No.  It will mean miners have a warehouse-load of expensive hardware that can't be used to mine Bitcoin at all.  They wouldn't be miners if they can't mine. 

What it would actually mean is massive profits for all the shady exchanges and webwallets that people naively use to store their funds.  They would be granted a level of control over the network that would cause anyone who understands the risks to leave Bitcoin and never come back.

That's why Bitcoin is never switching to PoS.

Here's a different link for anyone who doesn't want to give that other site the traffic:  https://www.bitcoininsider.org/article/14340/cornell-researchers-bitcoin-not-decentralized-assumed

The simple matter is, the distribution of hashpower is determined by market forces.  If the number of people mining was centrally planned and controlled, that's undoubtedly less decentralised than just letting the ecosystem evolve naturally.

All they really need to comprehend is that they can only regulate their own citizens and companies.  There are limits to what they can do.  Even if they could make using Bitcoin problematic for people in the US, they can't stop the rest of the world.  If they try to restrict usage in their own country, it's only themselves they would be hampering.  And there are dangers of doing that when it comes to technology.  They might unwittingly put the US at a disadvantage, competitively speaking.  So they need to tread lightly if they have any sense.

It was blatant advertising for an altcoin and the "service" that runs the account which posted it.  No legitimate content of any kind.  One of the reports was definitely mine, so you can blame me.

I don't give much credence to the result of the poll itself, purely because Peter Schiff has been such an outspoken detractor towards Bitcoin.  It wouldn't surprise me at all if Bitcoin supporters were just voting against him out of spite, heh.  Take everything on twitter with a pinch of salt. 

The more interesting story is the difference of opinion between generations.

There's hope for the future, then.  The younger generations get it, because they've never been given a good reason to trust traditional finance.  Peter Schiff needs to take off the rose tinted glasses and recognise the situation for what it is.  What used to work for him probably won't work for our descendants going forwards.

Seems like an unusual amount of time and research to put into development just for a collectible.  I'm almost tempted to sound like a conspiracy nut and say that's just a smokescreen.  Perhaps they're worried about a potential backlash from traditionalists?  I can see how plans for a CBDC would seem threatening to some.

Based on everything we've seen in crypto so far, I understand your cynicism.  And if it were a different group of people, I'd probably think the same.  But considering some of the names who've given their support to this project, I'm not going to write it off as a scam yet.  A novelty, yes.  A corporate plaything, definitely.  Highly experimental and not guaranteed to be a success, probably.  But a scam?  I'm not seeing it.



It sounds like there was some effort involved in overcoming some regulatory hurdles getting this one set up.  See this post:


I've seen enough run-of-the-mill shitcoins to recognise one.  This project appears different.  It's not any type of ICO we've seen thus far.  Am I investing in it?  Hell no.  But I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.  After all, it's their money they've put on the line.  Not to mention their collective reputations.  I honestly believe people are judging too quickly out of habit with this one.  

Almost everything Trump thinks he knows is wrong.  He's got the IQ of a birdhouse.  If he believes China are responsible for the virus, it's a pretty safe bet that they're not.



Oh, I see, you're one of those people... Small-minded and always looking for a minority to scapegoat for your problems.

Might as well just dismiss you as a lost cause, then.

Yep.  It's also likely that, for most of the people who believe that having mega-money beyond their wildest dreams and wish for it to happen, they would probably end up leading decidedly shallow and unfulfilling lives if that fantasy did ever come true.

People think they want things handed to them on a platter, but when they actually get it, the novelty wears off fast and it doesn't feel very rewarding.

Numerous reasons.  It's still fairly volatile.  Nation states prefer to be able to intervene directly when their economy falters and they can't control Bitcoin in such a way to do that.  Insurance for losses and thefts is still a big hurdle to overcome.  It simply isn't viable at this stage. 

So they're going to try copying the bits they approve of.  Then, later, they're going to realise that it doesn't quite work like they assumed it would, because you can't just cherry-pick the bits you like and expect the outcome to be the same.   

Honestly thought this news deserved a little more attention than it seems to be getting.  A hardy "Good work!" to all involved.  Is the lack of fanfare purely because people are more excited about the aggregation part that isn't quite ready yet?

Nope, we figured that part out.  Circle aren't connected with this news at all.  Different guy.



I can't imagine Coinbase ever dropping BTC.  They'd have to make some pretty serious errors in judgement to find themselves in the same sort of position that unrelated company did.  Dropping BTC was simply an admission of failure on their part.  Their business model wasn't viable.  Coinbase, on the other hand, seem to be doing quite well and are probably raking it in.  Whether that's good for their customers or not is another question entirely, heh.

Also, woo, 4000th post.

Then either I'm failing at using search engines, or there are too many bald white guys in crypto and you're possibly confusing him with Jeremy Allaire, heh.

Is Andreessen connected to Circle?  I know Circle are pretty hopeless, but I'm struggling to figure out where they fit in the topic.

I'm pretty sure no one has meant for their advice in the topic so far to come across as rude.

My take regarding web-wallets, the best way to think of it is in terms of compromise.  If you only want convenience and you're willing to rely on third parties, the trade off is likely going to be the control and security you would otherwise have.  Maybe convenience is all that you're concerned with.  So if you're comfortable handing over possession of your funds to a person or company on the internet, in effect a stranger you're never likely to meet, that's your call.  It would, however, be careless of us not to mention the inherent dangers of that.  We've seen examples of people losing their money doing that.  But, in fairness, we've also seen people lose funds by not correctly securing a wallet they control themselves.  There's potential risk either way.  But at least if it's a wallet you control, you can take responsibility for it.

As for faucets, there was a time in the past where it was worth doing those, but I suspect you're a few years too late now.  I recall when you could get 2000 or even sometimes 5000 satoshi each hour from each different faucet, but those days are long gone and you'd only get a tiny fraction of that nowadays.  In terms of effort versus reward, they're simply not worth your time.  There are definitely better ways to earn money, but they almost certainly involve your time, effort, skill, resourcefulness, entrepreneurial instincts or a combination of those things.  In effect, you need to figure out what you're good at and then find a way to monetise it.  You might not make a lot of money, but I can't see how you'd make less than you would from faucets now.

That just sounds like something a poorly educated person would say. 

You can only coast through life without skills or experience if you're one of the lucky few who actually have untold sums of money.  Somehow I sincerely doubt you're one of those people.  This world is going to eat you alive if you don't get your shit together.

I'd rather not have one, purely because that would be yet another sign that this shit is never going away and it's a depressing thought, heh.

Please let me keep my fantasy and continue believing this is just a temporary thing.

I see what you're saying in general, since their motivation behind this particular instance does seem to be profit-driven.  But again I'd emphasise that making a name for yourself by telling people when a shitcoin is a shitcoin shouldn't preclude them entirely from talking about other projects.  They definitely need to be a bit more tactful when they do, though.  Bitcoin is great, but it can't do everything.

I'm pretty dismissive of most altcoins, but I'd like to think, if there was a niche in the market that I was particularly interested in which Bitcoin doesn't cater to and I discussed a project that does, that people wouldn't be lining up to call me a hypocrite.

Okay, hooray for science.  But the point is, the average person can't do it.  And you certainly can't spend them even if you could.  There is no practical everyday application for measuring anything in atoms.