|
Boxturret posted:bitcoin is an anagram for bcash is the coolest invention of nakamoto  THATS NOT WHAT ANAGRAM MEANS 
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 12:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:56 |
|
|
...! posted:
thanks for the grammar lesson, professor mcnerd
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 12:43
|
|
|
...! posted:thanks for the grammar lesson, professor mcnerd
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 12:44
|
|
|
quote:Instead of spending $1000 to buy a new iphone every year, I am asking my friends to buy 0.1 bitcoin instead, to save their future. (self.Bitcoin)
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 12:51
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:acronym, and that would spell bitcion checks out
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 13:10
|
|
|
:notacult:
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 13:19
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:acronym, and that would spell bitcion
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 13:35
|
|
|
Splicer posted:that's why it's an anagram. try to keep up. this guy gets it
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 14:36
|
|
|
bcash stands for "bcash is not cash"
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 14:47
|
|
|
Bcash Can Also Suck Hard.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 14:50
|
|
|
Splicer posted:that's why it's an anagram. try to keep up. 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 15:10
|
|
|
bcash what bitcan't
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 15:56
|
|
|
my friend just found out that the normally Windows-only consultant that their employer uses to janitor all of the computers in one of their offices has it written into his contract that he can use any and all client machines to mine bitcoin and he gets to keep it. Fortunately he knows absolutely nothing about Macs, so that isn't a problem with them.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
One can only hope one day one of those cryptomining programs switches over to crypto trojan and causes all his clients computers to get crypto extorted.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 17:04
|
|
|
check it out, "bitcoin" is actually a palindrome
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 17:42
|
|
|
Jimmy Carter posted:my friend just found out that the normally Windows-only consultant that their employer uses to janitor all of the computers in one of their offices has it written into his contract that he can use any and all client machines to mine bitcoin and he gets to keep it. who the gently caress lets someone put a clause like that in their contract? can't be a fellow cryptocultist because then they'd try doing this themselves. and i assume a sane person would just laugh at your face
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
Deep Dish Fuckfest posted:who the gently caress lets someone put a clause like that in their contract? can't be a fellow cryptocultist because then they'd try doing this themselves. and i assume a sane person would just laugh at your face Nobody reads contracts.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
gschmidl posted:Nobody reads contracts. any deal bigger than about 10k in b2b enterprise sales land, that loving contract gets loving read employing a peep costs more than that always, so i don't know why peeps don't read contracts
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 18:55
|
|
|
bob dobbs is dead posted:any deal bigger than about 10k in b2b enterprise sales land, that loving contract gets loving read Counterpoint: bitcoin
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
why are you mad it says right here in the contract that while i have your car to fix it i can use it to haul manure
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
Hey, filthy nocoiners! I'm foolishly attempting to write a post answering bad excuses for why Proof of Work is good actually. What are some terrible excuses for Proof of Work you've heard? Preferably with a link to the excuse in question.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
the one that says that using all the energy is good because it necessitates the creation of clean free energy its quite old but ive seen variations of it recently, it seems quite popular
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
bob dobbs is dead posted:any deal bigger than about 10k in b2b enterprise sales land, that loving contract gets loving read i mean at my last company the lawyer we had on staff to read contracts was... kinda an idiot, and i would go through and read the contracts myself just for fun because i'm that kind of weirdo that reads ToS'es and often find insane bullshit in there he missed (like how one thing required us to use the "industry standard encryption" of [single] DES with "no greater than" a 56 bit key so it can be exported, presumably because this was written in 1980 and then never, ever updated)
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 19:54
|
|
|
Proof of Work is better than Proof of Stake because Proof of Stake shares abbreviation with Piece of poo poo, while Proof of Work shares abbreviation with Prisoner of War.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 19:54
|
|
|
shitcoin
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
Boxturret posted:the one that says that using all the energy is good because it necessitates the creation of clean free energy yeah, i think this is my favorite one and i see it all the time lately bitcoiners are helping the environment by creating tons of greenhouse gases because it forces the energy companies to figure out clean energy asap
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 20:17
|
|
|
not directly pow but i've seen the "if you're gonna count all the energy that mining wastes then all the bank branches, etc. offset that!" in the actual wild mind you the person that says that is immediately laughed out of the room but somehow a lot of idiots still make that claim
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 20:19
|
|
|
kw0134 posted:not directly pow but i've seen the "if you're gonna count all the energy that mining wastes then all the bank branches, etc. offset that!" in the actual wild wait like a real flesh and blood human used their mouth to say that argument to actual real people? 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 20:26
|
|
|
yes, and the moment he opened his mouth he knew he was in loving trouble evangelical bitcoiners are really stupid it seems who knew
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
kw0134 posted:not directly pow but i've seen the "if you're gonna count all the energy that mining wastes then all the bank branches, etc. offset that!" in the actual wild if you're interacting with people like that you might want to just like, print out a copy of a few large banks' ecological impact reports that actually show how much energy they use because I get the feeling that if a bitcoiner actually saw that that was a real piece of information that exists and not just an imaginary unquantifiable number like they think it is it would make their head explode
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 20:37
|
|
|
kw0134 posted:bitcoiners are really stupid it seems who knew
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
ate all the Oreos posted:if you're interacting with people like that you might want to just like, print out a copy of a few large banks' ecological impact reports that actually show how much energy they use because I get the feeling that if a bitcoiner actually saw that that was a real piece of information that exists and not just an imaginary unquantifiable number like they think it is it would make their head explode ah, but if you print out reports you're using paper which is bad for the environment and therefore you are now the bad guy! the tables have turned motherfucker!
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
just posted the proper version of my question to /r/buttcoin: I'm 2000 words into a blog post on excuses for why the self-evidently terrible process of Proof-of-Work is stupid, and I'm after butters' excuses for why it's good actually. The hard part is that I really need ones that are from noteworthy butters - random bozos talking rubbish are too easily deniable. So far I have: * security of the chain. (Could use Antonopoulos, he's a bit glib though.) This ignores the security of everything around the chain, which is of course what hackers and crooks have had startling success attacking, because nobody attacks a system at its most secure point. * decentralisation, which failed by early 2014. When pushed, they retreat to some element of decentralisation as the justification, e.g. miners can't issue money willy-nilly like those central banks totally do. (Again, I need a noteworthy arguer.) * Nick Szabo, in "Money, blockchains, and social scalability": Spending all that electricity on Bitcoin is like spending computing power on nice user interfaces - Bitcoin allows global social coordination like nothing before it! You might think that the Internet is what allows that. Szabo concedes this, then outlines how money would have to work on the Internet to be any good and, coincidentally, what he describes closely matches Bitcoin! Thus, Bitcoin justifies the energy spent on Bitcoin. * Saifedean Ammous says we need PoW to make Bitcoin hard money in an Austrian jargon sense, which is intrinsically good and you must be some sort of Keynesian pervert if you disagree. And it's not a "waste" because people were willing to spend the money. * Andreas Antonopoulous ignored PoW in The Internet of Money, but by Volume 2 he couldn't ignore it, and gives it a chapter: Bitcoin is not merely tamper-evident but tamper-proof. Therefore it is a perfect unalterable historical record, and giving us this is why PoW is good. He ignores that the thing it's a perfect record of is SatoshiDice spam and prosecution futures, because blockchains don't scale to actually useful information. * "But what about the entire financial system and everyone in it?" I did some really quick and casual numbers on this and worked out that at the present cost per transaction, Bitcoin would have to use something like 40% of all energy (not just electricity) to equal the financial system's transaction rate. * I've got a pile of crappy cites on the argument that using all the energy is good because it necessitates the creation of clean energy, and so advances research into clean energy. Bitcoiners keep raising this one to me and showing they're bad at standards of evidence - the most solid I have so far is Ari Paul saying he knows someone who bought a pile of solar panels to fuel a mining operation. * I've seen nothing addressing the problem that PoW is motivated to be anti-efficient - to use more electricity for the same transaction rate - whereas everything that butters compare it to, is motivated to keep its electricity costs as low as possible. Has anyone seen butters mention this? There must be others. What stupid arguments have particularly impressed you? >Food 200 Acres remaining arable land Data 100 zettabytes public ledger Breathable Air 100 km^3 Dyson Sphere Cryptomining 380 yottawatts Laborers 2 million someone who is good at the economy please help me budget this. my planet is dying — comedyblissoption
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 21:03
|
|
|
ate all the Oreos posted:if you're interacting with people like that you might want to just like, print out a copy of a few large banks' ecological impact reports that actually show how much energy they use because I get the feeling that if a bitcoiner actually saw that that was a real piece of information that exists and not just an imaginary unquantifiable number like they think it is it would make their head explode
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
divabot posted:>Food 200 Acres remaining arable land
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
Boxturret posted:wait like a real flesh and blood human
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 22:15
|
|
|
Jimmy Carter posted:my friend just found out that the normally Windows-only consultant that their employer uses to janitor all of the computers in one of their offices has it written into his contract that he can use any and all client machines to mine bitcoin and he gets to keep it. who is stupider, the company that doesn't read contracts or the janitor who risks his livelihood for the penny shavings he's mining from office PC hardware? divabot posted:* I've seen nothing addressing the problem that PoW is motivated to be anti-efficient - to use more electricity for the same transaction rate - whereas everything that butters compare it to, is motivated to keep its electricity costs as low as possible. Has anyone seen butters mention this? if the goal is to educate and change minds then this is the point to hit hard. i've found that a ton of less-technical ppl assume, implicitly or explicitly, that bitcoin "is new and complicated" and therefore energy use will be reduced over time via better algorithms and moore's law, b/c that's how poo poo normally works with computers. you should definitely explicitly refute this. divabot posted:I did some really quick and casual numbers on this and worked out that at the present cost per transaction, Bitcoin would have to use something like 40% of all energy (not just electricity) to equal the financial system's transaction rate. on the flip side i would recommend against this problematic argument. the logic of this calculation only works under the incorrect assumption that bitcoin power use is correlated to processing of bitcoin transactions. as you know, bitcoin isn't scalable for completely separate reasons idk if this is within the scope of your planned post, but when pressed on the environmental impact, some blockchain true-believers admit that, sure, PoW is terrible, but that's ok b/c it will soon be replaced by PoS or some other vaporware solution.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 22:19
|
|
|
I don't have examples of pro-PoW arguments, but I do think emphasizing the forking issue would also help- it's relatively straightforward.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 22:26
|
|
|
bitcoin uses 7.7 gw per year the internet uses 8 lol
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 23:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:56 |
|
|
a small price to pay for the huge economic benefits worldwide such as paying off ransomware and
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 23:03
|
|
