Hey Jorge. You spend a LOT of time on various fora discussing BitCoin. Must be like a full time job almost.
How can you afford to do that, plus make a living?
My question would be more - Why bother? I dedicate my time to things I enjoy & have belief in. My point exactly. So why DOES he dedicate so much time to something he doesn't believe in? I spend about half of my life on pro-socialist forums like hitlerpraise.com and stalinforums.com talking about how ridiculous they all are and that their ideal of everyone making the same pay for different levels of work will never succeed. I do it for the children. A lot can be said about the Soviet Union, but they were the ones who rid Europe of the fascists. You equating fascism with socialism is not just stupid, but insulting to the millions who died and the millions who lost a family member in the fight against fascism. |
|
|
|
Why not focus those efforts on something that he could actually benefit from financially.
He might be a really intelligent man but in my experience many people who are academics/intellectuals don't end up getting rich because they don't take enough risks.
Too straight laced, live life by the book.
Well, if you see everything as a nail all you ever yearn for are lots of hammers. What an empty, vacuous life you must lead to come out with this sort of drivel....la Yes, he wrote about making money in a forum thread dedicated to digital currency speculation. I was expecting poetry and flowers! |
|
|
|
Time to try and shed a few more of the 26000 shorts.
Tarmi, luckyenough, NHJT, NLC all notably absent.
They are probably loading up on coins. No point being a bear anymore. |
|
|
|
I do have to admit I kind of pity Jorge. Going into the history books as a clown and a parody on science. Just let the old fool rant and put up his biased ( academic much? ) non sense.
in my experience many people who are academics/intellectuals don't end up getting rich because they don't take enough risks. Its those who try to "end up rich" without proper due diligence usually end up dead poor. Simply 'getting rich' is a pretty empty life goal anyway. And trolling the internet isn't? Mere diversions, hardly life goals. Anyway, if someone puts that much thought and care into it ( even if you refuse to accept their point) then it is hardly trolling. I would class the majority of the ad-hominem responses from others as classic trolling. I agree. If you redefine trolling, all is nice and dandy. |
|
|
|
I do have to admit I kind of pity Jorge. Going into the history books as a clown and a parody on science. Just let the old fool rant and put up his biased ( academic much? ) non sense.
in my experience many people who are academics/intellectuals don't end up getting rich because they don't take enough risks. Its those who try to "end up rich" without proper due diligence usually end up dead poor. Simply 'getting rich' is a pretty empty life goal anyway. And trolling the internet isn't? |
|
|
|
That first article is almost a year old, Anything more recent? The second article, dimwit! |
|
|
|
Stop engaging losers like him. Because that's what he is.
Well, he sure will be if he's not stacking up on those coins. |
|
|
|
|
Why do we keep feeding Dr.Troll?
If he wants to save souls he's in the wrong thread. There are none here.
|
|
|
|
I'm reading a bit of this Tim Swanson report Strider linked to and his analytical skills leaves a bit to be desired. I am not in any way suggesting that Brian Armstrongs assertion is unassailable, but Mr. Swansons attack on it is not worth much. "Two months ago Brian Armstrong, the CEO of Coinbase, said:
Ripple, Stellar, and Altcoins are all a distraction. Bitcoin is way too far ahead. We should be focused on bitcoin and sidechains.
This is empirically untrue. If Bitcoin was “too far ahead,” then axiomatically no one would be working on all these other projects as they would clearly see this trend and focus on one platform. "Edit: OK, I guess the answer to this: I haven't read too closely (not closely at all, which is why I asked for a quote) but the kinds of networks where the blockchain and the token is separable it seems that no value is transferred. It will function purely as a ledger and the value will have to be transferred otherwise. If true, that seems quite limiting.
re: Tim Swanson's paper. A permissioned ledger is a completely separate thing from the Bitcoin protocol. There really should not be a direct comparison because the critical aspects of Bitcoin aren't present in a permissioned ledger. They aren't decentralised and they are not 'trustless'. In conversation with Tim I've been privy to, he has two main things to say: one, that big banks don't want bitcoin because they need to trust an unknown third party (miners) and two, that this is a business game to make money not be idealistic. He believes bitcoiners are all misguided anarchists and libertarians and that only profit focused people who play nice with the TBTF's see the potential. I get the feeling he underestimates the value of what Bitcoin is though. Yes, technologies like hyperledger might lead to a more efficient digital layer within a states banking system, but when you want to move money between jurisdictions and currencies much of the same old system applies. With Bitcoin, any individual anywhere in the world can secure value digitally and send it to wherever s/he wants instantly, because it has value just about anywhere. That takes time to build, and as we all know, it's a bumpy ride. And it's a quality I don't see in any of the permissioned tokenless ledgers. With those you have to have a separate clearing mechanism, so basically most of the costs are still in place. You might get it to some extent with permissioned ledgers with tokens. But if it's going to be as cost-efficient as Bitcoin they will have to go through the bumpy ride of price discovery, and I just don't see how that's going to be done. Nor do I see why it should be done. It can't be closed loop, so it will run into much of the same problems as Bitcoin, except now you have someone to sue. And how is that going to help? |
|
|
|
If you're short now you're either crazy or stupid. Or both.  There are a lot of crazy stupid people on this thread it seems. Though they seem to have gone totally silent after the price inexplicably failed to crash to $160 last week. Now all the TA people agree that we will head to 210-220 or 150-160. Will be interesting to see where we are when I wake up tomorrow. Wouldn't be surprised if we were in the 260s. Good Night Y'all! |
|
|
|
Come on shorters. Try and push it down a bit further so i can buy in.
Yeah!  |
|
|
|
I'm reading a bit of this Tim Swanson report Strider linked to and his analytical skills leaves a bit to be desired. I am not in any way suggesting that Brian Armstrongs assertion is unassailable, but Mr. Swansons attack on it is not worth much. "Two months ago Brian Armstrong, the CEO of Coinbase, said:
Ripple, Stellar, and Altcoins are all a distraction. Bitcoin is way too far ahead. We should be focused on bitcoin and sidechains.
This is empirically untrue. If Bitcoin was “too far ahead,” then axiomatically no one would be working on all these other projects as they would clearly see this trend and focus on one platform. "Edit: OK, I guess the answer to this: Do you have a quote of what you are referring to? Or at least a chapter or a page to back up your statement? I haven't read too closely (not closely at all, which is why I asked for a quote) but the kinds of networks where the blockchain and the token is separable it seems that no value is transferred. It will function purely as a ledger and the value will have to be transferred otherwise. If true, that seems quite limiting.
...was Hyperledger and it's ilk. The fact that none of you could simply say "Hyperledger" tells me that I am pretty much the only one who read this PoS, or I'm surrounded by douches. |
|
|
|
You bunch of dicks
I asked for something a bit less than a 66 page analysis and you throw a 318 page book back at me
FFFFFFFFFF UUUUUUUUUUUUU
Stick to the CCMF gifs, dude. Don't suckerpunch me just because you can't build a valid argument. If you can't explain it then you haven't understood it. Will this do? https://youtu.be/25N-4zrk390Nope, I'm on my friggin android phone again. In a setting where I would be an idiot to open one of your links. My bad, it was a dead link alright, but i fixed it now. OK! I'll check it later but I can give you a courtesy lol. LOL Edit: ok, I'm back. I stand by my LOL. Good point, well made. |
|
|
|
You bunch of dicks
I asked for something a bit less than a 66 page analysis and you throw a 318 page book back at me
FFFFFFFFFF UUUUUUUUUUUUU
Stick to the CCMF gifs, dude. Don't suckerpunch me just because you can't build a valid argument. If you can't explain it then you haven't understood it. Will this do? https://youtu.be/25N-4zrk390Nope, I'm on my friggin android phone again. In a setting where I would be an idiot to open one of your links. |
|
|
|
You bunch of dicks
I asked for something a bit less than a 66 page analysis and you throw a 318 page book back at me
FFFFFFFFFF UUUUUUUUUUUUU
Stick to the CCMF gifs, dude. Don't suckerpunch me just because you can't build a valid argument. If you can't explain it then you haven't understood it. |
|
|
|
The way I see it: some banks are starting to invest in bitcoin companies (but not bitcoin the currency itself) simply because they suspect that something will come out of this whole crypto thing. It doesn't have to be bitcoin the currency itself, it doesn't have to be a "coin", maybe a payment network, maybe another technology, a distributed ledger system, who knows. As Boston Fed Researchers and Bank of England explained a few months ago, a lot of these investments in bitcoin related companies are done because "even if bitcoin is unlikely to succeed, it will spur innovation". You need to consider something here: 1. It's not true that bitcoin (a token) and the underlying technology (a distributed ledger) are inseparable. As the Tim Swanson report showed (http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdf). 2. The pioneers are almost never the settlers. Facebook was not the first social network. Google was not the first search engine., etc. What I'm saying is not that bitcoin will be replaced by a random existing shitcoin (those are pretty much all pump&dumps). My point is that you shouldn't take for granted that bitcoin => moon because some aspects of the underlying technology can be useful, because some people tell you that blockchain and bitcoin are inseparable, or because some banks are currently starting to invest in bitcoin companies. Everything is possible of course, just don't take it for granted. Do you have a quote of what you are referring to? Or at least a chapter or a page to back up your statement? The Tim Swanson report I linked talks about it extensively. Be careful tho I said that distibuted ledger technology and a reward token are not inseparable. Because technically yes the bitcoin blockchain needs bitcoin as a reward token, the network is dependent on its price etc. I haven't read too closely (not closely at all, which is why I asked for a quote) but the kinds of networks where the blockchain and the token is separable it seems that no value is transferred. It will function purely as a ledger and the value will have to be transferred otherwise. If true, that seems quite limiting. Here's a link to a pdf of Anatomy of A Money-Like Informational Commodity: https://www.google.ca/search?q=tim+swanson+the+anatomy+of+a+money+like+inforational+commodity&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&gfe_rd=cr&ei=AH5GVdX6KOeM8Qefr4DgAQIt's a good read. You bunch of dicks I asked for something a bit less than a 66 page analysis and you throw a 318 page book back at me FFFFFFFFFF UUUUUUUUUUUUU  You dick |
|
|
|
The way I see it: some banks are starting to invest in bitcoin companies (but not bitcoin the currency itself) simply because they suspect that something will come out of this whole crypto thing. It doesn't have to be bitcoin the currency itself, it doesn't have to be a "coin", maybe a payment network, maybe another technology, a distributed ledger system, who knows. As Boston Fed Researchers and Bank of England explained a few months ago, a lot of these investments in bitcoin related companies are done because "even if bitcoin is unlikely to succeed, it will spur innovation". You need to consider something here: 1. It's not true that bitcoin (a token) and the underlying technology (a distributed ledger) are inseparable. As the Tim Swanson report showed (http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdf). 2. The pioneers are almost never the settlers. Facebook was not the first social network. Google was not the first search engine., etc. What I'm saying is not that bitcoin will be replaced by a random existing shitcoin (those are pretty much all pump&dumps). My point is that you shouldn't take for granted that bitcoin => moon because some aspects of the underlying technology can be useful, because some people tell you that blockchain and bitcoin are inseparable, or because some banks are currently starting to invest in bitcoin companies. Everything is possible of course, just don't take it for granted. Do you have a quote of what you are referring to? Or at least a chapter or a page to back up your statement? The Tim Swanson report I linked talks about it extensively. Be careful tho I said that distibuted ledger technology and a reward token are not inseparable. Because technically yes the bitcoin blockchain needs bitcoin as a reward token, the network is dependent on its price etc. I haven't read too closely (not closely at all, which is why I asked for a quote) but the kinds of networks where the blockchain and the token is separable it seems that no value is transferred. It will function purely as a ledger and the value will have to be transferred otherwise. If true, that seems quite limiting. Here's a link to a pdf of Anatomy of A Money-Like Informational Commodity: https://www.google.ca/search?q=tim+swanson+the+anatomy+of+a+money+like+inforational+commodity&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&gfe_rd=cr&ei=AH5GVdX6KOeM8Qefr4DgAQIt's a good read. You bunch of dicks I asked for something a bit less than a 66 page analysis and you throw a 318 page book back at me FFFFFFFFFF UUUUUUUUUUUUU |
|
|
|
The way I see it: some banks are starting to invest in bitcoin companies (but not bitcoin the currency itself) simply because they suspect that something will come out of this whole crypto thing. It doesn't have to be bitcoin the currency itself, it doesn't have to be a "coin", maybe a payment network, maybe another technology, a distributed ledger system, who knows. As Boston Fed Researchers and Bank of England explained a few months ago, a lot of these investments in bitcoin related companies are done because "even if bitcoin is unlikely to succeed, it will spur innovation". You need to consider something here: 1. It's not true that bitcoin (a token) and the underlying technology (a distributed ledger) are inseparable. As the Tim Swanson report showed (http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdf). 2. The pioneers are almost never the settlers. Facebook was not the first social network. Google was not the first search engine., etc. What I'm saying is not that bitcoin will be replaced by a random existing shitcoin (those are pretty much all pump&dumps). My point is that you shouldn't take for granted that bitcoin => moon because some aspects of the underlying technology can be useful, because some people tell you that blockchain and bitcoin are inseparable, or because some banks are currently starting to invest in bitcoin companies. Everything is possible of course, just don't take it for granted. Do you have a quote of what you are referring to? Or at least a chapter or a page to back up your statement? The Tim Swanson report I linked talks about it extensively. Be careful tho I said that distibuted ledger technology and a reward token are not inseparable. Because technically yes the bitcoin blockchain needs bitcoin as a reward token, the network is dependent on its price etc. I haven't read too closely (not closely at all, which is why I asked for a quote) but the kinds of networks where the blockchain and the token is separable it seems that no value is transferred. It will function purely as a ledger and the value will have to be transferred otherwise. If true, that seems quite limiting. |
|
|
|
The way I see it: some banks are starting to invest in bitcoin companies (but not bitcoin the currency itself) simply because they suspect that something will come out of this whole crypto thing. It doesn't have to be bitcoin the currency itself, it doesn't have to be a "coin", maybe a payment network, maybe another technology, a distributed ledger system, who knows. As Boston Fed Researchers and Bank of England explained a few months ago, a lot of these investments in bitcoin related companies are done because "even if bitcoin is unlikely to succeed, it will spur innovation". You need to consider something here: 1. It's not true that bitcoin (a token) and the underlying technology (a distributed ledger) are inseparable. As the Tim Swanson report showed (http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdf). 2. The pioneers are almost never the settlers. Facebook was not the first social network. Google was not the first search engine., etc. What I'm saying is not that bitcoin will be replaced by a random existing shitcoin (those are pretty much all pump&dumps). My point is that you shouldn't take for granted that bitcoin => moon because some aspects of the underlying technology can be useful, because some people tell you that blockchain and bitcoin are inseparable, or because some banks are currently starting to invest in bitcoin companies. Everything is possible of course, just don't take it for granted. Do you have a quote of what you are referring to? Or at least a chapter or a page to back up your statement? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
