2012-11-26 New Scientist - Virtual economy looms as digital cash grows up

[Schleicher]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628925.200-virtual-economy-looms-as-digital-cash-grows-up.html?full=true
Nice article. They even mention the ASICs.
Printed version in New Scientist Issue number 2892.

[1715055953]

1715055953

[Akka]

Lets you only read it when you have a login. Can you quote the most important parts?

[damnek]

From waspoza on Reddit:

https://i.imgur.com/4F07E.png
https://i.imgur.com/wlYsD.png

[Akka]

Thank you.

Yes, that's the nice article. In fact, that's the kind of article that gets people to get interested and do some research and build their own opinion.

Clear facts, without any writer opinions in it. You don't read that very often lately.

Like it.

[Mike Hearn]

Hey, if you'd tip the author with Bitcoins you might as well sign up. It's what they want and it's not a lot to reward people who are writing accurate and balanced articles. I signed up rather than use the screenshots and it took like 20 seconds.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Hey, if you'd tip the author with Bitcoins you might as well sign up. It's what they want and it's not a lot to reward people who are writing accurate and balanced articles. I signed up rather than use the screenshots and it took like 20 seconds.

Why hand over your personal information for free?

They need readers more than you need your reading habits data-mined ... imho.

[ElectricMucus]

Nice,
hopefully the ASIC companies really deliver...lets hope for the best

[jgarzik]

Indeed.  The email registration is free, just to read that article.  And it sends a message that they are writing good material.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Indeed.  The email registration is free, just to read that article.  And it sends a message that they are writing good material.

It is not really "free" ... you have to hand over personal information, which as we all well know, is valuable to them.

(E.g. They could set up a bitcoin tip jar and allow anonymous reads if they need feedback on material quality.)

[Mike Hearn]

They require a name and an email address, hardly personal information. Anyone can get that from me just by asking, I don't believe public addresses are private information.

I'll unsubscribe from their newsletter when they spam me, unless it turns out to be good. No harm done.

Why do it? Er, well, because as creators of that work I believe they have a moral right to ask for something in return for it. I found the terms of their deal acceptable so I complied with them. That's like asking why would I not grab an apple from the fruit store as I walk past it, even though I won't be caught and it's just an apple.

[ECore]

LOL at the banks saying that they may have to regulate bitcoin if it gets any more popular.   

[marcus_of_augustus]

They require a name and an email address, hardly personal information. Anyone can get that from me just by asking, I don't believe public addresses are private information.

I'll unsubscribe from their newsletter when they spam me, unless it turns out to be good. No harm done.

Why do it? Er, well, because as creators of that work I believe they have a moral right to ask for something in return for it. I found the terms of their deal acceptable so I complied with them. That's like asking why would I not grab an apple from the fruit store as I walk past it, even though I won't be caught and it's just an apple.

If you don't think name and email address is personal information it is pointless to argue on much else.

Thanks for being a good citizen ... I prefer to read the free screenshot and keep my email addresses as private as possible. I resent your analogy with the apple pilfering, are you calling me a thief because I refuse to add my information to a database, that will potentially persist until I die, and choose to read a screenshot of another registrant?

[FreeMoney]

They require a name and an email address, hardly personal information. Anyone can get that from me just by asking, I don't believe public addresses are private information.

I'll unsubscribe from their newsletter when they spam me, unless it turns out to be good. No harm done.

Why do it? Er, well, because as creators of that work I believe they have a moral right to ask for something in return for it. I found the terms of their deal acceptable so I complied with them. That's like asking why would I not grab an apple from the fruit store as I walk past it, even though I won't be caught and it's just an apple.

If you don't think name and email address is personal information it is pointless to argue on much else.

Thanks for being a good citizen ... I prefer to read the free screenshot and keep my email addresses as private as possible. I resent your analogy with the apple pilfering, are you calling me a thief because I refuse to add my information to a database, that will potentially persist until I die, and choose to read a screenshot of another registrant?

Heh, what do you figure happens to it when you die?

[Mike Hearn]

Addresses aren't personal information, no. An address you keep to yourself is pointless. That's why my email address is on my web page along with my name, so people who want to get in touch can do. Problems caused in 13 years of doing this - none.

Anyway, New Scientist pays the people who write articles for them. To fund that they want you to sign up on their site and then see the ads they run. If you don't want to do that, ok then, just move on? I'd have thought this forum of all places would be full of people who believe in the sanctity of contracts. That's pretty much the fundamental tenet of crypto-anarchism.

[auzaar]

They require a name and an email address, hardly personal information. Anyone can get that from me just by asking, I don't believe public addresses are private information.

I'll unsubscribe from their newsletter when they spam me, unless it turns out to be good. No harm done.

Why do it? Er, well, because as creators of that work I believe they have a moral right to ask for something in return for it. I found the terms of their deal acceptable so I complied with them. That's like asking why would I not grab an apple from the fruit store as I walk past it, even though I won't be caught and it's just an apple.

If you don't think name and email address is personal information it is pointless to argue on much else.

Thanks for being a good citizen ... I prefer to read the free screenshot and keep my email addresses as private as possible. I resent your analogy with the apple pilfering, are you calling me a thief because I refuse to add my information to a database, that will potentially persist until I die, and choose to read a screenshot of another registrant?

marcus_of_augustus is your real name? or screen name, it could have been anything, e.g. anonymous_man, you can do same thing for reading new scientist article, so it is not about giving personal information but putting few minutes in it

[Gabi]

Yeah, an article wich start with "ILLEGAL drugs"

But it doesn't say that you can buy them with dollars too. lol

[marcus_of_augustus]

Addresses aren't personal information, no. An address you keep to yourself is pointless. That's why my email address is on my web page along with my name, so people who want to get in touch can do. Problems caused in 13 years of doing this - none.

Anyway, New Scientist pays the people who write articles for them. To fund that they want you to sign up on their site and then see the ads they run. If you don't want to do that, ok then, just move on? I'd have thought this forum of all places would be full of people who believe in the sanctity of contracts. That's pretty much the fundamental tenet of crypto-anarchism.

You work for Google right?

Have you ever read a newspaper someone else has left behind at a cafe, bar, bus, etc?

[Elxiliath]

The last thing that should be allowed is for any government, country or their respective organizations to regulate bitcoin.  I may not have much in terms of coin, but I enjoy that it is free to be easily sent, spent and received. 

[vokain]

Did anyone miss this author's glaring mistake in the first sentence?

If the price of gold halved overnight while the cost of mining equipment ballooned, the global economy would be plunged into chaos. This scenario is about to play out in the online peer-to-peer currency Bitcoin.

As I understand it, he's using this analogy to explain the bitcoin rate halving, but this isn't what's happening in the bitcoin economy at all. It's the rate of supply of new bitcoins  that will be halved while mining equipment  costs are going down. This might mean more miners will hop on board but there's a separate equilibrium here that governed by difficulty adjustments. Price will still be dependent upon how well people make use of the protocol Satoshi created.

[Spekulatius]

Did anyone miss this author's glaring mistake in the first sentence?

If the price of gold halved overnight while the cost of mining equipment ballooned, the global economy would be plunged into chaos. This scenario is about to play out in the online peer-to-peer currency Bitcoin.

As I understand it, he's using this analogy to explain the bitcoin rate halving, but this isn't what's happening in the bitcoin economy at all. It's the rate of supply of new bitcoins  that will be halved while mining equipment  costs are going down. This might mean more miners will hop on board but there's a separate equilibrium here that governed by difficulty adjustments. Price will still be dependent upon how well people make use of the protocol Satoshi created.

You are right, but I tend to read over those mistakes and ignore them, cherishing the times when they get it mostly right though.