Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,639
You seem to equate the mind blowing trial and error of blockchain to normal R&D trial and error but possibly I misunderstood you.
You seem to equate the mind blowing trial and error of blockchain to normal R&D trial and error but possibly I misunderstood you.Ok, so glad you accept that trial and error helps us to advance technologically. Not sure why you threw your hands up at it initially, though.
As regards what the trial and error involves in cryptocurrency, it isn't what you claim. Firstly there is a whole host of stuff that is being worked on - far too long to post here. You talk of miners and cryptocurrency yet there are many significant projects in cryptocurrency and blockchain that don't involve miners. There are also proof of stake based networks where the mining overhead is not as resource intensive yet there are other significant trade offs. i assume that you mean't proof of work and Bitcoin rather than cryptocurrency generally.
As regards my understanding of blockchain, I'm not a cipher punk, a cryptographer or a developer. I don't come from a professional background when it comes the nuts and bolts of blockchain. However, I don't have ANY insecurities in asking someone to explain something. Please clarify what it is specifically that leads you to believe I don't understand blockchain?
I'm not sure what it is that you have in mind in truth. What I can tell you is that regardless of what any of us believe will become of the technology, the sector has attracted some very smart and intelligent people. Bitcoin is already out there in the ether. It's not in an R and D lab. Therefore, work on that network doesn't quite happen in the same way as something that is offline if that is what you were getting at. There is so much work ongoing - on every conceivable aspect of cryptocurrency and blockchain - and blockchain as it pertains to a whole host of industries that I can't possibly keep up with it.You seem to equate the mind blowing trial and error of blockchain to normal R&D trial and error but possibly I misunderstood you.
Ok, so if someone is working the commodities markets professionally, how do they determine the value of gold?No, I am saying that they have completely different metrics for valuing them. Gold has a value to people who like gold jewellery and works of art.
The mindless solving of crypto puzzles is not to be compared with genuine R&DI'm not sure what it is that you have in mind in truth. What I can tell you is that regardless of what any of us believe will become of the technology, the sector has attracted some very smart and intelligent people. Bitcoin is already out there in the ether. It's not in an R and D lab. Therefore, work on that network doesn't quite happen in the same way as something that is offline if that is what you were getting at. There is so much work ongoing - on every conceivable aspect of cryptocurrency and blockchain - and blockchain as it pertains to a whole host of industries that I can't possibly keep up with it.
I think you've totally misunderstood the rationale behind Bitcoin mining. It doesn't have an R & D function - but more importantly given your statement, that's not its objective, that's not what it's designed to do. It plays a very important function in ensuring that the Bitcoin blockchain network is secure. There may have been issues with centralised exchanges which deal in crypto but the actual decentralised blockchain network has NEVER been hacked and compromised and never been offline for one second in over ten years - despite daily attacks on the network. You can't say the same for visa/mastercard or any bank system.The mindless solving of crypto puzzles is not to be compared with genuine R&D
In the main, I agree with you. In discussion with Brendan, when he asked about my methodology for determining the price of Bitcoin vs. his methodology for assessing stocks, I brought in gold into the equation as I see it as highly relevant to the context of this whole discussion. Gold may be considered a currency but its also a commodity. How are commodities valued? Is it less scientific than the assessment of the valuation of an equity stock? Is it based on the supply and demand dynamic? To me it's the latter - and it's the very same for Bitcoin as a digital asset. It has designed in scarcity. If it has NO utility, then that won't make a difference. There has been (and it seems will continue to be) a debate on here as regards whether it has utility. My view is that it has. My view is that whilst that utility is still coming forth - it will eventually drive pricing through that supply/demand dynamic. There are a number of factors leading into that - and next years halving also does so.But I am also a skeptic insofar as the price fluctuations bear no reasonable reflection on what bitcoin is (or at least what I perceive it to be).
So for me, the jury is out. Bitcoin will ultimately be valued on what it is in the future rather than what any speculative market says it is worth today.
I've swayed a few times on the mining aspect. However, if mining companies themselves stake the capital and use stranded renewable power or non-renewables that are simply being wasted by the petroleum industry, then what's the harm? LINK.I do agree that the mining aspect is crude, but then again so was mining for metals and minerals thousands of years ago, even tens of thousands of years ago. And as much as such metals and minerals held some value to those miners it is simply inconceivable that they could have ever envisaged the value and usage of such mining to the extent that it is used today. ?
Kudos to your brother. I didn't mean to be disrespectful to grannies n' grandads! However, I do stand by the email analogy. Here is what the understanding of email was like in 1994. Earlier than that still, it was incredibly complicated to send an email - by comparison with what we have to do to send an email today.I dont buy the email analogy, my brother is soon to become a grandad and it was he who introduced me to bitcoin around six years ago through a magazine article. Grandads and grannies will be on top of this in the near future.
Blockchain is much more understandable to me than the questions you pose here! However, what I would say is that there will be a machine to machine economy that will implicate crypto/blockchain and internet of things. Machines will buy and sell data. The most immediate and obvious example is autonomous mobility. One project that's aimed at this from the crypto/blockchain perspective is IOTA. There are already a couple of european startups that have trialled/piloted the automatic payment for electric vehicle charging using IOTA tokens. Jaguar/Land Rover intend to include a digital wallet in their cars to make such payments as well as for parking and tolls, etc. The project has been collaborating with a number of car manfacturers including VW. Last rumour (unconfirmed) was that they are in talks with Ford.If such a technological revolution comes to pass in the form of AI and all of its capabilities, how will anything else we do be valued? Who will determine the value of anything? Critically, who will determine such valuations?
The dollar, the yen, the euro, the yuan?
Or perhaps, an immutable sequence of algorithms that verify proof of work and transaction?
That's fair enough - everyone makes up their own mind, right?tecate I am not convinced by your explanations of the “uptick”
Right, and do equity investors look for growth also? Do they look to diversify? Are growth opportunities the same as what they once were in other conventional asset classes? Would they look to a completely unconnected asset class?Panicking equity investors: No. If there was panic about the value of FIAT currencies, yes that might explain things. But equity investors are not in a panic about the value of the currencies. In times of panic there is a flight to safety - bitcoin ain’t safe.
What marketing gimmick? Starbucks made NO announcement about this whatsoever. On this unit of account business, so what? You read earlier in this thread that there are plenty of people in and around the crypto economy that would happily spend Bitcoin given the opportunity. You think Bitcoin not being a unit of account would stop them? It's a complete non-argument.Big names accepting bitcoin: Are they really? Will Starbucks really be pricing in bitcoin? Or as a marketing gimmick will they be setting up an interface which converts bitcoin at the going rate to dollars?
I didn't commit to any one of what I listed as being the reason for the upswing. However, with the exception of the Ebay story which has since been denied, they're all positive developments. I'm not under any obligation to serve you up with such an account. There are two sides to a discussion. By all means, have at it with your own explanations.Maybe developments on the futures exchanges are having an influence, I remember that was behind the surge in 2017. I’ll buy that one but does it really explain a 100% jump?
Separate regulation is required.
He never actually bought any.Kudos to your brother
Really only two other possible reasons for the price surge
I fully understand the rationale behind bitcoin mining, thanks to fpalb. Perhaps you misunderstood my point, it happens.I think you've totally misunderstood the rationale behind Bitcoin mining. It doesn't have an R & D function - but more importantly given your statement, that's not its objective, that's not what it's designed to do. It plays a very important function in ensuring that the Bitcoin blockchain network is secure.
- Fidelity (one of the worlds largest asset managers) came out and said that they'd be trading crypto for their clients within the next few weeks.
By separate regulations, you can only mean weaker ones. That can not be a good thing, making fraud easier should not be something the regular banking system are required to do. The regulation issues are the crypto world's to solve, but much of the crypto world are very much against the traceability and full audit trail requirements that responsible regulation demands.
A: So can we still use the facilities?
Well we've already touched on it so I don't see what the confusion is. I believe that people should have the financial freedom to use unconfiscatable, borderless money anonymously. I believe that AML/KYC are an unnecessary evil - that cause regular people a lot of grief and don't stop the cartels in moving money. Who's going to agree to taking the very things that give Bitcoin utility and break them up on that inflexible approach? As I said before, government agencies need to make a decision - either ban it or embrace it.By separate regulations, you can only mean weaker ones. That can not be a good thing, making fraud easier should not be something the regular banking system are required to do. The regulation issues are the crypto world's to solve, but much of the crypto world are very much against the traceability and full audit trail requirements that responsible regulation demands.
Yes, there has been market manipulation and wash trading. It's a new market and its a small market so much easier to manipulate. As regards the illegal part, then regulate it already. (and just to head off any conversation about my request to regulate, anyone in this space wants centralised points in the ecosystem regulated - and cryptocurrency exchanges are centralised).Or a third...internal manipulation of the market. There has been a lot of speculation of a number of exchanges engaging in large scale washes (illegal in conventional markets) to inflate transaction volumes.
Ok, intra-institution is the reason it's a big deal as news. Not sure what the confusion is there. Remember his dukeness asked for reasons that were driving the price. You're coming back on this with regard to regulation - there are two discussions getting tangled up here. Bitcoin was designed for regular people. That we have institutions using it, I've no problem with that. If you're saying that Bitcoin as a protocol has to change in some way so that institutions can use it to fulfill some regulatory demand or other, well that simply won't be happening. The regulator or any government agency won't be walking in to the offices of Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency - because there is no such office or central point. The code and the network runs and does so on a decentralised basis.Intra-institution trading only, all transaction will have to be be able to prove regulatory compliance. Some might see this as a step on the journey to regularising bitcoin in particular, but others who see crypto as a means of escaping big brother or regulation won't like it.
Well, this is an interesting insight. Imagine the audacity to stop up and question what systems are in place and challenge them? You said yourself these are government mandated measures (KYC/AML). Government and regulation is supposed to work for the people. I don't see that happening with this nonsense. We have diametrically opposing views on that but that's alright.Almost how dare you enforce your rules to prevent me from doing what I want in your club
that cause regular people a lot of grief and don't stop the cartels in moving money.
You used the term "to solve a 'hashtag'". With that, I hadn't the foggiest as regards what you meant but know now that you were referring to the proof of work based mining process where an equation is solved every ten minutes in order to create sufficient randomness and ensure that the network can't be gamed and manipulated. That process has its detractors on the basis that its resource intensive. However, if it uses stranded renewable power (or non-renewable power that is being literally burnt up on oil and gas fields around the world as I type this), what's the harm? Most is renewable based - and where it isn't, by all means, regulate it out of existence. So, long story short, you can ridicule it all you want - I'm not in agreement with you on the subject.I fully understand the rationale behind bitcoin mining, thanks to fpalb. Perhaps you misunderstood my point, it happens. I ridiculed the zillions of running the SHA algorithm on a trial and error basis until you get an answer. You countered by pointing out that EVERYTHING comes from trial and error. I presumed you were referring to R&D but possibly you had something else in mind, please clarify.
Because I was around for the last halving and experienced the same thing. I witnessed it happen before - and its effect on my own BTC holding. However, I'm not here to justify anything to you Duke - you can make up your own mind - or you can present your own thesis on the subject. Have at it.Also can you explain in more detail why the fully anticipated halving of the rate of increase in bitcoin supply would fuel bullish speculation as the halving approaches?
Yes I was in error in describing hash as hashtag but I think you knew what I meant.You used the term "to solve a 'hashtag'". With that, I hadn't the foggiest as regards what you meant but know now that you were referring to the proof of work based mining process where an equation is solved every ten minutes in order to create sufficient randomness and ensure that the network can't be gamed and manipulated. That process has its detractors on the basis that its resource intensive. However, if it uses stranded renewable power (or non-renewable power that is being literally burnt up on oil and gas fields around the world as I type this), what's the harm? Most is renewable based - and where it isn't, by all means, regulate it out of existence. So, long story short, you can ridicule it all you want - I'm not in agreement with you on the subject.
Because I was around for the last halving and experienced the same thing. I witnessed it happen before - and its effect on my own BTC holding. However, I'm not here to justify anything to you Duke - you can make up your own mind - or you can present your own thesis on the subject. Have at it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?