Bitcoin: no angel investors, only Faustian bargains

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > Bitcoin: no angel investors, only Faustian bargains

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

No, no, you don't understand, despite the fact the firm is not an accounting firm, has made no guarantees about anything it's saying about anything, and in fact is kind of eyeballing a napkin of unknown provenance that has written in lipstick "fundz r here" as its basis for its conclusions, and cannot in fact confirm that the company that hired it even legally exists, everything is on the up and up and you should totes put your life savings into tether.

# ¿ Jun 20, 2018 16:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 20, 2024 04:26

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

...! posted:

You're the worst at trolling. I can't believe people keep falling for it.

You've mined quotes from buttcoiners for years, you should know by now that this is what they truly believe. Satire is dead.

# ¿ Jun 20, 2018 21:32

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:

This is by far the most commonly accepted definition of value hth

utility and commodity are inputs, sometimes.

The proposition that value is what people pay for is homo economicus behavior, which assumes full information and clearly communicated positions between two rational parties. This doesn't work any more than claiming that a pension fund buying investment graded mortgage CDOs in 2007 made the underlying assets of ranch homes in Vegas with half-million dollar loans made to busboys any less risky because both parties agreed on the price for the derivative.

When one party is selling bullshit to another credulous party that has no chance of realizing its promises, that's not some sort of inevitable outcome of the economics, that's fraud.

# ¿ Jul 19, 2018 15:20

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

Nessus posted:

I realize it interferes with the misery porn, but wasn't the Australian coal plant everyone jacked and despair-cummed over actually just like edition #9 of some Z-grade local scam artist trying to run a hustle?

Like I thought the reason this all got rolling in China and other places was that there were transient local surpluses of electricity and/or deficits of bribes in the pockets of people who control the electricity supply, and that particular slack has been largely taken out of the power market.

Yes, electricity in China in a very few select places was in essence "free" insofar as you could bribe/promise development for a good deal. That ship has looooooooooooooooooooooong since sailed but it's still claimed that mining is all "renewable" because...reasons. In the event, electricity is still cheaper kWh for kWh all things considered in places like China because of silly things like "environmental protection" and "labor wages" and "transparent pricing" being somewhat flexible there.

The bottom line is that electricity doesn't come out of nowhere and if there exists demand (and bitcoin creates it, absolutely without doubt) then power generation will have to rise to accommodate it, unless utilities take a strong anti-cryptocurrency stance. It might happen in places where generation cannot be profitably ramped up, but otherwise if idiots want to take turns shoveling cash money into a furnace, I can imagine a situation where some old coal plant is fired up again.

# ¿ Sep 3, 2018 03:18

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

"Look your honor, it's an equity stake in a business that gives the purchaser rights to direct the enterprise, but it's not a security despite walking, talking, smelling, quacking, making GBS threads, and sold like one because of BLOCKCHAIN technology! If you don't get it you're just an old that's obsolete!"

"oh no how did he rule adversely who could have possibly foreseen that"

# ¿ Sep 12, 2018 00:37

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

they also promise to not totally scam you and run off with all the money but we don't laugh at that one

wait, we do

lol

# ¿ Sep 12, 2018 00:55

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

You know how banks don't trust each other and haven't had literal decades to build networks that can send billions of dollars between themselves with the stroke of a few keys, that's the niche that needs exploiting

# ¿ Sep 23, 2018 20:59

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

BTC is buttressed by faith and the conviction of ~~billions~~ ~~millions~~ a bunch of people!

and the tether money printer

# ¿ Sep 26, 2018 14:13

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

Ah yes, who knew that the population of degenerates who have historically smashed the "BETRAY" button in the prisoner's dilemma like they're playing an arcade game would in the end try clumsily to backstab each other and end up landing on their own knives.

Who could have known.

# ¿ Nov 16, 2018 14:15

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

remember that all you no-coiners are directly responsible for this price drop and you're ruining lives also please stop making fun of bitcoiner life choices but also remember that when hyperbitcoinization happens you'll be sorry YOU'LL ALL BE SORRY

# ¿ Nov 20, 2018 21:28

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

ocrumsprug posted:

There are rules and safeguards in place to stop the house from cheating you when you gamble.

The house actually cashes in your chips instead of disappearing while the roulette wheel is still spinning.

# ¿ Nov 25, 2018 15:22

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

To a large extent it doesn't matter whether the miners actually process transactions; bitcoin's "value" is as a speculative vehicle and that's possible even if they're all locked up in a wallet on an exchange. All this activity happens off-chain, and in a large sense the exchanges are all bucketshops because until they're removed from the exchange's wallet into a personal one it's merely a ledger entry on someone's (internal) database. The scenario that most people have settled on is a "price" for bitcoin that is a few million a piece, passed between five people who pretend that one day they'll be able to settle it for worthless fiat and their ex-wives will be sorry they left them!

# ¿ Nov 25, 2018 15:40

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

Warbadger posted:

If a small enough number of miners are left it opens it up to a 51% attack where someone just transfers every Bitcoin to himself and ends the cycle of stupidity.

The funny thing is at that point you'd simply splinter bitcoin into multiple competing chains...like there'd be bitcoin classic, bitcoin I win edition, bitcoin cash, bitcoin cash classic, etc.

Oh wait, that's already loving happened!

# ¿ Nov 25, 2018 15:46

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

Lambert posted:

The value in 51% attacks is in being able to scam exchanges/buyers. Just mine a chain in private with your superior hashing power, sell your coins, move them in your private chain so the transaction on the public chain is no longer valid, publicize your (longer) private chain to invalidate the public chain. It means any transaction is reversible, that's how one Bitcoin fork was used to scam exchanges.

I mean, all this is true, but we're talking "heat death of the universe" future here, where there's no theoretical value proposition in loving around with bitcoin to the point the miners have gone away and it exists only as a construct on a private ledger. I suppose that it'll likely scam itself into oblivion before it gets to that point, but bitcoin is doing a very, very, very good job at selecting for the absolute dumbest marks so who knows whether it ends in fire or in ice, but the zero-point for laugh production will remain constant.

# ¿ Nov 25, 2018 16:04

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

That's why they will have a little holding pen you sit in while the transaction processes, and it opens once it's cleared.

I'd have to dig it up but there are unironic posts about the future of commerce where every store will have little lounges while you wait for your bitcoin transactions to complete. People will actively transition to this because ??? and it'll be better because something something fiat end central banker slavery

# ¿ Nov 28, 2018 01:01

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

Remember transactions are processed when blocks are found and published around every 10 minutes, so the average makes it sound better than it actually is, because it's not a continuous 4-7 tx/second, it's ~4000 max theoretical transactions roughly every ten minutes after which nothing happens while a lot of purpose built hardware around the world wastes a ton of electricity doing simple math tricks. "I want to buy this!" you say in theoretical bitcoinland, "great! wait here because a block was just published so it'll be at least another 9 minutes before your purchase is confirmed," says the clerk and then you sit in down in despair because you're living in bitcoinland.

# ¿ Dec 1, 2018 14:45

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

Speleothing posted:

In a way. There's a 'set' number of transactions per block. And the time between blocks adjusts to be consistent as mining power fluctuates.

So, what you're describing is part of "frisbee on the roof". But even if mining power drastically increased, the transactions/second would only briefly change, and not by much.

The hashing rate is divorced entirely from the actual difficulty of recording the transactions; it's been estimated the real work of "address 12135valjer143 sent 1 butt to address 28435vwq5el2lol" could be carried out at the theoretical rate by a NES. It's essentially writing a text file, albeit in a cryptographically secure way, but it's nothing complicated here. The kicker of course is that there's basically a random number guess being carried out for the "right" to publish the next set of transactions. So let's try to buy something in bitcoinland. Instead of a central entity mediating transactions (boo! hiss!) all the stores in the land offload the work of doing point-of-sale checkout to a bunch of freelance cashiers. You mosey up to one, tell him that you need to pay Satoshi Foods this much. He nods, gathers up a bunch of other requests and gets into a race with other cashiers to figure out which number lets him write out the receipt so you can leave the store. The cashiers then hunker down and start furiously scribbling numbers on a scratch pad; you see piles of discarded paper towering above you. After roughly ten minutes of work, he shouts out "756,065,179!" Balloons rain down from the ceiling to commemorate the discovery of another receipt block and he is paid $51,000 for this. You get a slip of paper torn off a corner of his scratch pad and pushed out the door with the can of Soylent you purchased.

Difficulty would be telling the cashiers when the next time they want to process this transaction whether they need to find a nine digit number, or a six digit number or, if there are LOTS of cashiers, with fancy pens and large sheets of paper, twelve and fifteen digit numbers that need to be guessed. That's all the hashwork does. also something something something securing the blockchain something

# ¿ Dec 1, 2018 22:02

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

Fleetwood Crack posted:

"If we look close enough, we’ll observe that the CB is not lender of last resort but first instance debtor. The secret of its “liquidity” is borrowing. The risk is that socialist propaganda make believe to people that CB self borrowed bitcoin IOUs are as good as Bitcoin."

Can someone translate the above to English for me?

The central banker, even though it has the literal power to conjure money from air, is in fact a debtor (first instance debtor being a fancy term might mean the first entity to have the debt in a series of debtor/creditor relationships but this is likely gibberish). It is in fact borrowing money! From whom? gently caress YOU THAT'S SOCIALISM!

# ¿ Dec 4, 2018 14:10

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

Bitcoin not only is making literally every economics mistake since the recreation of a cash economy in Europe, but has inadvertently recreated the same solutions to those problems without any of the safeguards to monitor or police them, all the while insisting that this way is better on ideological grounds for not doing the things that real economies do.

There is no :ironicat:

big enough.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2019 23:40

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

Also these bets are highly leveraged; there's likely not a few hundred million real actual dollars backing these trades. But that means there's huge upside if the market moves the right way -- or a total loss of the staked funds conversely.

Almost surely everyone betting long got their positions liquidated, and depending on what their balance is in their brokerage account, wrecked entirely.

# ¿ May 17, 2019 18:20

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

I mean if we abolish nation states, and all of modern society breaks down because the fragility of civil society actually depends pretty strongly on the notion of the monopoly of legitimate force and the resultant anarchy, score-settling, famines, regression in technology because the failure of delicate interconnected systems like the power grid, internet, municipal water, telecommunications, transportation, etc., and billions die in the resultant burning of authority, well! You won't get a lot of carbon creation once humanity is reduced to tribes scrabbling life out of the ruins of civilization.

Take that you statist fudsters!

# ¿ Jun 25, 2019 04:38

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

Bitcoin has always been treated as a commodity/asset/pseudosecurity that triggers a capital gains/loss whenever you transact. So USD->BTC->LTC->DOGE->LTC->BTC->USD are all taxable at every single step because you're converting one asset to another at a definite value that tallies up, even if the only time you get real cash money that people use in actual commerce at the start and end of this fiasco. After all, forex traders in essence bet this way, going around the globe and trading USD for Yen then to pound sterling then euros then remnibi then back to USD.

The one extra twist is that bitcoin can be mined, which upon the award of the block is a taxable event in of itself for the value at that moment in time. The number of people who've probably paid this tax appropriately and in a timely manner is likely somewhere between zero and imaginary numbers.

# ¿ Jul 11, 2019 22:05

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

"You'll never find out who I dealt with! It's protected by 10242166 bits of encryption!"

"Fine, we're seizing all your assets and throwing you in jail for the duration."

"Okay, it's Bob down the street."

# ¿ Jul 13, 2019 22:51

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

There's the real centralization that occurs because mining is a winner-takes-all activity which encourage huge economies of scale. Mining stops being something that a bunch of people can do in their idle time and instead has become an industrial process that now concentrates the "useful" work of bitcoin into a handful of the largest pools that effectively have veto authority on anything that happens on the network and the protocol. Literally the idiot's understanding of how the Fed works is being realized with Bitcoin which is an irony that seems lost on all the various proponents thereof.

# ¿ Jul 17, 2019 01:07

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

I'm certain that calling it a crypto brought it more scrutiny than if it didn't. If Facebook created a money market fund from a basket of different currencies, said they'd smooth over currency risks, issued "shares" with par of $1, and duly registered it with the SEC and called it Zuckerbucks then there'd be a ton less regulator outrage. There'd be a lot less hype too, but that hype was in other pie-in-the-sky cryptocurrencies hoping that Zuckerberg was going to make buttcoins moon...somehow.

# ¿ Oct 28, 2019 13:27

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

In NY at least, it gets marked as "abandoned" then handed to the NYS Comptroller for safekeeping. If you can prove you are such a person, they even have a website where you can see if the state is holding your money!

# ¿ Jan 22, 2020 14:29

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

They don't really hide it, half the conversations in various crypto forums ends up being fanfic about being that new global elite while Beth from high school who turned him down for the prom is sucking him off for a few satoshis to feed herself.

The buttcoin experiment was originally a libertarian screed so the toxic selfishness bubbles out from the artificial turf of philanthropy like discount developers trying to build on a Superfund site.

# ¿ Jan 23, 2020 15:31

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

Rev. Dr. Moses P. Lester posted:

You make that sound pretty good actually, I might look into getting some cryptocurrencies now

If you need wank material there's a lot out there that doesn't immediately put you on watch lists

Fried Watermelon posted:

that's a lot of debt

ghostty here to drop meaningless charts into the thread like he's making any statement besides he's a moron

# ¿ Jan 23, 2020 17:14

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

Number go up is the main and only take away.

# ¿ Jan 27, 2020 15:28

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

dhrusis posted:

The legal services industry, as an example, over the next 10 years will likely experience some significant change as code based smart contracts continue to evolve.. law services like real estate transactions, title related insurance, and large value transfers will increasingly be performed in code faster and cheaper. We will likely see more physical world assets become tokenized and moved about with less friction. Services that currently cost thousands of dollars can be done quickly and cheaply with verifiable integrity. Dunno about yall but from where I'm from this stuff is worth money.

There are a LOT of things blockchains can't or shouldn't do... but there are some things that they can do and will eventually do really well.. Its okay if you don't want to trust them yet, but the tech undoubtedly has potential.

Blockchain is a very large and slow database. The use case for blockchain is to create a currency to solve the Byzantine General problem where you live in a society that doesn't trust each other and will likely die of arsenic poisoning from their Soylent meals because government regulation is also bad. The blockchain bubble has already burst; we'll see if any of the "blockchain" uses make it out of the clueless ad copy stage into something resembling the original idea, and not just a proprietary database with BLOCKCHAIN stenciled on the top (which almost was what it was in every mention outside of cryptocurrency use.)

# ¿ Jan 30, 2020 14:23

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

dhrusis posted:

I agree, BITCOIN is a large and slow database, but blockchains don't have to be slow, to my understanding that's a function of the blockchain trilemma: Scalability vs. Cost vs. Decentralization. You can have a super fast blockchain, but you may not be able to trust it vs. bad actors.

Yes, which is the same trilemma for literally all computer systems. There isn't a single thing in the world where you can't also apply that analysis to, which is why everyone has decided that decentralization is in the end a pointless distraction.

quote:

Blockchains are databases at their core , but different in that they, when implemented under the correct (and arguably unique in the case of Bitcoin) circumstances, do indeed appear to solve the Byzantine generals problem (although at the country level China may eek out a dominance in mining?, I'm not sure). The oldest blockchains are around only 10 years old and 99.99% of them are scams, but again I think there's an innovation here, just needs to be built upon and matured. I don't see why it can't continue to develop though, as it's open source and has shown strong progress. I don't get the hate and anger about it.

The point is that the Byzantine General's problem is a "problem" solved not with brute force computing but with engineering better systems to operate in. No one really cares about the Byzantine General problem in general, but if you find yourself in that situation it's worth asking why you are and how to NOT have that problem in the first place. It also doesn't, at the level which is being touted at, fix the basic issues of the Byzantine General problem, like trusting inputs and validating sources. The big "blockchain" innovation is source to table tracking; first, you can literally create a website to do this, second how the gently caress do I know you're not taking Shutterstock photos of some happy farmer, scrubbing the watermark and claiming that's your Guatemalan sharecropper whom you are paying 5 cents a month to harvest your organic coffee beans? Lastly, of course, is the fact is that it's just a website, some QR codes and a pirated copy of Access that someone wrote BLOCKCHAIN on.

quote:

I feel we've come to the point you reference about use cases, as an example, people regularly move hundreds of millions (one time a billion https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/09/someone-moved-1-billion-in-a-single-bitcoin-transaction/) of BTC across the BTC network for substantially less transaction costs than using Moneygram, as an example.

Are you an idiot that thinks retail customers move 1 billion USD via moneygram? Or neglect the fact that Moneygram/Western Union/etc., have physical presences where people can literally walk in with a local ID (or none at all, depending on the area and trust of the users) and walk out with cash money in five minutes? Electronic remittances are trivial. The US has issues, the rest of the world doesn't, and the rest of the world have other problems like having the actual physical token of cash money that they use for their day-to-day transactions. Bitcoin solves none of this.

# ¿ Jan 30, 2020 15:05

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

xtal posted:

Oh boy lol. There was no collective agreement against decentralization, the Internet just got owned and people were too lazy and uneducated to realize the stakes and fight back.

The Internet simply demonstrates the trend; things tend towards centralization to the level that it can be gotten away with against the desire for autonomy. Visa and Mastercard are highly centralized, highly scalable systems to manage the cost, which is already prohibitive to create whole cloth today, from spiraling even further out of control. We centralize because it is expensive to create the inherent inefficiencies in a distributed system, and the basic point of economics is that we don't have all the resources we would like to do the things we want. No one went "yup, we're gonna start centralizing the Internet", but having the one place to do a search, the one place to find your friends, the one place to shittalk to celebs, etc., is obviously a very powerful draw. This is not a technological problem that is fixable, but an economics/psychology phenomenon.

dhrusis posted:

I disagree, I think decentralization, for the niche bitcoin fits in, is the key differentiator. How valueable is it will remain to be seen. It certainly isn't speed! haha. Need to look more into ethereum's centralization, although it seems pretty centered around Vitalik.

To feed from the above, the only reason anyone cares about "decentralization" in the context of their currency is purely ideological. If you don't believe in a trust based system, then you can't have any sort of real centralization so you must have it distributed. But this is only of real value to those who have a need to believe that trust is an unnecessary weakness in the system, as opposed to the current situation where you can't have a society without some trust.

quote:

I'm not pitching bitcoin as a substitute for moneygram, and certainly not right now -- but there's potential there, and again, active development in the space. Why wouldn't a technology (blockchain based or otherwise) not come in to fill gaps? Why can't a bitcoin ATM do what you are talking about... they probably already do

Because a bitcoin "atm" doesn't dispense local currency. It requires someone to go feed it, determine the identity of the person requesting money, dispense the currency, refill it when it gets empty, build the dang thing in the first place. You know, the actual physical plant which already exists for Moneygram/Western Union and for which your fees are paying. The entire point of bitcoin is to do it electronically; if you have to physically transact, which is like 90% of the world, then you've deliberately discarded that advantage, slim as it was in the first place (because, what, you think Moneygram take's someone's cash and puts it on a plane to the Philippines so they can put it in the envelope to get it to the shop in Luzon?)

# ¿ Jan 30, 2020 15:37

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

I made a mistake in saying "computer systems" when I should have said something to the effect of macro systems. You want to centralize things like a payment processor or your monetary system, as opposed to trying to figure out whether your barista accepts Visa, Mastercard, bitcoin, Argentinian pesos, etc. And in the marketplace, things tend to agglomerate. Amazon got to its position by selling everything to everyone at competitive prices (and also squeezing everyone from their employees to their suppliers dry.) It's the economically and psychologically efficient outcome; you click a few buttons, you get your goods and don't have to spend hours shopping across sites and figuring out which of five different stores selling marginally different versions of a tchochke is best for you. There are many moral, philosophical, legal and macroeconomic questions about whether this is desirable, but it's a self-reinforcing cycle. See, e.g., Walmart.

The main point I wanted to push back on was the idea that decentralization, per se, was a self-evident good. Like saying "Bitcoin is decentralized!" is not something that stands alone as a marvel of persuasive argumentation; why should we care? Or indeed, this is a demerit because the cost of that decentralization is in the construction of a hugely wasteful arms race to do computational make-work.

# ¿ Jan 30, 2020 20:11

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

klafbang posted:

That makes a lot more sense. Decentralization is probably never a good idea, but something you do if you have to. Either for performance or availability reasons.

Decentralization is not really that expensive, though. It is the absence of trust that kills bitcoin. Add a simple web of trust or a (possibly distributed) central authority, and Bitcoin could work without too much waste.

Agree that it's the lack of trust that makes it expensive, but that demands a particular type of decentralized consensus building which is enormously wasteful. As it is implemented they're effectively equivalent statements because you can't do the trustless without the distributed. (And ironically there's the other side of the centralization argument, because the economies of scale militate towards ever larger and more elaborate mining farms, so that the "trustless" nature of bitcoin was effectively lost too because the handful of the largest mining operations control the consensus. You are now in fact trusting a cabal of miners to not gently caress over the users, but no one talks about that too much.)

Bitcoin could be a lot more efficient; the actual part of recording the block could be done on an NES. But if you give up the trustless portion, then it arguable stops being bitcoin. The entire whitepaper was an exercise in exploring the notion of building an economy among two-faced pirates who want to backstab you at the first opportunity. The question all the bitcoin advocates dodge is why you'd want to do this, with varying amounts of handwaving. It's an ingrained part of its raison d'etre.

# ¿ Jan 30, 2020 21:12

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

You're not necessarily wrong, it's the same type of mindset, but they're not the exact same people because the particulars of their endgame are different.

# ¿ Jan 31, 2020 02:18

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

Fifteenth century? My friend, there is nothing in America that we haven't already tried ourselves far more recently, because we're exceptional[ly dumb].

# ¿ Jan 31, 2020 17:21

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

It falls into the classic trap of thinking that whatever the faults of "compliance" and "legal" are, these are fixable things via code and engineering, and not a purposeful part of the process, or because those parts which are not trivial are in fact really loving difficult, which is why "friction" exists.

So let's discuss this in detail. What friction in, say, legal services exist that you think will be solvable with code? You mention real estate. What specifically about real estate do you think blockchain will fix? If you say title registration I will find some way to strangle you through your computer monitor, because that's the trivially least frictional part of a real estate transaction.

# ¿ Feb 1, 2020 01:01

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

dhrusis posted:

Yeah, tbh I'm not really interested in arguing it because I don't have a position, like I said, I'm studying the "technology" (lol) and integrating it into other aspects of my understanding.

FWIW, when I think of blockchain, I'm not just thinking bitcoin, but more about what "secure value transfer" (lol yes I know again) + liquidity + "smart contract code" + some trust can do longer term.

I figure that there is room to improve as technology improves.. thats what I'm exploring.

What do you guys think of the ethereum platform in here?

Right, this is gibberish. You can't solve a problem you've not identified, you can't build a tool without determining what its task is supposed to be. Hey, guys, let's discuss designing a new hammer. I can't tell you why we need a new hammer, or what role it's supposed to play, but isn't this fun!? Wait where are you going

klafbang posted:

Imagine AirBnB but for legal services. Now, synergize with the blockchain in the cloud, and you get instant zero-friction user-engagement.

Just slap that on a Powerpoint with some women laughing at salads, badabing-badaboom, $2M in venture capital.

Ah well I am amenable to the problem of separating money from gullible VCs

Edit: you forgot to mention AI and machine learning, that'll net you at least another 1.5MM easy

# ¿ Feb 1, 2020 01:29

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

why it's almost as if the idea of smart contracts is actually idiotic and promoted by people with no understanding of law, practical computing, human nature, or their own hubris

# ¿ Feb 1, 2020 14:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 20, 2024 04:26

kw0134: Apr 19, 2003; I buy feet pics🍆

I didn't think that people had a thing for getting continuously owned but we shouldn't kink shame I suppose.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2020 19:05

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > Bitcoin: no angel investors, only Faustian bargains

«‹›18 »