TR Forums

So I just dumped some actual money into ETN cause of these:

https://cryptodaily.co.uk/2018/03/it-lo ... ll-happen/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/electroneu ... phone/amp/

Just another PSA, this new coin is so easy to mine with any hardware, I wish I started sooner.

I'm not sure how I feel about this tweet. Dude has an online learning platform that's building out a bunch of blockchain dev content (Devslopes), so it's probably a sales pitch, but...it's a stretch, right?

Obvious pitch is obvious, but I do rather like the message. Millennials in particular would be well served spending a lot less time crying about the officially designated but largely irrelevant moral outrage of the week on social media, and more time learning a valuable skill and doing something useful for a change. Not only will they find that they're taken more seriously, they might also manage to find some of that personal fulfillment that's been so elusive to the under-35 crowd. And that sentiment is exceedingly relevant to cryptocurrency since the whole thing is, fundamentally, a reaction to 20-30 years of bad behavior by 'responsible' Western financial institutions.

"We reject your economy and substitute our own!"

NovusBogus wrote:

"We reject your economy and substitute our own!"

Calling blockchain the basis of an alternate economy is putting the cart before the horse. Blockchain-based cryptocurrencies are just arbitrary tokens that are supposed to represent a store of value (like fiat currencies). Different day, same old sh*t.

NovusBogus wrote:

a reaction to 20-30 years of bad behavior by 'responsible' Western financial institutions.

My problem with this sentiment, despite having insane personal beliefs about this sort of stuff, is that the USA is fundamentally the *WORST* example of "why we need bitcoin".

USD is the gold standard. It is the reserve currency of the world, basically. For a hundred years or so now it's been essentially the best currency in the history of the world. Maybe GBP has a counter-claim. Maybe.

I do not make this claim lightly, again, I have bizarre heterodox beliefs. I make it because it is true. Are there are problems? Yes, there are always problems. But you don't compare to absolutes, you compare to actual alternatives: what is better?

Why are Americans at the forefront of crypto-currency? It makes no sense.

Glorious wrote:

Why are Americans at the forefront of crypto-currency? It makes no sense.

Because the USD is the currency of the world. I think that for the majority of crypto folk, it appeals to the worst in us. "I don't have to do a thing or lift a finger, and I can sell these imaginary X coins for real money."

Derfunk wrote:

I think that for the majority of crypto folk, it appeals to the worst in us. "I don't have to do a thing or lift a finger, and I can sell these imaginary X coins for real money."

I agree. That's the real reason.

The justifications are just so stupendously contrary to reality...

I propose that we rename this thread to "So who here is actually loosing?"

Losing??

This is all a bear trap!

All I see are cheap coins!

nom nom nom nom nom

Glorious wrote:

This is all a bear trap!

All I see are cheap coins!

nom nom nom nom nom

You need a graphical representation of your comment...
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/160 ... dWcvvw.png

just brew it! wrote:

Calling blockchain the basis of an alternate economy is putting the cart before the horse. Blockchain-based cryptocurrencies are just arbitrary tokens that are supposed to represent a store of value (like fiat currencies). Different day, same old sh*t.

That was its stated purpose, though; the Satoshi whitepaper presents it as a way to make small cash transactions, not a way to store wealth. All the Wall Street shenanigans came about several years later. Again, to be clear, I'm talking about the technical people that did the actual coding work. They didn't like the status quo so they did something about it. If someone doesn't like the BTC status quo, they're more than welcome--and indeed encouraged--to make a better one. This is why engineers and technology companies have amassed so much power in the last few decades; we act when others merely talk.

NovusBogus wrote:

just brew it! wrote:

Calling blockchain the basis of an alternate economy is putting the cart before the horse. Blockchain-based cryptocurrencies are just arbitrary tokens that are supposed to represent a store of value (like fiat currencies). Different day, same old sh*t.

That was its stated purpose, though; the Satoshi whitepaper presents it as a way to make small cash transactions, not a way to store wealth. All the Wall Street shenanigans came about several years later. Again, to be clear, I'm talking about the technical people that did the actual coding work. They didn't like the status quo so they did something about it. If someone doesn't like the BTC status quo, they're more than welcome--and indeed encouraged--to make a better one. This is why engineers and technology companies have amassed so much power in the last few decades; we act when others merely talk.

I'm not disagreeing with the idea that it was meant to be an alternate currency. I'm taking issue with the claim that it is meant to create an alternate economy.

currency != economy

NovusBogus wrote:

All the Wall Street shenanigans came about several years later.

It was released in 2009, -after- the late unpleasantness, and the genesis block actually contains this quote: "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" as a terminus post quem.

Nevertheless, as JBI says, it was intended as a (limited scope) alternative currency. The whitepaper not only clearly states this, but actually explicitly affirms the suitability of the pre-existing system as well:

Bitcoin Whitepaper wrote:

Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model.

The above is literally the first two sentences of the introduction.

NovusBogus wrote:

They didn't like the status quo so they did something about it. If someone doesn't like the BTC status quo, they're more than welcome--and indeed encouraged--to make a better one.

It was not the general financial status quo that was being addressed. Again, I refer you to the whitepaper:

Bitcoin Whitepaper wrote:

These costs and payment uncertainties can be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments over a communications channel without a trusted party.

In other words, if you have no objection to using a trusted third party over your communications channel (which is virtually everyone, the whitepaper even says so: "most transactions" for whom it "works well enough"), this solution solves a problem you don't have.

The only "status quo" involved here was how most people thought this problem was essentially unsolvable: It just couldn't be done. Satoshi disrupted that by developing a system that, within probabilistic virtual certainty, you could do it.

Neat, but the applicability to the larger world is minimal, for a variety of reasons. And, unfortunately, the minor applicability that remains is mostly suitable for a few people doing things that most other people really, really don't like.

NovusBogus wrote:

they're more than welcome--and indeed encouraged--to make a better one.

As it turns out, the people making a "better" one either have a minor evolutionary change that, while legitimately intended perhaps, has become a vehicle for securities fraud (Ethereum) almost to exclusion.

And, of course, those promising a revolutionary change are outright fraudulent and completely insane (IOTA etc...)

I also reject your entire premise: An engineer (or anyone) detailing how a Internal Combustion Engine actually works shouldn't be curtly "refuted" by statements that if they don't like the intentionally-chosen trade-offs they should just build a better one.

...that's not... I mean, how could someone make a better one if they don't properly understand how the current one works and why?

NovusBogus wrote:

This is why engineers and technology companies have amassed so much power in the last few decades; we act when others merely talk.

....is this the part where one guy in the audience starts clapping, and then another, and another and then...?

Glorious wrote:

NovusBogus wrote:

This is why engineers and technology companies have amassed so much power in the last few decades; we act when others merely talk.

....is this the part where one guy in the audience starts clapping, and then another, and another and then...?

Speaking as an engineer, and a fairly well-positioned one, I'm stuck trying to figure out where all these powerful engineers are.

ludi wrote:

Speaking as an engineer, and a fairly well-positioned one, I'm stuck trying to figure out where all these powerful engineers are.

The issue is that there are an awful lot of poor to mediocre ones. Skews the stats...

Glorious wrote:

NovusBogus wrote:

All the Wall Street shenanigans came about several years later.

It was released in 2009, -after- the late unpleasantness, and the genesis block actually contains this quote: "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" as a terminus post quem.

I am acutely aware of that, indeed I made reference to it in this very thread. By "Wall Street shenanigans" I was referring to 'BTC as investment' which I am not particularly fond of, having supplanted 'BTC as voluntary anarcho-capitalist experiment' toward which I have a considerably more favorable attitude.

As for currency vs economy, one begets the other so creating a currency is necessarily creating an economic engine; if nobody uses it it simply means that it has a size of zero.

....is this the part where one guy in the audience starts clapping, and then another, and another and then...?

Actually this is the part where, having noted the historical wisdom in someone suggesting that those who can CAD or code are far more capable of changing the world than those what whine about how it's all so unfaaiiirr, I go back to making next generation industrial automation while giving zero flips about how 'the audience' feels. After all, our robots and gantries will not write their own move instructions.

ludi wrote:

Speaking as an engineer, and a fairly well-positioned one, I'm stuck trying to figure out where all these powerful engineers are.

Well let's start with the here and now. You typed that on a keyboard, which was created by engineers and most likely manufactured by mostly-automated equipment which was also created by engineers. Your input went into (I assume, given the nature of this site) a personal computer, which was created by engineers, running a web browser, which was created by engineers, connected to the Internet whose software and hardware were both created by engineers. Every one of these things was a radical new technology that created and destroyed many companies and their associated jobs, shifted geopolitical ley lines, redefined humanoid social structures, and generally made something out of nothing. Take away the engineers and none of that would have happened, it'd just be a bunch of sales guys standing around the coffee pot a neolithic campfire wishing they had something to do.

NovusBogus wrote:

ludi wrote:

Speaking as an engineer, and a fairly well-positioned one, I'm stuck trying to figure out where all these powerful engineers are.

Well let's start with the here and now. You typed that on a keyboard, which was created by engineers and most likely manufactured by mostly-automated equipment which was also created by engineers. Your input went into (I assume, given the nature of this site) a personal computer, which was created by engineers, running a web browser, which was created by engineers, connected to the Internet whose software and hardware were both created by engineers. Every one of these things was a radical new technology that created and destroyed many companies and their associated jobs, shifted geopolitical ley lines, redefined humanoid social structures, and generally made something out of nothing. Take away the engineers and none of that would have happened, it'd just be a bunch of sales guys standing around the coffee pot a neolithic campfire wishing they had something to do.

As I once heard it memorably put, labor without capital can build mud hats. The guys who can get and channel capital can empower labor to do much more, and for that reason, they generally call the shots.

Once in a great while I encounter an engineer in whom the streams of design and sales, or design and management, run harmoniously parallel. Once in an even greater while, that person likes the other type of job and gets promoted into it. The rest of the time, those talents tend to be more orthogonal, and the engineer is best utilized in his native capacity, such as designing nifty new things, and ranting about sales and management on Internet comment boards.

NovusBogus wrote:

I am acutely aware of that, indeed I made reference to it in this very thread. By "Wall Street shenanigans" I was referring to 'BTC as investment' which I am not particularly fond of, having supplanted 'BTC as voluntary anarcho-capitalist experiment' toward which I have a considerably more favorable attitude.

Ah, my apologies then. That reading makes eminently more sense so I thank you.

You can forgive my confusion though, perhaps, as "Wall Street" wasn't really involved in those sorts of shenanigans. Prominent Wall Street types have infamously ridiculed the whole thing, and the closest thing we even have to it are better termed Technology Venture Capitalists, and even the ranks of those are thin.

NovusBogus wrote:

As for currency vs economy, one begets the other so creating a currency is necessarily creating an economic engine; if nobody uses it it simply means that it has a size of zero.

But what is actually being argued here is that not only was bitcoin never intended to a drive a economy, it fundamentally cannot.

NovusBogus wrote:

Actually this is the part where, having noted the historical wisdom in someone suggesting that those who can CAD or code are far more capable of changing the world than those what whine about how it's all so unfaaiiirr, I go back to making next generation industrial automation while giving zero flips about how 'the audience' feels. After all, our robots and gantries will not write their own move instructions

I work in industrial automation.

I am not primarily whining that it is "unfair", I am primary stating that it is being bluntly misrepresented. That the sort of argument you are making is a non sequitor to the existence of crypto-currency as a category. That, technically, it has fundamental limitations that are being overlooked expressly because of "how the audience feels". That, philosophically and economically, this entire endeavor has been misconstrued and is now being pushed forward, nearly exclusively, by those who are mislead by misconceptions (at best).

NovusBogus wrote:

Well let's start with the here and now. You typed that on a keyboard, which was created by engineers and most likely manufactured by mostly-automated equipment which was also created by engineers. Your input went into (I assume, given the nature of this site) a personal computer, which was created by engineers, running a web browser, which was created by engineers, connected to the Internet whose software and hardware were both created by engineers. Every one of these things was a radical new technology that created and destroyed many companies and their associated jobs, shifted geopolitical ley lines, redefined humanoid social structures, and generally made something out of nothing. Take away the engineers and none of that would have happened, it'd just be a bunch of sales guys standing around the coffee pot a neolithic campfire wishing they had something to do.

Fascinating.

What does this have to do with bitcoin?

I mean, you do realize that you are actually talking to "engineers" here, right?

And, if I may display my own brand of prejudice, I always kinda figured "engineers" weren't as prone to such self-congratulatory preening.

Glorious wrote:

And, if I may display my own brand of prejudice, I always kinda figured "engineers" weren't as prone to such self-congratulatory preening.

Yes we are

NovusBogus wrote:

Well let's start with the here and now. You typed that on a keyboard, which was created by engineers and most likely manufactured by mostly-automated equipment which was also created by engineers. Your input went into (I assume, given the nature of this site) a personal computer, which was created by engineers, running a web browser, which was created by engineers, connected to the Internet whose software and hardware were both created by engineers. Every one of these things was a radical new technology that created and destroyed many companies and their associated jobs, shifted geopolitical ley lines, redefined humanoid social structures, and generally made something out of nothing. Take away the engineers and none of that would have happened, it'd just be a bunch of sales guys standing around the coffee pot a neolithic campfire wishing they had something to do.

I'm an engineer/scientist and I don't understand why you're making this rant.

Usacomp2k3 wrote:

Glorious wrote:

And, if I may display my own brand of prejudice, I always kinda figured "engineers" weren't as prone to such self-congratulatory preening.

Yes we are

Speak for yourself.

ludi wrote:

Once in a great while I encounter an engineer in whom the streams of design and sales, or design and management, run harmoniously parallel. Once in an even greater while, that person likes the other type of job and gets promoted into it. The rest of the time, those talents tend to be more orthogonal, and the engineer is best utilized in his native capacity, such as designing nifty new things, and ranting about sales and management on Internet comment boards.

Isn't that why most of us are here?

but I don't want a promotion.

(also, not an engineer)

derFunkenstein wrote:

(also, not an engineer)

From what I've read here I would say you are.

As for the dude and his pitch, I'd say he's just jumping on the blockchain bandwagon as a way to promote his business. There probably will be other uses for the blockchain at some point in the future, so I'm thinkin the blockchain its self is here to stay in one form or another and this guy is hoping to capitalize before it becomes just another thing in the developer bag of tricks.

Heh. Bitcoin's price has been pretty stable of late, and now this:

meerkt wrote:

Heh. Bitcoin's price has been pretty stable of late, and now this:

This post has not aged well.

With that being said, miners aren't interested in the price of BTC per se... they're interested in the price of BTC vs the difficulty. Difficulty has dropped dramatically (and likely will continue to drop), which means miners aren't in that bad of a position in this latest crash. In any case, the dropped difficulty means that BTC will be easier to mine for the near future, so the ~$3500 price point will likely remain (unless further difficulty drops allow miners to sell BTC for even lower amounts in a few weeks).

Anyway, Ethereum prices have dropped even more, and I mainly watch that because I'm trying to time GPU prices as appropriate. GPU prices haven't really dropped though, and used-Ebay GPUs don't seem too much cheaper either. As such, I think GPU miners are likely doing fine (probably because of the severe drop in difficulty). Any speculator / bull is going to be wreaked by the current cryptocoin market though.

NovusBogus wrote:

Obvious pitch is obvious, but I do rather like the message. Millennials in particular would be well served spending a lot less time crying about the officially designated but largely irrelevant moral outrage of the week on social media, and more time learning a valuable skill and doing something useful for a change. Not only will they find that they're taken more seriously, they might also manage to find some of that personal fulfillment that's been so elusive to the under-35 crowd. And that sentiment is exceedingly relevant to cryptocurrency since the whole thing is, fundamentally, a reaction to 20-30 years of bad behavior by 'responsible' Western financial institutions.

"We reject your economy and substitute our own!"

Telling people to learn to code to "solve" their problems is just generally a bad idea.

I've been around enough programmers, non-programmers, and people who *try* to be programmers to know that coding isn't for everyone. It just "clicks" for some people. Others will end up being unhappy code monkeys who either can't find decent jobs with their skills, or are miserably bad at them.

Learn to code has been a constant message over the last decade, but I really feel that people need to dip their toes in the water and test the temperature instead of jumping right in.