I don't know why I was not informed of your reply. My apologies for the extreme delay. Normally subsequent replies alert me to these kinds of oversights a lot faster.
You have a lot of errors.
Awesome! Then you won't mind linking me to information which will help me correct them
You completely mischaracterize Ayn Rand.
Since you're clearly a fan, we won't quibble.
OpenCL is ATI/AMD.
Yes and Nvidia...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCL#HistoryYou misunderstand that the tulip bulb crash was not a function of expanding supply, it was a result of simply waking up to reality.
Since supply in the context of worth is defined by desire relative to availability the effect of "waking up to reality"
was a sudden expansion of supply. Your comment seems to create a distinction without a difference. Also value is by definition subjective. There is no reality to wake up to, just a collective opinion. Even gold, while yes having objective physical traits does not have objective value.
If other people stop valuing bitcoins, you will be in the same situation.
But even if no one else on the planet wants them I'd want them for historical value if nothing else. I doubt I'm alone on this front. BTC will never totally lose value so long as they exist and I'm alive.
Much like the dot-com crash.
That's debatable, to put it mildly.
http://www.realdanlyons.com/blog/2012/02/13/hit-men-click-whores-and-paid-apologists-welcome-to-the-silicon-cesspool/ (for a little taste of why that's debatable)
You can't do much with a tulip bulb if other people stop valuing it. The same is true of stocks of money-losing companies. If other people stop valuing bitcoins, you will be in the same situation.
Granted. But they won't. BTC have a fixed scarcity.
I'm not sure that your critique is any less wrong.
Neither am I till someone demonstrates it or points out something I've specifically asserted which I cannot defend.
Thanks for the reply and again sorry about the absurd delay. And I guess nercopost at this point.
