|
A lot of grid is wasted during off peak times. Energy is stored or sold in inefficient manners. Instead, they should use any excess energy in mining bitcoins to sell. Rather than raising electric rates, they can increase their customer base. Their price discovery will be the electricity/btc pair. They can choose which will be most profitable. Storage can then be bought by customers for their needs based on rates. This just seems more efficient than being forced to sell to only one market.
|
|
|
|
Side chains are probably unicorns . I say probably because I haven't seen the proof of concept demonstrated nor have a real world analogy. It seems like vaporware.
Time will tell I suppose. Fwiw 2wpeg sidechains could be implemented now, without any changes to the btc protocol... Let's see a two way peg with test bitcoins and test litecoins at an arbitrary peg. Has anyone created an atomic swap between chains without human intervention? |
|
|
|
A true bitcoin miner never sell more than 10% of his coins in 5 years period
This is year six coming up. A lot of mining was done the first year.  |
|
|
|
|
Side chains are probably unicorns . I say probably because I haven't seen the proof of concept demonstrated nor have a real world analogy. It seems like vaporware.
|
|
|
|
The downtrend is still stuck between the fear and the denial phases. About half of the market has been starting to feel fear, while the other half is still strongly holding on to denial. The longer the market is stuck here, the deeper the final drop will be. All of this because there are too many inexperienced gamblers, who are making this market very inefficient. The average Joe in denial is helping the smarter speculators with bigger stakes to get out from a thin market.  For some reason I don't have you on ignore. Being a bear is one thing, but what is your undeniable hypothesis? |
|
|
|
|
He's trying to solve the problem of network access.
I don't understand why he thinks networks need to be redesigned with a Turing-complete block chain. You still need to trust the person that installs it.
Then I realized he is trying to redefine proof of work by creating tokens based on network access.Then I see he takes it back a notch and calls for limited use cases. Why not just stamp documents with Bitcoin?
I think there is a fundamental disagreement about the nature of work. There is a lot of development around PoS and its subset Proof of Existence as if Existence is some sort of compromise between stake and work. The cypherpunks are great with their privacy issues, but there is also a movement of ecopunks. Maybe some folks see the sun as a big waste of energy, but it's the thing that gives us life.
Hashing sha256 may seem like a trivial task, but if you look at the process rather than the product it makes sense. Hashing is done by the ones with the cheapest energy or the most efficient circuits.
Proving ownership is the foundation of fraud. Whether it's wealth or network resources, without provable really hard work there will be ways to spoof the system.
Now I'm not saying converting electricity to heat is the best way to show value. There are many resources to back currency. In the past we learned to smelt. We created money from that. Then we learned to print. We created money with that. Electricity is just how we currently make our existence. Future technologies will allow us to do things far more interesting than electronics and we'll be able to create value from that fundamental technology. I suspect quantum teleportation or entanglement may create the new money. Money is hard to make but easy to verify. It's a one way function. We should stay away from overly complex systems of financialization and computer networking can be made excessively complex. It's better to allow simple systems to interact and create emergent complexity.
|
|
|
|
That's built on top of ripple right? Not much info on the nuts and bolts, or the business model. It does look nice. As long as they don't use the Purse.io model... (get real money/btc from customer, pay merchant with stolen credit card). Or the Ebay model, only keep records for 60 days while credit card can charge back beyond that. |
|
|
|
Forget Buffet, let's talk about that hit piece somebody posted in the comment section: Most people who are currently under the "Bitcoin as a currency" illusion are missing some very important details (on multiple levels) regarding Bitcoin. Most of the information that they've gathered is based on false premises that have been perpetuated by snake oil salesmen, scammers and intellectually dishonest idealists who rely on tenuous and also factually incorrect information. Bitcoin is a cult, it is not a money or currency. It is predicated on a system of half-truths and lies that fall on their face when put under the microscope. These omissions, misperceptions, half-truths and lies are not at all trivial. They cut right to the core of why Bitcoin (the currency) is faulty at its core, and why it will soon hit a technological, economic and regulatory brick wall. I'll do you and everyone reading a favor, and I'll provide a list of a few of the problems with Bitcoin, and explain how you've been lied to, where your fundamental misunderstandings are, and why Bitcoin is flawed on a technical, economic and regulatory level. I'll start with the technical side: 1. In Bitcoin, proof-of-work ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-work_system) is the method used to create reusable tokens (i.e. BTC) that can be sent and received by someone else with a Bitcoin address. When new Bitcoin are created by a Bitcoin Miner/Mining Pool, transactions from the previous (on average) 10 minutes are incentivized through fees (of BTC) to be included in the next ledger, which is built upon the previous ledger. 2. Bitcoin Mining is *HIGHLY* centralized among often anonymous operators. There is very little "distribution" of "hash-rate" to secure the network. Healthy proof-of-work systems require wide distribution of compute power to protect against byzantine faults, and to protect a network against a 51% attack. Bitcoin completely lacks this feature of a healthy network. 3. The Satoshi White Paper DID NOT assume or predict that Bitcoin Mining would become centralized and controlled by very few groups and individuals. or that specialized equipment would be built to enable the level of centralization we are now seeing. When confronted with this fundamental problem of theory vs. reality, Bitcoin promoters brush the issue aside and explain that miners are "Rational Actors", and as such, they have an economic interest to ensure that the network continues in an orderly way. Unfortunately for the promoters, however, "Rational Actor Theory" (which they base their argument on) is a theoretical model that can not be applied to real world outcomes, and is only useful in flat controlled simulations (Game Theory) where all data points are known. It is intellectually dishonest to use the Rational Actor Theory as an excuse for why the Bitcoin network is safe and secure. 4. The Bitcoin network will never be able to scale to support thousands or even hundreds of transactions a second. There is a very real and impossible to overcome barrier in terms of distributed networks, physics, and proof-of-work, that simply cannot be solved, yet just like with the (dishonest) application of Rational Actor Theory, Bitcoin promoters continue to assume that physical and mathematical limits that are inherent and immutable in the proof-of-work system will somehow be overcome in the future. They will not be overcome. Ever. 5. The Bitcoin network is powered by a patchwork of virtually unusable codebase that was originally developed as a "proof of concept" for reusable tokens, much in the way that other academic software system research projects demonstrate novel solutions. The Bitcoin codebase was not designed to scale, yet early on, non-technical libertarians co-opted Bitcoin, raised its perceived currency/monetary value, and created an intractable greed based dilemma: In order to change network consensus methods (proof-of-work, mining centralization), implement solutions that might enable the Bitcoin network to be robust at scale (newer, more efficient messaging methods & optimized peer networking methods), or to be true to the Satoshi White Paper premise of wide distribution of Miners, the price of Bitcoin has to be trivially low. Remember, Miners have spent many millions of dollars to develop and purchase specialized equipment. This is tantamount to vendor lock in. Once the price of Bitcoin went up, and the investments in specialized mining equipment started, the ability to get Miners to *ever* agree to an economic disincentive (like changing the rules of the network to ensure fairness and robustness) evaporated. 6. There is no network or protocol level exchange mechanism. Bitcoin externalizes the exchange duties to 3rd parties (exchanges) in order to support its use as a money transfer instrument. These exchanges have bank accounts in various parts of the world that custody exchange customer USD's, Euros, etc. Bitcoin is completely valueless by itself. Bitcoin promoters often create the illusion that it is a perfect money, and that we will eventually not need exchanges in order for BTC to function as its own economy and currency. The last 2 years have demonstrated that the vast majority of Bitcoin "investors" only care about one ultimate outcome: More Fiat currency in their pockets. 7. Bitcoin (the currency) is totally and completely illegal as a value transfer method in its current state, as demonstrated on numerous occasions by regulators and governments who have made demands of the exchanges that they must either comply with regulatory burdens that other Financial Institutions must follow, or necessarily be criminally liable. This takes us back to the intractable problem of Miners and the flawed implementation of Bitcoin as we now know it: Any types of controls or additional protocol modifications that could be created to help Bitcoin (the currency) to comply with existing laws & regulatory regimes are impossible to implement without the agreement of *at least* 51% of the network. More realistically, the threshold required exceeds 80% of all Miners. Given that miners are heavily centralized (read above), and heavily financially invested in the core premise that Bitcoin promoters have espoused over the past 3-4 years, it is virtually impossible to expect that the Bitcoin network will ever be able to comply with worldwide regulatory requirements. Ultimately this means that existing exchangers of Bitcoin will lose their banking facilities in 2015 and beyond, and Bitcoin (the currency) will very quickly start to approach its real value, which is between $0 and $0.01. 1. True 2. False. There are thousands of independent miners and few large mining farms. He's plain wrong. 3. His strawman is intellectually dishonest. 4. Engineering problems that can't be solved. Seriously? 5. Bitcoin is a protocol, not a codebase. He's wrong and doesn't understand Bitcoin. 6. "No protocol exchange mechanism" is a meaningless statement. Most bitcoins have not been recently exchanged, proving it's not all about fiat. 7. Bitcoin is illegal. He must be from Ecuador. He understands that miners don't work for free. That's his entire knowledge of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
They keep calling it a scheme.It is a protocol, not a scheme. Nobody is carrying out a plan, at least nobody in particular. If you want to use the term that broadly then the Federal Reserve is a scheme... er wait.
|
|
|
|
How much has Gates invested in BTC again?
Lots of people are invested in Bitcoin. Obviously no major investor will admit to the amount of bitcoins in their portfolio unless they are directly involved in its development and are giving full disclosure. Otherwise there is a secrecy rule for filing SEC form 13F for investors like Buffett so they can protect themselves and their clients. Bitcoin still has a media stigma it will shake in time like Arthur Anderson. |
|
|
|
|
I'm hoping wallets get more escrow ability. Not sure about the time out period or the status on nLockTime.
|
|
|
|
Double digits this year.
You keep saying that, but then why not single digits? |
|
|
|
Sausage fest? I'm a girl and I'm sure other girls on here would love the idea, it won't be 50/50 but maybe 70/30?
You need at least 33½. Cbeast you are really kinky!  )) I know what you mean with that 33½ ))) And I totally agree! P.S. I know some girls that like BTC if we go on this trip No. I just know it takes all kinds. Besides, I'm taken. |
|
|
|
Can someone explain why a double bottom is not forming on the 1w charts?
maybe it is...we wont know until it breaks up (if it does) We're looking at a big booty double bottom, not one of those skinny bulimic double bottoms. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin bloat, speed, and costs, can be addressed in the Bitcoin protocol itself. I'm a bit surprised, how so? While you have some points, this is one of the first early, but serious steps of moving off-chain and partially solving the issues mentioned. Managing block size with speed and storage ability of the internet. Transaction costs will average out. I don't think it's unreasonable for the world to be fiber optic in the next decade. We already have it installed in much of the Philippines. I've not seen any demonstration of 1:1 pegging in any cryptocurrency. They are asking bitcoin core developers to make hooks for other assets, but those hooks can be exploited and add burdens to Bitcoin. If they can do it with multisig, then I say give it a try. The multisig pegged coins can be swapped for hooked coins later if necessary. |
|
|
|
|
Price didn't collapse. /thread
|
|
|
|
First you claim market caps denote the value of a cryptocurrency. I refute that point by explaining that all cryptocurrencies markets without exception are unregulated and therefore unreliable. I also demonstrate that with the paintings analogy. That threw you for a loop so you ignored the analogy and started talking about the art market. That's called a red herring by the way. Then you said But I this is getting away from your proposition of your paintings with nothing to offer = POS platforms that support the development of real projects  which is simply hyperbole. I can appreciate that. But then you have to go and defend your champion CFB. You consistently and completely ignore my rebuttals and instead use fallacies. Now you accuse me of social engineering. Pot. Kettle. Black. Comments about market cap was your starting point, not mine. My first post was that you were making a false comparison > Your paintings = POS. (I'll wait while you go back a read my post, it starts "bwaaaahahahahaha... " ) Your paintings = POS is a strawman as the two are definitely not equivalent (unless paintings does have an asset exchange?  ) and you successfully attacked your false representation. Rather than attack the reality of POS (see the bit about Jinn and value not being depending on regulation or acceptance from authority). Far from ignoring your point, I addressed it directly. That was the starting point. You put the paintings analogy in the middle of our conversation, not at the start. Your version of events doesn't correspond to our conversation and that makes me think you aren't interested in honest discourse, only trying to 'win'. CfB doesn't need me or anyone else to defend him, he already does a sterling job of that himself This thread is a good example  But excuse me for the rest of today, I have to go comb my couch. Mea Culpa, it was CFB that brought up the market cap, but it was you that responded to my counterpoint. I presume it was also your argument as you were defending it. But excuse me for the evening. I must attend my party guests. |
|
|
|
|
Definition of "cashness" = being able to make any any song sound cool.
|
|
|
|
So it is a third definition, liquidity being what define "cashness". Here's your problem. Cashness is an adjective. Cash is a noun. For example: being human does not make one humane. You made up the word. You can make any meaning you want. |
|
|
|
|
I don't understand why this has all been announced (with fundraising) without even a proof of concept? So far it's just academics. Can't there just be an example of a two-way peg with existing test coin forks? For example: between a forked bitcoin testnet and a forked litecoin testnet?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
