Bitcoin: mining our own business since 2009.
LOL love that |
|
|
|
|
"Algorithmic money" pushes Bitcoin too far into the "weird niche tech" realm. Grandmothers don't use algorithmic money.
"Digital money" or "digital cash" on the other hand are great terms. A grandmother would use digital money.
"Crypto currency" is a very cool term, mainly because of the alliteration. Not sure about bad connotations? I think for most people "crypto" and "cryptography" are pretty neutral terms.
And yeah like ribuck said, "Bitcoin" is a better buzzword than all these put together.
|
|
|
|
|
Really cool points da2ce7
Perhaps your most important statement is the Difficulty != Security, which is true. Security derives from the cost of mounting an attack. If all miners today used FPGA boards and were much more efficient per Gh/s, then difficulty would be much higher... but if these FPGA boards are just as cheap as the GPU's which preceded them, then the cost of the attack hasn't increased and thus the higher difficulty is irrelevant.
So, I haven't had my coffee yet, but I think this means Security = Cost per Block. The more expensive it is to mine blocks, the better. The Difficulty figure doesn't capture the cost, thus making it a good but inadequate statistic for measuring the security of the network.
|
|
|
|
What you paid for inventory is irrelivent. What matters is what price consumers are willing to pay and they don't care if you bought at $30 or $3.
what's relevant is the cost of replacement of your inventory. if you paid $3 some months ago, and a customer wants to buy today, what are you going to do with the money they give you? you're going to restock, at TODAY'S prices. +2 =) |
|
|
|
She has an impish smile and nice legs. I don't have much more good to say about her talk. Why was she chosen to speak about Bitcoin? Go back to the first sentence.
Yeah don't be a douche. Maybe she was "chosen" to speak about Bitcoin because she's been the most dedicated professional journalist on the subject in the entire world (save perhaps for Matonis who also kicks ass). Adrianne didn't just write up one piece when the topic was hot, or some hack occurred, or copied some AP piece. She's been writing quality journalism on Bitcoin since last summer. What was the last video-recorded professional presentation you gave on the topic cbeast? Again, go back to the first sentence  |
|
|
|
What you paid for inventory is irrelivent. What matters is what price consumers are willing to pay and they don't care if you bought at $30 or $3.
+1 |
|
|
|
|
Or just scan the QR and you get that change as bitcoins.
|
|
|
|
yeah, but what about all that electricity we waste?  not much once we all switch to FPGA boards... and power them with solar energy... While Electricity Cost < Block Value, miners will keep adding more and more mining power, be it FPGA or whatever, until Electricity Cost = Block Value. Basically, miners will keep adding mining power as long as it's profitable. So the only thing FPGA boards will do is increase the difficulty, not save on power wasted. Now THERE is some good economic reasoning! Well said, Rassah. And for the same reason, "energy efficient" light bulbs and cars often result in more electricity used, not less. A while back, after they mandated efficiency standards for A/C units in UK, the energy used went up, not down. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is *effectively* a currency because that is what it does and how people use it. Although, it does have some special properties that make it a very novel and unusual type of currency.
A commodity always has a use by itself. If gold were not used as medium of exchange or storage of value it would still be useful because you can make useful things with it, such as electronics and jewelry.
Bitcoin does not have that property. If I were the only person in the world to have Bitcoins it would be useless, just as with any other currency.
Hmmmm - if you were the only one in the world to have gold, would it not be similarly worthless? One can derive aesthetic value from gold, but a computer nerd can similarly derive tech-geek aesthetic value from Bitcoins. Indeed, before BTC had a market price, people traded them because they are cool - there is an aesthetic property to Bitcoin as a thing, just like a shiny stone or metal. And further, it is not true that Bitcoin has "no" value other than money. There are a few weird uses people have mentioned - a timestamp, a means of anonymous proof of various info, a distributed record keeper, and certainly others we haven't considered. So while bitcoin's value may be due 99.999% to its usefulness as money, it has some tiny fraction of value beyond that. Does that not then satisfy your commodity definition? Let's remember too that gold's value is vastly due to its use as money and a store of value (which derives in turn from its usefulness as money). If jewelry and industry were the only uses of gold, it's price would be vastly lower, probably in the single digits of what it is now. So what then is the fundamental difference that makes gold a commodity money, but not bitcoin? Both are commodity monies in my opinion, the former a physical commodity and the later a digital commodity. |
|
|
|
Honestly, I know it's an impossible task, as I have already mentioned, bitcoins don't really exist.
They exist just as much as inches or meters or megabytes exist - they're all units of measurement. And the Bitcoin software certainly exists - so the Bitcoins themselves are measurement units within that software. |
|
|
|
There has been lots of discussion, for various reasons, about how to classify Bitcoin. Most of it has been focused on currency vs. commodity dichotomy (from taxes to exchanges to the Good Wife episode). Fringe discussions also involved securities.
The fact is, Bitcoin does not fit comfortably into any of these categories.
Bitcoin is a commodity (limited, uniform/standard, divisible, useful), and it is a currency because its properties as a commodity make it extremely useful as such. Real money always becomes money while simultaneously being a commodity. They're not mutually exclusive. Gold, and Bitcoin, are both commodity monies. Bitcoin is definitely NOT a security as it requires the promise or backing of no separate party. The Bitcoin software is indeed an accounting system, but Bitcoins themselves are not an accounting system. Part of the reason people get confused about these things is that Bitcoin is two parts: 1) a commodity useful as money and 2) an accounting and payment system which uses the commodity money. It may have been smarter to give the two pieces different names, but they're both called Bitcoin  |
|
|
|
$300 a month. Wheee. I'll keep my day job, thanks  Clearly your day job is not in finance... else you'd see that OP is making a 100% operating profit and it's just a matter of scale before quitting a day job would be a reality. |
|
|
|
Personally, I think this is awesome  |
|
|
|
|
I'm in the USSA too, but I wish you luck!!!
|
|
|
|
Good job getting on the air But you know, of all the reasons to love bitcoin, the "environmental damage of gold mining" seems to be the absolute weakest |
|
|
|
I guess I just don't get this whole concept. By showing that you have two internet-nickels to rub together, it somehow makes you a more serious buyer/contributor?
Just as in real life, wealth is an indicator of status and success. Not a guarantee, mind you, just an indicator. It's pretty simple - by showing that you have money to spend, you'll be taken more seriously by people you trade with. I think it's a very clever feature of Ogrr |
|
|
|
Use instawallet.org. Wait, the wallet is stored on the instawallet server? No thanks. But Electrum and BCCAPI do look like good alternatives. It all depends on what your risk profile and convenience vs security concerns are. I'd never store large amounts on instawallet, for for day to day stuff, it's super easy. And yeah Electrum is a great option also if you'd rather keep the coins on your machine (just don't forget backups!). |
|
|
|
Guys - this is not a problem that needs solving in the future. It's solved now. Use instawallet.org. No blockchain. There are dozens of other alternatives also. The "full client with full blockchain" is not required to use Bitcoin. Grandmothers will never have their own blockchains locally. Far more than half of all people using Bitcoin will not use the blockchain often, if ever. Just as people who use email don't typically run their own email hosting server, and people who use Wikipedia don't keep a local copy |
|
|
|
FAIL. You think you're the first person to ponder this issue? Most users of Bitcoin don't need the blockchain at all, or even to download the client software. Ponder on that for a min. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
