Fuckin hell lads, this shit is pretty crazy. I mean, we do tend to expect crazy from bitcoin but when it happens, it's a good feeling.
If Elon really has bought in, or is intending to, shit is going to get very very interesting!
Won't be just him though. There are thousands that are going to attend Saylor's thing. Going to be a hell of a year, I wonder what FUD they'll come up with once we brach 100k. China ban bitcoin, tether FUD,  ??. Going to be entertaining. Shit this week has been entertaining. This is needless to say but: with just over 2,000 billionaires in the world, each can own a whole bitcoin, but not every millionaire would be able to own one. (there are over 46,000,000 millionaires in the world today, and they hold about $158 trillion) |
|
|
|
I have taken notice of the value of quiet time to ponder and do nothing. It took years to notice this something that I was doing all the time, but now I take advantage of it to solve complex problems. While working on large data structures, or complex digital/analog circuits, if I come across a tough obstacle, I set it aside for later. ... Then I go for a walk, or just sit and find a book to read, or tinker with something else. In a few hours the solutions to the tough complex problem come pouring in. I usually write them down on paper as quickly as possible so as not to forget.
Thus, I have learned how to find solutions to some tough engineering problems with zero effort, I just let the subconscious do all the work. I apply this every now and then.
this approach has largely worked for me when faced with something im stuck on. the harder i think about it the less gets solved. however if i time out and think on nothing - ie look out the window and watch the leaves or birds or landscape - when all that deliberate thought "noise" in my head is removed by putting my brain in neutral.. usually *pop* a solution or at least a better approach pops in my head. it like a signal to noise ratio. i have to remove the noise (my spinning thoughts about the problem) and suddenly the signal (a solution) is clear. hard to explain, easy to do once you know. but to anyone watching you stare out the window you look like youre goofing off or something. I've noticed its similarity to an old Zen teaching tool that uses a teacup. It comes up in popular movies lately, like in the 2009 disaster film titled "2012". Here is a version of it: https://medium.com/jumpstart-your-dream-life/empty-your-cup-a-zen-proverb-on-opening-yourself-to-new-ideas-10e8c9545c7bBruce Lee sums it up nicely: “Empty your cup so that it may be filled; become devoid to gain totality.”
|
|
|
|
I hadn't seen it, but it's wonderful. When boiling down some problem, removing some of the particulars, removing technical stuff, one can end up with a scenario looking a lot like the one in that article. It is why it's sometimes important to solve them, one never knows in what area of science that problem will appear. @phil...an interesting approach. Maybe you are using "other" Phil's brains across the multiverse to solve it (and you being entangled to all of them). We don't know enough how the unconscious problem solving works. I have no method, but when i was a bit younger, productive ideas just "popped" into my head. The last such idea was "buy as much bitcoin as you can ASAP"  It's not an engineering, math or other science insight, sadly. Figuring out how the mind works may end being one of the last problems to solve (a billion years from now,  ). ... I picture the whole system is like an old record player, where the mind is the record needle and the universe is the record, the vinyl. Our mind jumps from groove to groove whenever new ideas pop into our heads. |
|
|
|
Thus, I have learned how to find solutions to some tough engineering problems with zero effort, I just let the subconscious do all the work. I apply this every now and then.
I sometimes do a review of a problem right before I fall asleep. I describe it to my self and the universe and tell the universe As I am dozing off wake me up when you figured this out. Yep, this works really great as well. The solutions generally pop up as I am falling asleep, or waking. Your bolded idea was worth 6 merits. you are now a full member.
That's a lot of merit to give, thank you. I sometimes wish to give a merit to some odd comment I spot, but lately I usually just have zero to give.  |
|
|
|
The thing that used to annoy me most about conventional corporate wage-slavery was the 9-5 hours, specifically the 9 part. We all know that some people are morning people, some are night owls. I'm definitely the latter. No less productive, just more productive in the evening than mornings. Yet employers insist that everyone starts at 09.00. There was hardly any point me starting work at that time, I had no ability to focus until at least 12.00. And just when my focus was starting to really come together at 17.30, it was time to go home. Ridiculous working system reflecting a bygone era
And why is it always seen as a virtue to be a morning person, yet it's assumed that night owls just sit around watching TV or playing video games late into the night?
So true. I could have written your comment word for word, since I have also lived in that corporate world for only a short bit, for obvious reasons. And busy-ness - why is that seen as a virtue? There seems to be an underlying assumption that the busier a person is, the more virtuous they are.
One of the most annoying things of that corporate environment was the value placed on the perception of looking busy rather than of doing actual work. ... A friend would recount to me of the years of lay offs at his employers (a large hardware, cell phone, tech co.), where the majority of those getting laid off were the engineers that worked non-stop, and so didn't have time to speak up and be noticed. While the ones that didn't get the boot were those that spoke up and got noticed by the managers, but weren't necessarily the ones doing the heavy lifting. ... (part of the internal policy was to lay off 10%, but they hired all the time, this was thought to keep workers on there best behavior, instead it created bad blood) ... After years of this, the quality of the product, and the lack of new product suffered. All the while with the those at the top not understanding what had happened. (my btc FU fund has come in handy these past few months, lol) Why is so little value attached to making time to do nothing, to think, to slow down and to ponder the big questions?
I have taken notice of the value of quiet time to ponder and do nothing. It took years to notice this something that I was doing all the time, but now I take advantage of it to solve complex problems. While working on large data structures, or complex digital/analog circuits, if I come across a tough obstacle, I set it aside for later. ... Then I go for a walk, or just sit and find a book to read, or tinker with something else. In a few hours the solutions to the tough complex problem come pouring in. I usually write them down on paper as quickly as possible so as not to forget. Thus, I have learned how to find solutions to some tough engineering problems with zero effort, I just let the subconscious do all the work. I apply this every now and then. |
|
|
|
may we change the unit ? https://twitter.com/PeterSchiff/status/1352625339944607744The idea that Bitcoin is scarce as there's only 21 million is nonsense. One #Bitcoin merely represents an arbitrary quantity of 100 million Satoshis. So, it's the total number of Satoshis that must be considered. With a supply of 2.1 quadrillion Satoshis are anything but scarce! man, is this schiff guy such a dim light? look at a kilogram of gold. that is 1000g of gold. 1 gram of gold is 1000000000 ng 1000gram of gold is 1000000000000 ng which is one trillion nanograms. one trillion ng is anything but scarce! do we really need to discuss with guys that full blown stupid? divide a pizza 1 trillion times and feed the world forever with it? jeez...  His line of thinking needs to be repeated for the whole world to see, repeatedly. I believe that what Peter Schiff is trying to delineate can be best understood by the conjurings of this sweet tart: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fkqg6HE888AThese two need to be lumped together, they are two peas in a pod (even if the sweet girl's comments are just scripted). |
|
|
|
|
Do you remember exactly when you realized that this comment thread had failed as a topic. What was your thoughts around the epiphany that this is just f.u.d. .
What in your mind would it take to fix the mind of this poster, so that its brain is no longer too slow and expensive to use.
Is there any hope for no-coiners, or have you given up on trying to explain it to them?
|
|
|
|
|
In a few months, hopefully
a ten thousand dollar jump will be, meh.
|
|
|
|
...
Because according to her, Bitcoin's divisbility up to 8 decimal places will make Bitcoin "not scarce". We have also seen trolls in the forum say it. Tell these trolls that a whole pizza, divided to 8 slices of that same pizza, then further divided to 16 slices, is still that same whole pizza.
then you take the mozzarella cheese/pineapple/tomato from that pizza, and they still called it a pizza. I have a question, what will happen when 0.00000001 BTC becomes very expensive that all people can't afford to buy the smallest unit of BTC. This was answered long ago, but I can answer it here. So, what happens if people can't afford a satoshi ? Then the code can be modified to add more decimal places. That is, the smallest unit then, instead of 8 decimal places, would become 10, 12, decimal places, and so on. The code allows for this. And the general consensus of those running bitcoin (at least those that can understand the simple change, which is the majority anyways) will all accept such a change, since it doesn't devalue the coin. In other words, this would be a trivial change, and of unimportant consequence. When that happens, hardly anyone using bitcoin will notice. Even with a satoshi becoming a penny, that would mean 0.000001 btc is one dollar, and one btc is $1,000,000. This is still a long ways off. And a long ways off before we'd have to worry about a satoshi becoming a dollar, or $10, or unaffordable. But the issue would be forced since we'd need to allow for micro transactions. |
|
|
|
It is an absolute shame the majority of the populace can't grasp bitcoin is inflated to the right of the decimal instead of the left. Bitcoin at the 8th decimal (satoshi) currently the smallest allowed by bitcoin source code, but changeable at programmer discretion 1.00000000 bitcoin = 100000000 units of bitcoin can be sold This means your so called limited 21 million bitcoin is really 2.1 quadrillion sell-able units of bitcoin , which is not a scarce # in any way At any time they can claim 8 places to the right is not enough , and move to more places to the right , and clueless bitcoiners, will say it makes no difference as the 21 million limit to left has not changed, and that is where they make fools of you. But it does make a difference as it artificially increases the number of bitcoin units that can be sold. So moving to a 12th place, inflates the bitcoin supply even further from 2.1 quadrillion sell-able units of bitcoin to 21 Quintillion sell-able units of bitcoin If you can't recognize that is an insanely high increase in supply, please call your grade school math teachers and let them know they failed you, because you are a hopeless math challenged moron. (like Stupid_Fury)  In the virtual world you can do the above nonsense, as you lose nothing by more division, all a unit of bitcoin can do is be transferred between addresses, that is it, division has no effect on that. In the Physical world, dividing a pizza by even as little as 1000X makes it worth nothing, as you probably can't even taste it at such a small size, and it definitely won't have enough calories to make any difference for you . Physical verses Virtual world rules, Learn the difference so you can understand simple truths. I really hope this is just superb trolling and sarcasm haha. I mean, if you are being serious, you're just saying you fundamentally don't understand how numbers work at an extremely basic level. With your logic you are saying 1 = .1 = .01 = .001 = .0001 = .00001 etc. If I have one pizza and cut it in 8 pieces. Then I have another same sized pizza and cut it in 80 pieces...according to your logic the second pizza has magically become 10 times larger than the first pizza. You seem to base your argument on some idea that numbers behave fundamentally differently when you are talking about digital quantities as compared to physical quantities. This is of course not the case because numbers follow the same mathematics no matter what representation you apply to them (1 dog + 1 dog is 2 dogs just like 1 book + 1 book is 2 books, the numbers are what affect the outcome, not the thing they represent which is just a label). 1 Pizza cut into 8 pieces is not 8 times as much pizza as 1 pizza uncut. 100 cents sitting digitally in a bank account is not 100 times as much as one dollar sitting digitally in a bank account, they're both equal to 1 dollar. 100 million satoshis is not equal to 100 million bitcoin, it's equal to 1 bitcoin. If you added another decimal place to to make 1 billion units within a bitcoin it would still be equal to one bitcoin, it would just be divisible into smaller pieces. You seem to not understand what the definition of a fraction is. Fractions =/= whole numbers. Learn the difference so you can understand simple truths. lol. I also found Khaos77's post as rather funny. It's got to be someone testing a joke of some kind. Maybe he's a comedy writer. Or, it could be that he has failed to see that this forum "bitcointalk.org" is filled, or at least in the beginning, was filled with mostly coders. And they tend to have some basic skills in math, since it's needed to model the algorithms and math problems that fill the pages of code. There really isn't any chance any of us coders will fall for such flawed logic. Any Turing machine would crash given Khaos77's logic. I'd suggest he try the joke in some other forum, although it may be tough to find one with such a naive inkling. |
|
|
|
|
I just noticed that she is confusing two terms.
She thinks that "scarcity" is liquidity (or rather non-liquidity).
In her comments if you replace every mention of "scarcity" with "non-liquidity", then it can sort of makes sense.
The rest is just bat-shit crazy.
|
|
|
|
...
Because according to her, Bitcoin's divisbility up to 8 decimal places will make Bitcoin "not scarce". We have also seen trolls in the forum say it. Tell these trolls that a whole pizza, divided to 8 slices of that same pizza, then further divided to 16 slices, is still that same whole pizza.
My initial thought is that she is an idiot who doesn't understand math. I think in reality, she is carrying water for the fiat loving, anti-freedom political class who sees bitcoin eating away at her power. Of course, since she won't define her terms precisely, she can make claims with a bunch of hand waving in order for her to try and trick people. What exactly does she mean by "scarce"? 1 - scarce meaning that only so much of it is available. 2 - scarce meaning that only so many people can own a whole bitcoin, e.g. only so many people can own 100 million Satoshis. 3 - scarce meaning that only so many people can own ANY quantity of bitcoin, e.g. how many people could own 1 satoshi (or even less with lightning). If you say #3 is what she's talking about, then she's right that it isn't scarce because everyone can have *some*. Normal, rational, reasonable people would think of #1 and #2 were what one would think about when they say "scarce" but she is relying on people to think she knows more than she does and accept her stupidity as enlightenment. Reminiscent of someone not understanding Zeno's Paradox. cr1776, that is an excellent response. You state a tactic so many use to fool many more. This lays a trap that the fooled can't get out of, given Mark Twain's quote: “It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them that they have been fooled.”
I'd give you merit, but I'm all out. |
|
|
|
I've seen people argue over and over again about how she is right since "bitcoin can be bought without buying the whole coin's value anyway". Which is totally stupid and outrageous. Just because you can buy a portion of it does not mean it's not scarce or anything. The 21 Million supply's scarcity is alleviated by utility tokens like Satoshis. But on their own, they don't hold any value at all. ~
Purchasing a pizza and cutting it in half does not give you double pizzas. It only splits it into two pieces, but put together it's still the same. Say some brand new tech is developed and a new scientific discovery is made, which makes us able to grain a 1oz coin of gold into pieces as small as the millionth part of a picogram. Does this remove gold's scarcity? It doesn't. Just because you can split it into more pieces does not multiply its existent supply. I personally cannot compare the physical vs virtual worlds because both of them are constantly changing and in both of them we make new discoveries. Even the millionth of a picogram could probably be split into millions/billions/trillions of other pieces, it's just that we have not discovered a way to do so yet. From Wikipedia: "Scarcity as an economic concept ... refers to the basic fact of life that there exists only a finite amount of human and nonhuman resources.."If you can divide Bitcoin into more units than you could've done before, it does not make it less limited. It does not make it easier to gather an entire BTC. If BTC had 16 instead of 8 zeros after the decimal, it would be just as hard to get 1 satoshi as it is today. Exactly what my point is. Divvying something up does not make it any less scarce, you just divided it up into more pieces with less value than what they had to begin with. Why is this simple concept so difficult for some to comprehend ? Somewhere out there someone is teaching some really poor logic, or some lack the capacity to understand. |
|
|
|
well for logic. you just have to look for code
this is where the unit of measure is actualy in satoshi first. and then the 'coin' is created by using math to have then a basket term.
maybe if in the 9 years you were in bitcoin you looked at the code logic. as i have done
static const CAmount COIN = 100000000;
static const CAmount MAX_MONEY = 21000000 * COIN;
One shouldn't assume things of someone they do not know. How do you know that I am not one of those that has done more than just "look" at the code. its not just have coin and then have max limit of 21m... and then later decide to divide it down.
it starts with 100000000 and then gives that measure a basket term of 'coin' and then say there can only be 21m COIN
what you will realise in code logic is that everything is measured in satoshi units. not decimals of btc.
the basket term of 'btc' is just as unimportant to code as a 'ubit' is
the math and logic of bitcoin code uses the units of measure of satoshi's
it is human/user interface that then do the illogic of talking about it in basket terms
but if you think its ok to change the simple math of:
static const CAmount COIN = 100000000;
static const CAmount MAX_MONEY = 21000000 * COIN;
to
static const CAmount COIN = 1000000000000;
static const CAmount MAX_MONEY = 21000000 * COIN;
then nothing is different when it comes to counting the units of measure if you done
static const CAmount COIN = 100000000;
static const CAmount MAX_MONEY = 210000000000 * COIN;
as its the same thing at code logic level
the amount of sharable units at code logic would be the same both ways if editing math of coin or maxmoney.. but offering people 1000x more both ways compared to original code
I think if you had been one of my programmers I might have made sure you ended up working on strictly non-essentials. Ill-logic produces ill-programs, and useless data. i know you lot are stuck in the human scope of basket terms.. like 'btc' or 'gold bars'
thinking there can only be ~15mill gold bars (190,000tonne) of gold(at 12.4kg bar baskets)
so your blindly thinking only 15million people can own gold. and thus making gold scarce
but reality is gold is not scarce. its in your device your using to view this forum. you have gold. and your not one of the limited 15m you previously thought could only have gold
here is the thing. gld junkies worked this out centuries ago. which is why they gave up the concept of measuring gold in the foolish basket term of bars.
the actual amount of gold is measured in math of the underlying sub unit (grams>kg>tonne)
when you learn a gold bar held in national reserves is only 12.4kg purely from human decision of random math of choosing 12.4 instead of say 15kg. and not to do with scarcity or availability of the number of grams in the world. you soon start to want to count gold in ounces/grams because having a gold bar of 12.4kg means nothing when they can change it to being 0.124kg, 15kg if they chose to
cores future plan is to change the basket term of 'btc' to have more sharable units
emphasis on SHARABLE as thats the point of scarcity
At this point I am just going to give up on explaining more, and just resign to the fact that you are one of those that thinks that "splitting up a single pizza into two halves gives you two pizzas". Up to this point in time I would not have believed that anyone could have a thought process that would have allowed such nonsense, but here we are in this new world of "alternative facts". Just beware that thinking in such terms for too long can lead to ruin, if you aren't lucky. Either your poorly written program creates havoc, or maybe one day thinking that your 10 in your pocket was really 100 and you try paying the loan shark that 100 by handing him a ten. |
|
|
|
the 21mill limit becomes meaningless if more then 21m people can have some
subdivisions is another form of inflation.
It appears that you have that backwards. 21 million units is a hard limit, therefore, there is no inflation if you can't add more units. If more than 21 million people try to buy bitcoins, not all will have one bitcoin. So the limit becomes more important, not less important, if more people than 21 million try to have it.
in investments share dilutions is a form of inflating companies holdings
Again, you have what bitcoin is doing backwards. In share dilutions, more shares are created. For example, if 100 shares exist today, but tomorrow they add 50 more shares, then the total number of shares are diluted to 150. No one is adding more bitcoins than the current final count of 21 million. in share dilutions more SHARES are created without expanding the company physically. having more shares(units) is meaning there are more shares(units) to share with people i know you and windfury are stuck with the silly 'bucket' measure of a btc. but the sharable units the amount of units able to be shared would increase if the divisions went from 8 to 12. if a company only had 4 shares. then those 4 people have power and there would be real demand to try changing out those 4 people. however if there are 4000 shares. then its not so scarce. not so much demand. and those holding have less importance. something is not scarce if everyone can have it. in practical maths/economics there is no physical/logical difference between having 2,100,000,000,000,000 sharable units with a basket term set at every 100000000000 units or having 21billion basket terms with only 100000000 units. the only difference becomes in conceptual language of buzzwords scarcity is about how sharable something is bread in your kitchen pantry is not scarce because its only one loaf and you have a family of 4. bread is widely available to the family because its sliced bread i understand a certain few people are deeply stuck in the greyscale fangirl club and want bitcoin to subdivide more. but atleast be honest about it. the game windfury is playing (whether he realises it or not) is not that bitcoin at its continual 8 decimal division is less scarce than a few years ago. but instead to try convincing people that it will still be scarce with 1000x more ability to be shared between people in the future im kind of doubting windfury has had any investment experience or economic experience. It would seem that your understanding of logic, math and physics does not match up with reality. But if this is the way that a typical financial type understands the basics, then this explains a lot for me. See, back in around 2011 when I discovered bitcoin, I had wondered why the financial types had such a hard time with it. The programmers loved the idea of bitcoin, they understood it, but for some reason the financial people would write many articles deriding it. And your explanation is helpful in sort of finally explaining why they hated bitcoin so much. It would seem that since bitcoin is not "divisible", "expandable", "inflatable", or otherwise what we are really talking about is: "exploitable", like financial derivatives, then the financial types would have no way to fool their investors with their flawed explanations of price, value, hand-waving machinations, etc. |
|
|
|
Going back to food. Just because you could theoretically cut a pizza into 7 billion pieces it doesn't mean that you could feed the entire world on 1 pizza.
But of course "frances coppola" believes that you can. The funny part is that bitcoin can run on just one bitcoin. If all the coins were lost except for one, the whole network would function just fine, just as it does today. But that one coin would be worth about $500 billion. It is too bad that some can't understand these things. Or, they do understand and just prefer to spread fud. |
|
|
|
the 21mill limit becomes meaningless if more then 21m people can have some
subdivisions is another form of inflation.
It appears that you have that backwards. 21 million units is a hard limit, therefore, there is no inflation if you can't add more units. If more than 21 million people try to buy bitcoins, not all will have one bitcoin. So the limit becomes more important, not less important, if more people than 21 million try to have it.
in investments share dilutions is a form of inflating companies holdings
Again, you have what bitcoin is doing backwards. In share dilutions, more shares are created. For example, if 100 shares exist today, but tomorrow they add 50 more shares, then the total number of shares are diluted to 150. No one is adding more bitcoins than the current final count of 21 million. |
|
|
|
Divide by 10000000000000000. In the Physical World , you can't keep dividing , as the item loses the characteristics it originally had. Just try and survive on eating .00000001 of a pizza every meal. There are no such limits in the virtual realm. 1 bitcoin = 1.00000000 instead of having a single bitcoin, you have 100000000 units. Meaning your supposed 21000000 bitcoins total supply is really 2100000000000000 units ie: 2.1 Quadrillion Units And since their is no limiting factor to virtual world division, going to the 12th or 16th place or higher is endless supply. *Note:LN already makes up a 12 place.* In Short, She is correct and as usual , you are stupid. Wo, your logic is totally twisted, and you don't seem to have a basic understanding of fractions. Understanding fractions is something that is usually learned in elementary school. I'd suggest asking a ten year old for a thorough explanation of how fractions work. Start with asking what happens when you cut something in half. We here don't have time to teach such basic skills. On the bright side, I think you've won the prize for the dumbest comment in this entire forum. (and I've seen my share of dumb comments in this forum, but this one takes the cake) woo hoo. Oh wait, you're joking. Never mind. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
