My gut says sub $200 is possible......
With disruptive blogchain technology, everything is possible! |
|
|
|
^Your ability to grasp. Depressing.   |
|
|
|
^^ ... ---Exhibit A--- I plan on using Bitcoins as a convenient, very-low-cost means of exchange.
I don't plan on saving a significant number of Bitcoins as a store of value. ... Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Store-Of-Value System  Above addresses iCEBREAKER @CIYAM: consider returning to your locked, self-moderated topics, where you can feel not_foolish.
This addresses you, hence starts with @CIYAM. That's what people do to compact several posts into one. So now you know   |
|
|
|
If you prove we will not see over 10 TB HDDs in mass production in the following 6 years, then you can get some big blockers more sceptical about scaling above 2 or 4 MB. So go ahead.
You said 10-100TB, which implied a tenfold increase in 6 years. This is not likely. All we have to do is loudly demand 100TB hard drives be available in 6 years. Obnixious repetitive complaining will force those lazy, stubborn, greedy bastards at Seagate and Western Digital to come up with a solution. That's how engineering works, right?  How dare those bastards censor us! We will start a new subreddit r/100tbHardDrives and show them what everyone wants. Nevermind that the engineers have told us repeatedly told us they can't make 100TB+ HDD's at this time, WE WANT IT AND WE WANT IT NOW. Ever notice that hard drives are only made in big centralized factories? What's up with that elitism? Can't we try a more fair, democratic approach?  That's because today's techno-industrial complex doesn't espouse decentralization as its guiding principle. Unlike Bitcoin. What is so difficult about increasing the platter/bit density by a factor of 20 with no trade-offs in terms of price, performance, and MTBF?  I heard Seagate can put out 100TB drives any time they want, but are sensor-shipping them in order to force us to buy more smaller ones!!!11! As mentioned earlier, Seagate could, if demand existed. Currently, there's no demand for 100TB drives. No demand, no point making them. DCs are fine with hot-swappable disk arrays, makes for much simpler maintenance. TL;DR: No flying dog houses because low demand, not technological obstacles. |
|
|
|
@CIYAM: consider returning to your locked, self-moderated topics, where you can feel not_foolish.
What on earth does your quote about @gavin have to do with me? (are you that stupid or just competing to be the most stupid person I've had to waste my time here with?) The quote has nothing to do with you, only the line addressed to you, starting with @CIYAM, does. Not everything is about you, friend That said, learn to polite. |
|
|
|
... ---Exhibit A--- I plan on using Bitcoins as a convenient, very-low-cost means of exchange.
I don't plan on saving a significant number of Bitcoins as a store of value. ... Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Store-Of-Value System @CIYAM: consider returning to your locked, self-moderated topics, where you can feel not_foolish. |
|
|
|
^^By "monetary order" you mean anachronisms like gold, silver, and priceless bolo ties you rest home visionaries keep "investing" in? It ain't circling, oldster, moar like clogging the drain |
|
|
|
...
I go by bitstamp and so far in this most recent explosive implosive outburst, we've only seen a low of $363.73, and because of my own logistical issues, I was only able to buy a little more at $368.
... Corrected so Fatman won't tear his hair out. |
|
|
|
... I guess from Gavin's POV holding gold and silver makes me a "currency speculator."  From my perspective, it makes you a hapless, a hapless speculator. Both gold & silver performed somewhat better than IceDrill, which is not to say "well." Horribly, actually.  You're a nice guy, ice, just not too good with money |
|
|
|
Haven't been around much lately, have been checking the price though. It seems we're firmly entrenched under 400 USD for the time being which isn't great.
I predict there will be some significant movement soon, I wouldn't like to predict which way though.
there is huge demand from wall street right now. they are piling into bitcoin like crazy. they dont even know about bitcoin being unable to scale.. they saw max kieser on cnn the other day and started piling in .  |
|
|
|
...problem is to keep raising the block size ad infinitium. ...
You do realize that the block chain is growing ad infinitum already, without removing the blocksize limit, right? This proposal does not remove limits, all this proposal does is increase the maximum allowable capacity to 2MB. We need people to educate themselves. Community understanding is key!Of course. Simply pointing out the flaw in "unsustainable because will keep growing forever" reasoning. |
|
|
|
...problem is to keep raising the block size ad infinitium. ...
You do realize that the block chain is growing ad infinitum already, without removing the blocksize limit, right? |
|
|
|
If you prove we will not see over 10 TB HDDs in mass production in the following 6 years, then you can get some big blockers more sceptical about scaling above 2 or 4 MB. So go ahead.
You said 10-100TB, which implied a tenfold increase in 6 years. This is not likely. All we have to do is loudly demand 100TB hard drives be available in 6 years. Obnixious repetitive complaining will force those lazy, stubborn, greedy bastards at Seagate and Western Digital to come up with a solution. That's how engineering works, right? Roughly. Most solutions start with a problem, not the other way around.* If there's no demand for greater storage capacity, devices having such capacity are far less likely to be made
*Bitcoin, of course, being the notable exception. |
|
|
|
1. I can't send Beanies through the internet, though your bitcoin isn't soft and cuddly. What does this have to do with scarcity?
2. My boiled ice hasn't lost 2/3rds of its value over the past couple of years, so it most certainly beats Bitcoin as "store of value."
Again, you haven't answered my question: Is my boiled ice more valuable now that I wasted a bunch of electricity and my time put work into it?
If you plot the exchange rate performance of bitcoin for more than 4 years (which is a reward halving cycle), you get a risk/reward ratio which no investment can beat. It is a long term value storage, although it is disrupted by short term bubbles and crashes, similar to housing Only if you don't understand what risk/reward ratio means. But yeah, if you track any_shitcoin_Not_dead_yet performance since its inception, you get infinite profit. They all started at 0 (zero), so any positive number is infinite growth. You inverted the cause and result: People spend energy to dig out gold because it has value, not because the digging action itself will generate value. Higher mining cost is a result of competition. You should ask why so many people crazily mine bitcoin even they pay more electricity than coin's exchange rate
So it's not the work that gives gold value, but the fact that gold has value in the first place?! So much for work giving BTC its value Folks put plenty of work into mining fool's gold too, because they thought it had value. It didn't. That's what made them fools. Avoid mirrors. |
|
|
|
Those who cannot remember the past are conned to repeat it.  |
|
|
|
The 21 Bitcoin PiTato is the first PiTato with native hardware and software support for the Bitcoin protocol. I dont know what it is, but I feel that a PiTato should really be a thing. That's what somebody called the 21inc Bitcoin Computer, and now I can't think of it as anything else |
|
|
|
Because not all blocks can be full, we are looking for 0.5 TB in next 6 years when users will probably have 10-100 TB HDDs in 6 years. If someone really think a bit technically about it and dont spread the FUD about decentralization and how Bitcoin cant scale anyway with onchain transanctions, he would come to conclusion let scale onchain transanctions as much as possible to still keep decentralization - 0.5 TB HDD storage in next 6 years will not break decentralization, even 1TB or 2 TB in next 6 years will not break decentralization either . This is "FUD". You're working under the assumption that: 1. The block size will remain at 2 MB for 6 years (while saying that 1 MB hurts adoption). 2. The HDD capacity is going to increase tenfold in 6 years? 3. This doesn't hurt decentralization. You obviously are not thinking properly because there are a lot of factors to consider. What about new nodes? Good luck catching up with a 0.63 TB network on a raspberry PI. This is something that can not be left out (among other things). In other words, this does hurt decentralization and that is a fact. The question is just how much and is it negligible? Is this what you're fighting for? Being able to run a node on a Raspberry Pi? [Serious facepalm] The 21 Bitcoin PiTato is the first PiTato with native hardware and software support for the Bitcoin protocol. |
|
|
|
Speed/irreversibility of transactions is transparency?
yes, you have money or not.  in FIAT system, it's ... perhaps ... eventually ... wait a little week to be sure. You clearly don't understand the word "transparency." Understanding the words you use is important |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
