|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Oh man I don't see this working out in any fun way, I'm not doing pages and pages of debate about electricity use because boy do I not give a gently caress So basically your argument is "I don't understand how he got those numbers, so they're wrong, but also I don't care, but also those numbers are wrong, but I don't care." Do you have a competing analysis or are you just making poo poo up?
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 07:09 |
|
|
a hot gujju bhabhi posted:So basically your argument is "I don't understand how he got those numbers, so they're wrong, but also I don't care, but also those numbers are wrong, but I don't care." No, my argument is, if you care about the polar bears and the melting ice caps and little nigerian kids going without electricity in their shacks because the nearby coin farm is causing rolling brownouts then this must be a terrible time However, I think this is 100% overstated horseshit, and have not been concerned about power use in data centers which is something people have been crowing about for the past 15 years since dot coms were a thing, and I think it will continue to be a non issue that makes for great articles
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:if you care about ... then this must be a terrible time It is 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
COMRADES posted:Well in essence what he is saying though is that if BTC becomes that popular to which that's an actual problem then they'll fix any issues like that which arise. I'm not sure how modifiable BTC is but I'm assuming it wouldn't be a huge problem to alter the architecture to accommodate. the problem is that if you make any technical improvements, they have to be slight enough to not piss off the owners of the miners because in order to chase efficiency they have invested in electronics that are heavily specialized in wasting electricity and occasionally solving blocks if the change will prevent them from using their devices to mine they are going to block any adoption of it. In order to get rid of as much overhead as possible, they're running ASICs which mine a certain way and do nothing else. They can't be reprogrammed to handle updated algorithms like FPGAs or are general purose enough like CPUs or GPUs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:No, my argument is, if you care about the polar bears and the melting ice caps and little nigerian kids going without electricity in their shacks because the nearby coin farm is causing rolling brownouts then this must be a terrible time It's a concern because eventually the power consumption will cost more than the value of the coin it mines, making it no longer profitable to contribute computing power to the blockchain. How are you possibly this dense?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
a hot gujju bhabhi posted:It's a concern because eventually the power consumption will cost more than the value of the coin it mines, making it no longer profitable to contribute computing power to the blockchain. How are you possibly this dense? Yeah dude and in the 1960s people were concerned that half the workforce would need to work as switchboard operators to handle this volume of calls and it was totally unsustainable You know what happened? They invented automated switches for calls 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
exploded mummy posted:the problem is that if you make any technical improvements, they have to be slight enough to not piss off the owners of the miners because in order to chase efficiency they have invested in electronics that are heavily specialized in wasting electricity and occasionally solving blocks It's cool how the people that think bitcoins are a scam are here to helpfully explain why nothing will ever change or be improved anytime it gets mentioned miners with their asics!!! ergo cryptocurrencies are doomed
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
Free Electricity with One Weird Trick Fiat central bankers hate it!
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Yeah dude and in the 1960s people were concerned that half the workforce would need to work as switchboard operators to handle this volume of calls and it was totally unsustainable This is not remotely the same thing. This is a flaw that is intrinsic to the architecture. This is the problem I see repeated over and over with Bitcoin enthusiasts: they don't actually understand the technology they're so ardently defending.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
btw I sold the bitcoin things and I bought a bunch of stock in a little undervalued US hotel chain that runs 10 hotels in the southern US and I'm feeling real good about the prospects.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
a hot gujju bhabhi posted:This is not remotely the same thing. This is a flaw that is intrinsic to the architecture. This is the problem I see repeated over and over with Bitcoin enthusiasts: they don't actually understand the technology they're so ardently defending. No I'm not going to write a bunch of words to convince you, I'm aware of the limitation and I don't believe it's intrinsic or unsolvable. I'd much rather we simply table our difference of opinion until a clear answer emerges rather than me trying to waste a bunch of words trying to establish ecred. You think it's an unfixable flaw, I don't. You say it's because I don't understand it, I think its because you're buying into an overstated problem in the first place, and one that is solvable as well. Time will prove one of these positions correct, we can simply revisit the point down the line
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
SOHO's got a strong business model and good earnings; they just delived a good quarterly and they've had solid revenue even in the face of 2 acts of god (freaking hurricanes) in 2016; I'm hoping to see 20-35% return on these puppies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:cryptocurrencies are doomed Gonna remember this quote since those are your words and have nothing to do with my post.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Minimalist Program posted:SOHO's got a strong business model and good earnings; they just delived a good quarterly and they've had solid revenue even in the face of 2 acts of god (freaking hurricanes) in 2016; I'm hoping to see 20-35% return on these puppies. That's cool I hope it works out. Out of curiosity, 20-35% return in what timeframe? Not gonna compare it to cryptocurrencies, just wondering
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:That's cool I hope it works out. Out of curiosity, 20-35% return in what timeframe? Not gonna compare it to cryptocurrencies, just wondering I'm thinking a couple of years, we'll see.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
btw another fun investment opportunity that is sort of tracking the crypto boom/bubble and is going to pop in the same way when their plans turn out to be bullshit, is Overstock.com which is basically just your run of the mill webshop/online retailer that has been trying to pivot to conducting their financial tracking via "the blockchain" and has gone up insanely in value due to the hype. It's going to burst but I'm up 12% on them atm and it's fun.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
I don't know enough about property values in that area to comment on 20%-30% but I will say that 6.5% dividends is definitely nothing to sneeze at even if the price of the REIT itself doesn't move much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
COMRADES posted:I don't know enough about property values in that area to comment on 20%-30% but I will say that 6.5% dividends is definitely nothing to sneeze at even if the price of the REIT itself doesn't move much. I know right I put 10k into them and I'm feelin p. savvy about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
exploded mummy posted:Gonna remember this quote since those are your words and have nothing to do with my post. Ah the old out of context quote of what I was saying sarcastically? Seems consistent with your other bullshit posts about how cryptocurrencies can't be changed anymore due to asics lmao
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Ah the old out of context quote of what I was saying sarcastically? Seems consistent with your other bullshit posts about how cryptocurrencies can't be changed anymore due to asics lmao You do realize that there are consequences for changing application parameters that application specific integrated circuits. Especially when the old parameters are now invalid for the application and the old ASIC can't be used. I mean it's an issue that bitcoin has run into and hardforked to at least 2 or 3 times at this point specifically with increasing blockade and allowing higher transaction bandwidth. You'd have to be absolutely ignorant of the technical details like Ham Sand- Oh. Why did I waste my time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
exploded mummy posted:You do realize that there are consequences for changing application parameters that application specific integrated circuits. Especially when the old parameters are now invalid for the application and the old ASIC can't be used. So you're claiming that cryptocurrencies have effectively lost the ability to change anything as of now, November 13, 2017, because a portion of the miners are using asics and will resist changes that invalidate their investment? Is that what you're claiming? I don't think that's what you're claiming but you sure seem to be enjoying implying it. So, let me ask point blank: Can cryptocurrencies still implement significant changes to the way they work, from how they are mined, to which ones are used in transactions, to how transactions are done?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
You're aware they attempted to fix some things very recently and it didn't go through for that very reason, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
Minimalist Program posted:SOHO's got a strong business model and good earnings; they just delived a good quarterly and they've had solid revenue even in the face of 2 acts of god (freaking hurricanes) in 2016; I'm hoping to see 20-35% return on these puppies. really?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
univbee posted:You're aware they attempted to fix some things very recently and it didn't go through for that very reason, right? That's a really, really bullshit way of presenting what happened, which is the same bullshit claim that exploded mummy made. Is this like, do the buttcoin crew get talking points from like the buttcoin subreddit / yospos thread then come here to show them off? It's just amazing
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:So you're claiming that cryptocurrencies have effectively lost the ability to change anything as of now, November 13, 2017, because a portion of the miners are using asics and will resist changes that invalidate their investment? Portion? No. All changes? No. You lose the ability to make significant changes when you have enough miners running ASICs that making a change may invalidate a plurality of miners strong enough to significantly impact rate and adjustment. Ham Sandwiches posted:Can cryptocurrencies still implement significant changes to the way they work, from how they are mined, to which ones are used in transactions, to how transactions are done? It would depend on how specifically the ASIC was designed, and it's robustness for how it handles the changes. Segwit? Nothing Segwit changed particularly impacted the ASICs. It got rid of stuff, but ultimately didn't change block size, which didn't in turn screw up hashing. Segwit2x? That doubled the block size and screws up the ASIC hashing. It and other proposals to increase block size and increase transaction bandwidth keep getting shot down because one of the consequences is that it would severely impact mining power.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Drone_Fragger posted:What you're saying is "not actually FDIC secured" then, since coinbase getting hacked or getting their poo poo ruined wouldn't be covered by it, since they don't have FDIC insurance. Uranium 235 fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Nov 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:No I'm not going to write a bunch of words to convince you, I'm aware of the limitation and I don't believe it's intrinsic or unsolvable. I'd much rather we simply table our difference of opinion until a clear answer emerges rather than me trying to waste a bunch of words trying to establish ecred. I'm seeing a pattern here of you making some claim about what is/isn't possible then backing out immediately when asked to explain your reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:I'm aware of the limitation and I don't believe it's intrinsic or unsolvable. Holy poo poo, a real life "it's in the wiki" From the same guy who did the real "starting now"
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:I'm aware of the limitation and I don't believe it's intrinsic or unsolvable. Describe the limitation then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
I also want to see this described so that we know you actually have an understanding of how the vast majority of cryptocoins work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
Uranium 235 posted:but the USD isn't held by coinbase, it's held by an FDIC insured bank Yes. Exactly. The FDIC insurance isn't valid for other entities. It's only valid for the bank that holds it. Since coinbase doesn't hold FDIC insurance, if they themselves are hacked then you will get jack poo poo. You will only get money back if the *banks* that coinbase deal with get hacked or (through their own stupidity) lose all their money. It states this, very plainly on the FDIC website: quote:FDIC insurance covers all types of deposits received at an insured bank, including deposits in a checking account, negotiable order of withdrawal (NOW) account, savings account, money market deposit account (MMDA), time deposit such as a certificate of deposit (CD), or an official item issued by a bank, such as a cashier's check or money order. Coinbase doesn't have FDIC insurance. That is the long and short of it. The fact they deposit any USD that they actually have (since I'm not 100% convinced that they have balanced balance sheet with respect to USD to "coinbase dollar") is kind of irrelevant because of that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
I realised maybe it's just you don't realise what FDIC does. All FDIC does is that if the bank fails ( runs out of money, goes bankrupt, etc) then all* the money you "have" with them is guaranteed to be repaid by the US government through the FDIC insurance scheme. *up to 250k
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
I don't know if I can take any of this fake news about bitcoin. I get all my real news from The Mirror and The Sun.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
Drone_Fragger posted:I realised maybe it's just you don't realise what FDIC does. odds on that coinbase only maintains a single account with said financial institution?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
It's not like printing paper dollars is somehow a worthwhile endeavor in itself. May as well waste a bunch of electricity on something equally as worthless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
a hot gujju bhabhi posted:I also love how you just hand-wave away the ridiculously low transaction limit. How is that acceptable to you? Do you actually understand how Bitcoin works, like the actual technology behind it? Because I can't fathom how you could understand how ludicrously inefficient and unscalable it is and still be such an ardent supporter. Do you all actually enjoy arguing with someone as stupid as Ham? I really don't get the draw.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
FogHelmut posted:whats their cost per trade No, the more SECURE and tamper proof it becomes, you idiot!
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
Remember when that guy deleted 300million worth of virtual pogs? Lol 😝
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
Excuse me, waiter, these ham sandwiches are incredibly salty. Can we order something else? ps eight transactions per second
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 07:09 |
|
|
Drone_Fragger posted:Yes. Exactly. The FDIC insurance isn't valid for other entities. It's only valid for the bank that holds it. Since coinbase doesn't hold FDIC insurance, if they themselves are hacked then you will get jack poo poo. You will only get money back if the *banks* that coinbase deal with get hacked or (through their own stupidity) lose all their money. It states this, very plainly on the FDIC website: quote:Coinbase doesn't have FDIC insurance. That is the long and short of it. quote:The fact they deposit any USD that they actually have (since I'm not 100% convinced that they have balanced balance sheet with respect to USD to "coinbase dollar") is kind of irrelevant because of that. quote:Section 200.14 Reports and financial disclosures
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 04:08
|
|