What is the general thinking on what the right properties of cryptocurrencies should be to give them nonzero value? (e.g., cheap, low volatility, low transaction cost (in time and expense to transacting party), reliability of transactions, lack of central authority?)
There are many reasons gold has become a valuable currency: it has a distinctive density, a distinctive color, it doesn't oxidize easily, it's not radioactive or toxic, and it's relatively rare (compared to, for example, iron). Its scarcity and distinctiveness, together with its aesthetic appeal, have made it a natural choice as a currency. See, for example, http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25255957.
Bitcoin has none of these properties ,which makes me call it a fiat currency (like the U.S. dollar). The only difference is that the U.S. dollar does have transactional value (and limited storage value).
Bitcoin and many other cryptocurrencies are fiat currencies, nothing more. Bitcoin's value is dependent not on underlying fundamentals, but rather on supply and demand. Its supply is limited and will be fixed, but its demand is based on on its perceived usefulness, either for storing value or making purchases (maybe other things?). Until we see that it is useful for these things, we should assume its fundamental value is zero.
At the end of an article is an anecdote about an older (for Silicon Valley) woman who states "And maybe I’m going to lose [my investment of $12k].. Maybe I’m going to keep cleaning houses. But something is telling me I can trust this generation."
My worry is that (1) people like this woman who don't understand markets, let alone cryptocurrencies, will get burned by this, and (2) some small set of people who do understand markets will take advantage of those who don't.
This could result in a situation in which techies are blamed, like Wall Street, for causing lots of people to lose money (and -- let's face it -- lots of people will lose money, if not now then at some point).
I'll admit that I went to the page skeptical, expecting another "let's see how some arbitrary mathematical function turned into a song sounds," but I was pleasantly surprised that some of these sound decent.
It makes me wonder: what if we take existing songs, try to find space-filling curves that explain them, and then look for different paths through those curves? In other words: would it be easy / possible to parameterize existing songs as curves, so that we can find which subset of the space of space-filling curves is actually interesting to human ears?
This is great. However, I didn't see anything about whether it is a civil violation and assume you could still be sued by a third party (you just couldn't be thrown in not jail over it). Please correct me if I am mistaken.