Rachel Abrams of the New York Times is a complete dumbass

[RawDog]

This idiot can't pay attention to the facts related to the stories she writes.  http://dealbook.nytimes.com/author/rachel-abrams/


In her recent article, she wrote: "solving complicated mathematical equations to “mine” new coins." http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/05/29/dish-network-to-accept-bitcoin/

Here is your complicated mathematical equation:

'Guess a number between 1 and 100 trillion'
Nope
'Guess another number between 1 and 100 trillion'
Nope
'Guess another number between 1 and 100 trillion'
Nope
'Guess another number between 1 and 100 trillion'
Nope
'Guess another number between 1 and 100 trillion'
Nope
'Guess another number between 1 and 100 trillion'
Nope
'Guess another number between 1 and 100 trillion'
Nope
'Guess another number between 1 and 100 trillion'

That is mining.  It is not a complicated mathematical equation. When are writers going to begin to understand even the simplest aspects of bitcoin?  


Somebody should email her a link to this post: rachel.abrams@nytimes.com

[1715690102]

1715690102

[1715690102]

1715690102

[Chef Ramsay]

All I could see her writing about is the latest w/ Dish and didn't seem to say much of anything about mining. Just the standard reporting on BTC related things, nothing technical of course. I guess these days any press is helpful in getting the word out to the boobs.

[xdigital]

Hashing is consider a complicated math, since it's super hard to do without computer.
I bet even you cannot do it using hand/paper.
That is just simple way to explain it to average audience.

[Keyser Soze]

That's really your problem with this article? It seemed like a pretty common explanation that tries to keep things simple.

[hilariousandco]

a complicated mathematical equation[/b]. When are writers going to begin to understand even the simplest aspects of bitcoin?  


Somebody should email her a link to this post: rachel.abrams@nytimes.com

Well, in her defense, most parrot journalists seem to repeat this explanation of mining.

And why don't you email her? Encouraging people to spam her with links won't be very helpful, unless you want to show how aggressively militant and unforgiving the Bitcoin community is.

[odolvlobo]

This idiot can't pay attention to the facts related to the stories she writes.  http://dealbook.nytimes.com/author/rachel-abrams/

In her recent article, she wrote: "solving complicated mathematical equations to “mine” new coins." http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/05/29/dish-network-to-accept-bitcoin/

Here is your complicated mathematical equation:
...
That is mining.  It is not a complicated mathematical equation. When are writers going to begin to understand even the simplest aspects of bitcoin?  

I agree with your point, but I think you are attacking the wrong person. She describes mining as "solving complicated mathematical equations" only because so-called bitcoin "experts" describe it like that.

[keithers]

This idiot can't pay attention to the facts related to the stories she writes.  http://dealbook.nytimes.com/author/rachel-abrams/

In her recent article, she wrote: "solving complicated mathematical equations to “mine” new coins." http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/05/29/dish-network-to-accept-bitcoin/

Here is your complicated mathematical equation:
...
That is mining.  It is not a complicated mathematical equation. When are writers going to begin to understand even the simplest aspects of bitcoin?  

I agree with your point, but I think you are attacking the wrong person. She describes mining as "solving complicated mathematical equations" only because so-called bitcoin "experts" describe it like that.

I was just thinking the same thing, i don't know how many times i have heard "solving complicated mathematical equations."  Those exact words are basically repeated by each person interviewed about bitcoin, probably because it is the easiest way to describe it without invoking a million more questions

[turvarya]

Please define "complicated mathematical equation" and give an example.

I think, you can break down every mathematical equation into small pieces and say, those small pieces are not complicated and that is exactly what you guys are doing here.

[Sydboy]

yawn

[Elwar]

This idiot can't pay attention to the facts related to the stories she writes.  http://dealbook.nytimes.com/author/rachel-abrams/


In her recent article, she wrote: "solving complicated mathematical equations to “mine” new coins." http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/05/29/dish-network-to-accept-bitcoin/

Here is your complicated mathematical equation:

'Guess a number between 1 and 100 trillion'
Nope
'Guess another number between 1 and 100 trillion'
Nope
'Guess another number between 1 and 100 trillion'
Nope
'Guess another number between 1 and 100 trillion'
Nope
'Guess another number between 1 and 100 trillion'
Nope
'Guess another number between 1 and 100 trillion'
Nope
'Guess another number between 1 and 100 trillion'
Nope
'Guess another number between 1 and 100 trillion'

That is mining.  It is not a complicated mathematical equation. When are writers going to begin to understand even the simplest aspects of bitcoin?  


Somebody should email her a link to this post: rachel.abrams@nytimes.com

Actually that explanation you just gave is the first I have been able to understand mining. Previously I just read about hashing and solving blocks.

[Rannasha]

Mining involves solving
SHA256( SHA256( Blockheader(difficulty, merkleroot, timestamp, nonce) ) ) < target
for the free variable nonce

Considering the fact that SHA256 is not a trivial function and the "Blockheader function" isn't either, the equation could be described as a "complicated mathematical equation".

The fact that the solution technique involves bruteforcing possible solutions until one fits doesn't change the nature of the original problem.

[odolvlobo]

Mining involves solving
SHA256( SHA256( Blockheader(difficulty, merkleroot, timestamp, nonce) ) ) < target
for the free variable nonce

Considering the fact that SHA256 is not a trivial function and the "Blockheader function" isn't either, the equation could be described as a "complicated mathematical equation".

The fact that the solution technique involves bruteforcing possible solutions until one fits doesn't change the nature of the original problem.

Semantically, "solving the equation f(nonce) < target for nonce" is not the same as "find a value of nonce such that f(nonce) < target". Algebra class would have been so much easier if I could have just guessed numbers that worked.

[BittBurger]

That's really your problem with this article? It seemed like a pretty common explanation that tries to keep things simple.

+1

[Rannasha]

Mining involves solving
SHA256( SHA256( Blockheader(difficulty, merkleroot, timestamp, nonce) ) ) < target
for the free variable nonce

Considering the fact that SHA256 is not a trivial function and the "Blockheader function" isn't either, the equation could be described as a "complicated mathematical equation".

The fact that the solution technique involves bruteforcing possible solutions until one fits doesn't change the nature of the original problem.

Semantically, "solving the equation f(nonce) < target for nonce" is not the same as "find a value of nonce such that f(nonce) < target". Algebra class would have been so much easier if I could have just guessed numbers that worked.

To solve just means to come up with a solution. It is algebra class that insists that the qualifier "algebraically" is implied when the word "solve" is used. In the broadest sense of the word, no specific solution method is required.

[daviducsb]

Calling someone a dumbass instead of sending them helpful info is totally contradictory to fostering greater bitcoin adoption.

Why the vehemence? Why the name calling?

Help bitcoin gain greater adoption by stopping the nonsense already.

[adamselene]

Relevant:

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

[greyhawk]

This idiot can't pay attention to the facts related to the stories she writes.  http://dealbook.nytimes.com/author/rachel-abrams/

In her recent article, she wrote: "solving complicated mathematical equations to “mine” new coins." http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/05/29/dish-network-to-accept-bitcoin/

Here is your complicated mathematical equation:
...
That is mining.  It is not a complicated mathematical equation. When are writers going to begin to understand even the simplest aspects of bitcoin?  

I agree with your point, but I think you are attacking the wrong person. She describes mining as "solving complicated mathematical equations" only because so-called bitcoin "experts" describe it like that.

This. It's bitcoiners going on all the time about "that oh so complicated math" instead of calling it what it is: throwing shit at a wall until something sticks.

[RawDog]

That's really your problem with this article? It seemed like a pretty common explanation that tries to keep things simple.

+1

In the name of keeping something simple, we can present factually incorrect information?  Stupid is as stupid does.  

Writers go on and on about the mystery of 'mining', and bitcoin and related things.  Time for us to remove all this mystical bullshit and tell it like it is.  'Solving complex mathematical equations' is just blowing smoke up a nerd's ass.  Nobody is solving complex math equations.  What mining does is no more sophisticated than guessing a number.  Stop trying to make it appear that only geniuses are capable of creating bitcoin via 'solving complex mathematical equations' - utter bullshit.  Same as most writing on bitcoin - utter bullshit.  

We ought to always try to inform journalists when they error.  If it takes shame, this to is a good way to get the story straight next time.  I intend to call out future dumbass reporters as they try to pass off their trash as fact.  I encourage other to also point them out by name and laugh in their face and publically ridicule them.  Modern journalists don't have editors any longer.  I am not precisely sure why that is.  But in the old days, a journalist was careful to get it right as their boss would have their ass if they made these kinds of mistakes. Today, journalists don't really care much at all about getting it right.  

[odolvlobo]

Calling someone a dumbass instead of sending them helpful info is totally contradictory to fostering greater bitcoin adoption.

Why the vehemence? Why the name calling?

Help bitcoin gain greater adoption by stopping the nonsense already.

Well, RawDog is bitcoin skeptic and actively tries to discourage greater adoption. I have to admit that I love his videos, though.

[TopherB]

That's really your problem with this article? It seemed like a pretty common explanation that tries to keep things simple.

+1

In the name of keeping something simple, we can present factually incorrect information?  Stupid is as stupid does.  

Writers go on and on about the mystery of 'mining', and bitcoin and related things.  Time for us to remove all this mystical bullshit and tell it like it is.  'Solving complex mathematical equations' is just blowing smoke up a nerd's ass.  Nobody is solving complex math equations.  What mining does is no more sophisticated than guessing a number.  Stop trying to make it appear that only geniuses are capable of creating bitcoin via 'solving complex mathematical equations' - utter bullshit.  Same as most writing on bitcoin - utter bullshit.  

We ought to always try to inform journalists when they error.  If it takes shame, this to is a good way to get the story straight next time.  I intend to call out future dumbass reporters as they try to pass off their trash as fact.  I encourage other to also point them out by name and laugh in their face and publically ridicule them.  Modern journalists don't have editors any longer.  I am not precisely sure why that is.  But in the old days, a journalist was careful to get it right as their boss would have their ass if they made these kinds of mistakes. Today, journalists don't really care much at all about getting it right.  

There are not enough hours in the day to write to nearly all journalists about nearly all articles they write. There are better uses for my time. And if I were to pick my battles on journalistic stupidity this would not have been one of them.

[jonald_fyookball]

She looks like a genius next to that Newsweek lady who harassed Dorian.

[jc01480]

She looks like a genius next to that Newsweek lady who harassed Dorian.

Word to your mother!