the money becomes abandoned because it can't purchase anything immediately.

You're conflating concepts. Money is money because everyone expects to be able to use it when they have it. If money was speculative no one would spend and you'd have no money flow in the ecnoomy. That's very bad.