|
Ham Sandwiches posted:No I didn't consent to any stupid poo poo, get hosed THE PACT IS SEALED
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 18:08 |
|
|
Computer Serf posted:Funny too how production costs were so minimal at the start of the project, like you could run grandmas e-machine to mint thousands of coins and now you have to run some hal-9000 ASIC in a mining pool to get a few satoshis tossed your way.   the fundamentals
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:No I didn't consent to any stupid poo poo, get hosed You con, you fraud! How very dare you! No wonder you couldn't make your way in the Bitcoin community where gentlemen never go back on their word.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Computer Serf posted:
Ah the old internet pogs prank. You've forgotten the part where there is no pog number 15, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Chitin posted:THE PACT IS SEALED
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
 the number.....the good number
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Djeser posted:
Nice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
Hello I'd like to pitch my new crypto currency startup, sexcoin. The coins are currently not able to be exchanged for sex, but there are only 69 of them so buy now. The price per coin is "nice" repeated 3^^^^id# times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Djeser posted:
nice
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
I go to work and come home. At some point, I go to change my name to something stupid that starts with a B, but my incessant searches about the new Blade Runner movie change the name I've typed in to what I currently have with auto-fill. I do not notice until the name change is made, and it is too late to change it without paying 8 more dollars, and so it will stay in perpetuity as that. I navigate to GBS, and see that there are 150 new posts in the Bitcoin thread. Hammy-Wammy has returned. I enter, dick in hand, wide eyes settled on the computer, breathing with anticipation, licking my lips profusely, prepared to jerk another effort post onto this thread's face. Alas, it is not to be. I sit and languish, ignored and forgotten. Anyway, as for the whole 'getting money' thing, getting money doesn't make it not a scam, and just because you don't believe yourself to be scamming someone else doesn't mean it isn't. You're getting money offa stupid people who probably aren't aware that what they're buying is utterly worthless due to a lack of financial acumen, which, to me, is horrible. See my aforementioned effortpost bridge thing; someone has to buy the Bitcoins from you, and this is basically just stealing their money. At some point, people realize Bitcoins don't do anything on an inherent level and aren't backed by anything, at which point things will collapse, and I'd feel legitimately remorseful if people lost money and died over that and I'd made money off of it. If you don't/wouldn't, there are better ways to make money with a lack of empathy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
Hey you're just in time Reply to David's Effortpost Here's what I see are the core points, then I'll try to go into the details: 1. David feels that Bitcoin is simultaneously used for illegal transactions and that it is unsuitable as a means of performing those illegal transactions 2. David feels that I spent too much time getting hung up on Gambling, and then defines Gambling, so we can discuss it 3. David claims that Bitcoin is not really new, it's just an unregulated security. 4. David claims that Bitcoin is not backed by any nation states which means people can't have confidence in it. 5. David brings up the limitation on Transactions, both transaction time and transaction volume 6. David claims that Bitcoin can be hijacked by various means, articulates a 51% attack 7. David claims that any nation state could hijack Bitcoin, if they really wanted to / anybody can start printing bitcoin 8. David claims that I take offense to people calling bitcoin a scam I'm going to try to respond to each point 1. There's a lot of sleight of hand associating cryptocoins with illegal transactions. Maybe we can try to just address the use cases instead of looking at it from the old perspective. With any speculative means of exchange, I think there's a sort of self selecting group that will explore its uses. That includes people that are breaking the law, because they have some very direct incentives to try this new currency right away. Visa in particular blocks lots of transactions that people might otherwise engage in. You want to bet on Fantasy Football? Can't use your credit card. Want to play Poker online? Can't use your credit card. You want to ransom some people's PCs? Can't accept credit cards. You want to buy generic pharmaceuticals from India? Don't put that on your discover. Let's just set aside the legality aspect for a moment and say that these people have compelling reasons that encourage them to try the new currency. Well, unlike Gold (or beanie babies or tulips) you can send Cryptocoins electronically. So what that means is that *coins can be your Visa for transactions that Visa doesn't allow. The ledger is public but piercing it is not trivial. It seems odd to have to make these arguments - hackers have been using *coins for ransoming PCs for a long time, and only recently has that become an issue with them having to watch how they withdraw the money. Just like with other forms people will come up with money mules that take 40-60% of the profits in exchange for laundering the money - that's how tax fraud and other forms of fraud work right now. There are even third parties that will set up your mule networks for you or have people launder it. So will ledger visibility stop cryptocoins being used for things that Visa doesn't want you to buy? I don't see it. I fundamentally think that people will find *coins useful for transactions that their country doesn't like but other countries may be ok with, which is already a niche in and of itself. For the subset of transactions that will fly below police / government radar, having a few coins in a wallet really lets you do them much more easily than if you don't have them. I'm saying that a portion of Coin usage will be people doing transactions that would be otherwise tricky, and the ledger doesn't magically stop that. 2. Gambling was a term introduced to define "investments that are grounded in fundamentals" vs "investments that are a guaranteed loss over time." I would imagine the connotation was clear when the term was chosen. I disagree with calling cryptocoins gambling because it's inaccurate. People know what Gambling is, that's why you used that word - it's playing a game of chance and losing money because you don't understand that's going to happen / choose to do so. 3. I disagree with the statement that Bitcoin is not a new thing. This statement is false. It's a cryptocurrency, which is fundamentally new compared to any existing security. It's a different, novel, digital good that exists in finite supply and has some programmatic rules about how to create. It is new. Bitcoin the actual coin (not all cryptocoins in general) has a finite limit, which is very different than other currency, and it's something that you seemed to gloss over in your post by saying anyone can mine them and flood the market. Cryptocoins are new, and the fact that you can have more and more of them that work in different ways is a bonus - Ethereum is fundamentally different than Bitcoin which is an asset for cryptocurrencies in general. 4. In terms of backing of nation states, I'm simply presenting that cryptocoins are different because they are not tied to any particular nation state. You acknowledge that but look at the negatives while ignoring the positives, which I don't find very useful. Along with those negatives come positives. The problem is that Zimbabwe Dollars can be printed by Zimbabwe, and Bitcoins cannot be printed by the republic of Bitcoin. It does seem that you are missing that point. Nation State currencies are different than bitcoin. They belong to the nation states that issue them. This can be a a mixed bag, as the nation state can choose to print more or choose to affect the currency through interest rates. This cannot happen with cryptocoins. They're fundamentally different. 5. My take is that the difficulty of Bitcoin dealing with scaling transactions is vastly overblown. People latch on to the current issues and present them as intractable, while refusing the idea that solutions are on the horizon. The various parties are trying to deal with the scaling from addressing the Bitcoin limitations to having alternate coins that get used for transactions requiring fast response times. It seems pretty likely that this problem will be relegated into the "who cares" pile like all the other ones. I can't say that for sure, but I sure don't see scaling / technical limitations as being the nail in cryptocoins coffin! 6. The 51% attack has been mentioned at length, the thing is that you can use it to undermine Bitcoins, but if cryptocoins are fundamentally useful and it was just some limitation of Bitcoin that ends up imploding that currency, I really don't see why people can't just switch to using some other form like Ethereum or whatever. Like, look at it this way: Let's go through the scenario that this is going to be a show stopper and bitcoins will literally implode and stop trading because of it. At that point in time, either people come to the conclusion that cryptocoins are fundamentally useful but technically flawed, or they are functionally useless and technically flawed. If they are functionally useless I think they will walk away entirely. If they are just technically flawed, I don't see why people wouldn't try again. And that's assuming the total collapse of Bitcoin entirely, which I find unlikely. To me that still doesn't seem like the end of cryptocurrencies in general. 7. I don't get the claims about nation states being able to hijack bitcoin, maybe it's related to the idea that they can do a 51% attack and mine more coins. I get the sense that you really picture the scenario vividly and I find it completely implausible. If you're referring specifically to Bitcoin rather than cryptocurrencies in general, those have a finite number and there's a scaling difficulty that increases as the amount of load comes in. Many people that don't mind coins profitably might decide to start mining to raise the overall amount of hash power and weaken any such attack. I don't buy the idea that it would be trivial for a nation state to destroy cryptocoins, it seems utterly unsubstantiated. Like, please articulate an exact scenario if you want me to engage further on the point, it simply seems like wild speculation. 8. I do not take offense to the idea that Bitcoins are a scam, I disagree with the statement because I feel it is simplistic and wrong. Thank you for carefully explaining to me how in a scam the con artist makes money off of something that doesn't exist. This is very similar to the casino analogy - it's very easy to make money gambling, just be the casino! In both cases it seems to miss the point that, investing in tulips because other people believe them to be valuable is probably not a good idea and it's a historical lesson to be learned. Buying beanie babies is great while people love beanie babies! Not so great when that's over. So what I disagree with is that presenting Bitcoins / cryptocoins as yet another entry in a long list of well worn scams is simply untrue. Bridge scams, confidence scams, "people think its worth something" scams are long and storied. Cryptocurrencies, a non nation state specific way that you can buy goods and services not tied to any one nation state and capped in supply and using a decentralized system - is fundamentally different. Applying those same tired labels inhibits discourse, just like calling it Gambling did. I think cryptocurrencies should be evaluated on their merits and dealt with according to each person's appetite for risk, rather than using simplistic labels that are clearly inapplicable. Ham Sandwiches fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
this idiot thinks something being gambling means it's a guaranteed loss apparently, literally nothing in a casino is actually gambling
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
1. bitcoins does not exist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Im taking some computer courses and learning bit coin becaus im thinkig Im exactly the kind of dumb rear end who would strike it big (mucho moolah) turning my greeeenbacks & pennies into a Rare Number
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
it is also trivial to print more bitcoins. you just alter the protocol via hard fork, and volia you have removed the limitation on issuing new bitcoins. bitcoiners generally ignore that they've just shifted the points of trust from people you can control to random idiots
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
How does the bit coin AI prevent against the copying and pasting of bit coins? Is 'no copying + pasting bit coins' just a rule in the digital market place?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Hey you're just in time 1. The reason is that the police literally just do not care about Bitcoin. It is such a small, meaningless portion of illegal activities that police literally cannot be bothered to look at it for more than a few seconds and prosecute these things unless something ridiculous happens with it. Here's the issue with this: To continue being good for this, it can never have a use outside of it. If you are able to pay for everything in Bitcoin or it even becomes somewhat relevant, the massive eye of federal police investigations will settle down upon Bitcoin, rip open how to track everything to do with it in a few minutes(Bitcoin was coded by a single man who enjoys model trains. It cannot hold up against the United States government trying to do literally whatever it wants to it on a technical level.)and then it becomes pointless for that. 2. You ignored the vast majority of that point relative to the conditions of loss mitigation ability and regulatory commissions which oversee securities and ensure fraud is difficult. 3. The Tesla is, as a product, new. It did not, however, invent the car; saying that cryptocurrencies are new does not make the fact that Bitcoin acts in every way as an unregulated security untrue any more than saying that Tesla being new makes it not a car. Just because it has that weird robo-dick to fuel it up doesn't mean that it doesn't still go vroom. 4. I do not acknowledge any positives because there are no positives to it. You missed the point; the reason Zimbabwe dollars are worthless is lack of faith in the stability of that government. Bitcoin lacks any government to be stable. This is fundamentally a bad thing, because obviously it is; what are you buying, in Bitcoin? What worth are you getting? 5. "The" nail. It is not "the" nail, but is most certainly a nail in the coffin of this stillborn loving idiot child, and the fact that your response to this technical limitation that makes the adoption of Bitcoin as an actual every day currency is that "Someone at some point will fix it probably" explains pretty much everything that needs to be explained about Bitcoin in general. 6. "If Bitcoin were to be undermined and collapse, this would be good for Bitcoin" 7. Okay, okay, I'll actually explain 6. The main issue with Bitcoin in that regard and on that level is not that a 51% attack would completely destroy any ability to use Bitcoin forever, it's that it would spook people. In a market which is entirely inflated because of confidence in a product which does not actually exist. Do you understand where I'm going with this? A 51% attack is a technical issue that leads into a psychological issue. If people see the damage that could be done with it, they will divest their funds, and this will destroy Bitcoin. Actual 7. You need to read more closely. The reason that any nation state could hijack Bitcoin is because of scaling difficulties, not a 51% attack. Currently, the vast majority of the hash power is held by a couple dudes in China. However, if the government so chose, it could very easily set up a buncha Bitcoin mining farms and very easily mine every loving Bitcoin; difficulty increases would mean that these nationally subsidized butt farms would become the new producer of the butts, as it would be impossible for even those Chinese farms to compete. You would be, as an individual, getting into an arms race with the US Government over wasteful spending. You cannot win, in this scenario. I don't understand if this is just coming from a lack of technical knowledge on Bitcoin or what, honestly. 8. No they aren't. Explain how they are. In the end, a market cap is not a meaningful thing that proves this is not a confidence scam, it's an indicator of a confidence scam; "Well, another guy says he wants the bridge but hasta come back later today, so you really should try to buy now..." All of your points seem to boil down to your insistence that Bitcoins are arbitrarily special and magical, in some way. They are not. Please explain to me and everyone else what exactly makes Bitcoins special, and why anyone ever would use them over literally any other option. What is so special about cryptocurrencies? The market cap is an artificial and utterly arbitrary thing. Not being tied to a nation state is also relatively arbitrary, because, again, any nation state could just loving take it if it felt like it. It seems like discourse with you on this subject involves the tacit acceptance that Bitcoin is somehow special, and I refuse to acknowledge that, because it isn't. It's poorly coded, does nothing particularly well, and has several pitfalls that make it awful for all of its touted use cases. It currently only has any use because its trade volume is so low that the Federal Government just refuses to look into it much. e: 30 minutes, Bruno, stop 'da clock
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:How does the bit coin AI prevent against the copying and pasting of bit coins? Is 'no copying + pasting bit coins' just a rule in the digital market place? bitcoins don't actually exist so you can't copy and paste them there is no such thing as an actual bitcoin you might think im joking but im not
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
oh i missed it but that idiot also doesn't get that the 51% attack being viable is not a bug of bitcoin its a feature that can't be patched out. the fundamental assumption of a proof of work system is that 51% of the miners are honest. you can't get around it without centralizing, it's not a quirk of the algorithms or anything. it's fundamental to the whole stupid idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:So what I disagree with is that presenting Bitcoins / cryptocoins as yet another entry in a long list of well worn scams is simply untrue. Bridge scams, confidence scams, "people think its worth something" scams are long and storied. Cryptocurrencies, a non nation state specific way that you can buy goods and services not tied to any one nation state and capped in supply and using a decentralized system - is fundamentally different. Applying those same tired labels inhibits discourse, just like calling it Gambling did. I think cryptocurrencies should be evaluated on their merits and dealt with according to each person's appetite for risk, rather than using simplistic labels that are clearly inapplicable. Okay, you know, I have to agree with you on that one after reading your post carefully. I am not afraid to admit I'm wrong when I'm wrong, and I hope everyone can do that. I would also like to apologise if I cam off mean when replying, I can see now that you know your stuff, and when you say that Bitcoin is not 'another entry in a long list of well worn scams', you can't be more right. It's a brand new type of scam. A scam on your computer. Scam 2.0.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:Okay, you know, I have to agree with you on that one after reading your post carefully. I am not afraid to admit I'm wrong when I'm wrong, and I hope everyone can do that. I would also like to apologise if I cam off mean when replying, I can see now that you know your stuff, and when you say that Bitcoin is not 'another entry in a long list of well worn scams', you can't be more right. It's a brand new type of scam. A scam on your computer. Scam 2.0. pala no
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:bitcoins don't actually exist so you can't copy and paste them  Oh ? So I guess this is just some kind of 'fake' image?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:
regrettably yes that is a counterfeit bits coin 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:this idiot thinks something being gambling means it's a guaranteed loss
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
Blade Runner posted:pala no Oh poo poo, I've checked the wiki, and the original Scam 2.0 is some internet forum where people pay ten US dollars just to register. The price of accountcoins is very stable, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Blade Runner posted:Please explain to me and everyone else what exactly makes Bitcoins special, and why anyone ever would use them over literally any other option. What is so special about cryptocurrencies? The market cap is an artificial and utterly arbitrary thing. Not being tied to a nation state is also relatively arbitrary, because, again, any nation state could just loving take it if it felt like it. It seems like discourse with you on this subject involves the tacit acceptance that Bitcoin is somehow special, and I refuse to acknowledge that, because it isn't. It's poorly coded, does nothing particularly well, and has several pitfalls that make it awful for all of its touted use cases. It currently only has any use because its trade volume is so low that the Federal Government just refuses to look into it much. He explains this in his very first point. You can quickly buy drugs and child pornography for personal use with bitcoins, and not be too afraid to get arrested. Maybe learn to read, lol.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
you wouldnt download a drugs 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
i spent 20 orbs on pulling for bit coins, and i got a 5* coin but its IVs are junk should i keep it
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:Oh poo poo, I've checked the wiki, and the original Scam 2.0 is some internet forum where people pay ten US dollars just to register. The price of accountcoins is very stable, though. lol nobody would be that dumb
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
Blade Runner posted:1. The reason is that the police literally just do not care about Bitcoin. It is such a small, meaningless portion of illegal activities that police literally cannot be bothered to look at it for more than a few seconds and prosecute these things unless something ridiculous happens with it. Here's the issue with this: To continue being good for this, it can never have a use outside of it. If you are able to pay for everything in Bitcoin or it even becomes somewhat relevant, the massive eye of federal police investigations will settle down upon Bitcoin, rip open how to track everything to do with it in a few minutes(Bitcoin was coded by a single man who enjoys model trains. It cannot hold up against the United States government trying to do literally whatever it wants to it on a technical level.)and then it becomes pointless for that. 1. The scenario being presented goes through some effort to pretend that yes, while it's great for all these illegal uses now, it won't be at some magical point in the future because "police" and completely sidesteps the money mule aspects that I brought up. Right now you can commit payroll fraud by sending bogus wire transfers of a few thousand dollars to mules, who forward about half of the money on, and will take the hit if they get caught. Like, right now you can use legitimate banks and legitimate wire transfers to conduct illegal activity, as long as you pay a high enough cut. Does the scenario that says "Right now everyone uses money and the IRS and banks watch wire transfers like a hawk, so clearly people can't use them for illegal activity" - that's false because it's happening all around us right now. So how does this scenario make sense when applied to something even more elusive, like cryptocurrencies? 2. What do you want me to address about it? 3. Are we doing semantics stuff? Why are car analogies being brought in? Ok i'll try to work with it. The Tesla is a new vehicle if you're going to get into electric vs ICE. It was the first major electric car, so if you define 'new' as fundamentally new form of transport then no it's not, if you define new as a fundamentally new form of powering that transport, then yes it's the first viable implementation. I don't understand the point you're making as it compares to cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrencies, a decentralized system of currency not owned by any nation state and mined with computers is new, while the concept of "a medium of exchange" is not. I'm focusing on the advantages that this particular form of currency has in doing transactions and why people would find it useful, kinda like saying "you can charge a Tesla from other sources if gasoline becomes uavailable." 4. Well the existing currencies are all "I put my faith in this particular nation state, not to run the presses, not to screw around with interest rates, not to change direction in a way that is harmful for me as a currency holder." When picking up cryptocurrencies, that's precisely the point. The republic of bitcoin can't go rogue and start buying nuclear weapons and sign a terrible IMF deal, but that's absolutely a risk with nation state currencies. Does that make cryptocoins superior on their own? No but it sure makes them an alternative, which means that they can be useful. 5. To me the flipside is to say "Well there's been roughly 6 years of doomsaying and every single prediction has not really impacted the amount of money in Bitcoin or the valuation of the coin" so I don't really know how we progress on this point. You strongly feel that the predictions of doom will come to pass. I feel that in the future, the current trend will hold and that a solution will present - technical, political, or procedural, that keeps cryptocurrencies viable. Is there a lot of room left other than to disagree here? Time will prove one of the positions right. 6. That seems like a pretty lovely way to interpret that. I kinda went pretty far into good faith territory and explored the scenario where Bitcoin collapses, and explained that people may not swear off cryptocurrencies entirely even if such a catastrophic event were to pass. But it was important to score points rather than try to accept the discussion in good faith. Spook people? You mean like the endless doomsaying is meant to do? People work very very hard to spook people about cryptocurrencies right now. You've spent many hours of your life doing just that. Is this being presented as something that will magically happen if cryptocurrencies, the speculative thing wall street and journalists and everyone in the know has been calling an outright scam / fraud the whole time? And then all the Joe Sixpacks that bought into Coinbase with their savings accounts (having made no money in the process) will be spooked and never return. I don't see it, not even a little. 7. I don't see China doing anything more to undermine coins than they already are. Japan seems ok with allowing them and seeing how things shake out, and Russia is making statements that are positive. If you have some specific nation state in mind starting a specific attack at some point in time, maybe you can articulate it, because I don't know how to respond to vague hypotheticals. Walk me through the scenario in detail and I'll try to respond in detail. 8. Well let's try to address the difference. In a confidence scam you have the Scammer, and the Victim. The scammer is the person personally enriching themself from misleading the victim. So in the bridge example that guy is getting $5 for convincing me he can sell the bridge. And in the Madoff example Madoff got to live a nice life because people thought they were buying stocks through him. Bitcoin does not have a mr Bitcoin that gets any money if you buy in. People try to do this indirectly by implying that anyone who is not against bitcoins is trying to get other people to buy bitcoins and thus raise their valuation. So a sort of implicit scam, like tulips. Except even in that case, you can point to the tulip growers that benefited and the cultural aspects of flowers that involved people. Bitcoin is a third party, decentralized cryptocurrency that is not tied to any particular nation state. Nobody benefits from you mining bitcoins, and no you can't retroactively say "THE EXISTING HOLDERS" lol. It can't be that you simultaneously list all the ways that it is different (you take the perspective of vulnerability - no central bank, no insurance, no people that inherently buy into it) while saying it's not different. There is no nation state currency that is vulnerable to a 51% attack or has scaling issues. So then, if Bitcoin has these concerns it is different - you are simply fixating on the negatives. And for those negatives also has some advantages that you seem to be entirely dismissing. Ham Sandwiches fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Oct 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
curious what is the positive angle on scaling issues
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
only six transactions per second, which is good because it reminds us to value patience
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:So a sort of implicit scam, like tulips. Except even in that case, you can point to the tulip growers that benefited and the cultural aspects of flowers that involved people. So tulips were a better scam than bitcoins? Aren't new exciting things supposed to be better? To this day the greatest contribution to art and culture related to crypto is this image  And it's not even about Bitcons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
blockchain requires 20 GB to store it which is good because it instills a godly work ethic in our hard drives
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
Djeser posted:curious what is the positive angle on scaling issues That it's something different from existing currencies with pros and cons that you should consider whether that makes it useful to you. That's it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:That it's something different from existing currencies with pros and cons that you should consider whether that makes it useful to you. That's it. but you said Ham Sandwiches posted:And every one of those negatives also has some advantages that you seem to be entirely dismissing. so do all the negatives have advantage,s or do they not?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Djeser posted:but you said You're right that comes off inconsistent! I'll rephrase and sorry I expressed that poorly: quote:There is no nation state currency that is vulnerable to a 51% attack or has scaling issues. So then, if Bitcoin has these concerns it is different - you are simply fixating on the negatives. And for those negatives it also has some advantages that you seem to be entirely dismissing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
What specifically are the advantages of such limited transactions?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:most scammers also get unhappy at thoughts expressed coherently and articulately and only want to discuss things with people who won't point out why they're wrong still pretty sure ham sandwiches is a serial victim, who's been burnt repeatedly on bitcoins, and it's all OUR FAULT for not believing HARD ENOUGH. and it's still clear that I have made more money from bitcoins than HS Ham Sandwiches posted:No I didn't consent to any stupid poo poo, get hosed every post you make is your gold fringed consent. also, i've made more money from cryptocurrencies than you. Blade Runner posted:The main issue with Bitcoin in that regard and on that level is not that a 51% attack would completely destroy any ability to use Bitcoin forever, it's that it would spook people. In a market which is entirely inflated because of confidence in a product which does not actually exist. Do you understand where I'm going with this? A 51% attack is a technical issue that leads into a psychological issue. If people see the damage that could be done with it, they will divest their funds, and this will destroy Bitcoin. actually, i think you're incorrect there: at this stage they don't even care about the massive and blatant centralisation of mining, as long as the number might go up. also, i've made more money from crypto pog coin bits than Ham Sandwiches.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 18:08 |
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:1. The scenario being presented goes through some effort to pretend that yes, while it's great for all these illegal uses now, it won't be at some magical point in the future because "police" and completely sidesteps the money mule aspects that I brought up. Right now you can commit payroll fraud by sending bogus wire transfers of a few thousand dollars to mules, who forward about half of the money on, and will take the hit if they get caught. Like, right now you can use legitimate banks and legitimate wire transfers to conduct illegal activity, as long as you pay a high enough cut. Does the scenario that says "Right now everyone uses money and the IRS and banks watch wire transfers like a hawk, so clearly people can't use them for illegal activity" - that's false because it's happening all around us right now. So how does this scenario make sense when applied to something even more elusive, like cryptocurrencies? 1. Sure, but the only reason Bitcoin can currently easily do that is because of lack of oversight. That's why the use case of criminal activity is just not a good one; if it gets any attention, it's pretty much gonna end up being as difficult as using banks to get things out of it. Or, alternatively, the government will just say it can no longer be used. If you want what specific agencies would be stenciled on the backs of the guys kicking in your door, I mean, I donno. 2. Any of them, really. It was a basic rundown of why there's a fundamental difference between gambling and investing. Loss mitigation, regulation, etc.; 3. Because you're insisting that it is new and better, when it is really neither. The comparison comes in as a semantics thing only because you insist that Bitcoin is different from unregulated securities despite being unregulated securities with some fancier paint on it to distract people from that. There isn't much that's all that special about how it actually works. 4. Cryptocoins are not an alternative because there is no possible way to have trust in them. The REPUBLIC OF BITCOIN may not be able to buy a bunch of nukes, but Exchanges can get loving robbed to poo poo and all the owners of those can do is shrug. If the nation state that you are in ceases to work, you have much bigger issues than your loving Bitcoins, because you probably cannot use them for much. Buy some cans of beans, if you're going to go that route. 5. That's not a good thing, and if you sincerely believe that this valuation on something that is inherently worthless can continue forever, I have no idea what to tell you beyond that you should take an economics course. It's not doomsaying, it's just blunt economics. The valuation of the coin is nonsense. I've explained why to you several times, with the main issue being difficulties in extracting large amounts of coins from the marketplace in USD along with inflations from false "USD" amounts on Exchanges which cannot be withdrawn from, and you've mostly just dodged past that. 6. I'm acting entirely in good faith in the sense that I honestly believe what I'm saying. The "Good for Bitcoin" quote was a joke. The rest of it was 100% my beliefs, tempered with academic knowledge(I read a book once, furthermore)alongside work experience. There are a lot of hangers-on who refuse to acknowledge that Bitcoin is an immensely volatile thing that's pretty much a scam, primarily shoving their points forward with the sunk cost fallacy. Bitcoin prices crash all the loving time, it's ridiculously volatile and its price is based on pretty much nothing because no real world market forces can effect it, as it has no product. 7. You've ignored the point entirely. Please stop doing that. The whole point is that it is nation free only by choice of those nations. There is nothing that inherently stops a nation from just loving taking over Bitcoin entirely on a whim. Calling it a nation free currency under those circumstances is silly. 8. You literally just cut off the second portion of that point, which is how it applies to Bitcoin; it doesn't matter if you know you're a scammer or not, you're still scamming people. Bitcoin does not and never can have any value. It has made nothing and represents nothing. The total pool of USD in circulation in Bitcoin is only what those who have put money into Bitcoin have put into it. This fundamentally differs from stocks because companies have other ways to make money. If you put money into a company which then starts making dildos, then sells those dildos for a profit, then your stocks are more valuable because more money has been brought into the system of that company by sales, so the company can pay increased dividends or has more assets to sell off in the event of closure. In Bitcoin, the only money that can ever exist in it is money that has been put into it. There is no "Mr. Bitcoin", but the confidence scam is something run by all of its users on one another; you cannot make money off of Bitcoin without that money having come from someone else that you have sold Bitcoin to. This is the fundamental problem. If you make a dollar from Bitcoin, someone else in the world must have one less dollar. If you make a dollar off a stock in Microsoft because they sold a certain amount of products and their stock has increased, then people have gained an item or service from them for their money. Bitcoin does not deal in products or investments, it does not make anything, it purely and only deals with taking money from one person and shoving it into another person's pocket. This is why it is a scam/scheme/whatever. When the valuation is based on nothing and there is nothing of worth being produced, numbers go up in a vacuum, but because it is a sealed off system of currency, it's just you throwing money into a pot with other people and hoping you take all the money out of the pot before everyone else does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 00:57
|
|