General Cryptocoin Discussion

[Chomiq]

I must've missed the memo, when I got mine on sale recently.

Was it limited to amphibians only?

 

[R-T-B]

Was it limited to amphibians only?

Humans can buy things at newegg I think?

I did not tell them I was a frog. They did not ask.

 

[Outback Bronze]

They did not ask.

Pretty sure you talking "ribbit" gave it away : )

 

[R-T-B]

Pretty sure you talking "ribbit" gave it away : )

On the internet, I use a keyboard. Nobody has to know I'm a frog unless I tell them.

I told you guys. But that's because I love you.

 

[Outback Bronze]

On the internet, I use a keyboard. Nobody has to know I'm a frog unless I tell them.

I told you guys. But that's because I love you.

hmm I wonder how they understood the "ribbit" language then?

You must run a "ribbit" keyboard? ; )

 

[R-T-B]

hmm I wonder how they understood the "ribbit" language then?

You must run a "ribbit" keyboard? ; )

I use a normal keyboard. Just a lot of jumping.

The Frog God graced me with the english language as punishment for a past transgression. I don't want to talk about it...

 

[Chomiq]

Bitcoin 'founder' wins right to keep billions of dollars

A jury decided Craig Wright, who says he created the cryptocurrency, can retain bitcoin worth billions of dollars.

www.bbc.com

A jury rejected claims that Craig Wright's former business partner was due half of the assets.
As a result Mr Wright will retain 1.1m Bitcoin, worth $54bn (£40bn).
However he will pay $100m to the family of Dave Kleiman for intellectual property infringement.
The family of Mr Kleiman, a computer security expert who died in 2013, said that the two men had worked together to create and mine the first Bitcoin in existence, and that Mr Wright had stolen it.

In a statement, lawyers for W&K and Kleiman's estate said they were "immensely gratified" that the jury awarded the $100m in intellectual property rights, and help give the Kleimans "their fair share of what Dave helped create."

"I'll be taking $54bn and here's your $100m, now shut up"

 

[R-T-B]

He's not bitcoins founder in any established way, just an early miner who claims to be.

Many early miners would be billionaires if they hadn't thrown their wallets out.

 

[R0H1T]

The Frog God graced me with the english language as punishment for a past transgression.

Not sharing flies with him/her

Bitcoin 'founder' wins right to keep billions of dollars

A jury decided Craig Wright, who says he created the cryptocurrency, can retain bitcoin worth billions of dollars.

www.bbc.com

"I'll be taking $54bn and here's your $100m, now shut up"

You know that's how capitalism society works, always has & always will!

 

[R-T-B]

Not sharing flies with him/her

The frog god has transcended flies. Now he consumes all.

All your lost bitcoin wallets went to the frog god.

 

[Chomiq]

Bored Ape NFT accidentally sells for $3,000 instead of $300,000

A "fat fingered" typing error seems to have cost an NFT dealer more than $250,000.

www.bbc.com

Whoops.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

Quck temp-of-the-room check: Who thinks crypto is:

a) Long-term viable in one of its currently existing forms,
b) Here to stay, but will be implemented via some method that hasn't shown up yet,
c) An inadvertent pyramid scheme that's just waiting to collapse,
d) Some combo of the above,
e) A different take that's not easily summarized in a multiple-choice poll

This might seem like trolling or flame bait, but it's not intended to be. I think there's room left for good discussion, and it's gotten quiet in here. Personally, I land on a combo of b) and c), firmly believing that the OG crypto designers were trying to solve a social problem, not realizing the mess it would become along the way. But the way things stand, it sure doesn't seem like existing crypto has much of a chance of doing what it set out to do. It's sometimes used as actual currency, but seems more/most often employed as an investment vehicle or GRQ scheme. With the multiplication of currencies and all of the other stuff around all of this; it's hard to convince myself that it'll resolve in any sane fashion. The point I'm most skeptical on is that even if crypto makes it, what exactly is it going to solve? Say we someday track values of [ARBITRARY THING] in BTC instead of USD. Even if the money supply is fixed (as in "limited", not "repaired"), it doesn't materially change how commerce works or who has money, which in the end is simply a representation of value anyway with no intrinsic value in and of itself.

Please note that I'm a skeptic in general. I don't necessarily have any conceptual beef with the structure or tech behind crypto, but would love it if the graphics card market could normalize...

EDIT: spelling/grammar

 

[RandallFlagg]

Quck temp-of-the-room check: Who thinks crypto is:

a) Long-term viable in one of its currently existing forms,
b) Here to stay, but will be implemented via some method that hasn't shown up yet,
c) An inadvertent pyramid scheme that's just waiting to collapse,
d) Some combo of the above,
e) A different take that's not easily summarized in a multiple-choice poll

This might seem like trolling or flame bait, but it's not intended to be. I think there's room left for good discussion, and it's gotten quiet in here. Personally, I land on a combo of b) and c), firmly believing that the OG crypto designers were trying to solve a social problem, not realizing the mess it would become along the way. But the way things stand, it sure doesn't seem like existing crypto has much of a chance of doing what it set out to do. It's sometimes used as actually currency, but seems more/most often employed as an investment vehicle or GRQ scheme. With the multiplication of currencies and all of the other stuff around all of this; it's hard to convince myself that it'll resolve in any sane fashion. The point I'm most skeptical on is that even if crypto makes it, what exactly is it going to solve? Say we someday track values of [ARBITRARY THING] in BTC instead of USD. Even if the money supply is fixed (as in "limited", not "repaired"), it doesn't materially change how commerce works or who has money, which in the end is simply a representation of value anyway with no intrinsic value in and of itself.

Please note that I'm a skeptic in general. I don't necessarily have any conceptual beef with the structure or tech behind crypto, but would love it if the graphics card market could normalize...

b - It's the future of all government issued currencies. All current crypto will become worthless.

Crypto / blockchain is a database, it tracks every transaction every 'coin' has ever been in. Once the politicians fully understand this, they and hence government will use it. They'll also get rid of the crypto where they can't identify the users. China is already doing both.

 

[trog100]

b - It's the future of all government issued currencies. All current crypto will become worthless.

Crypto / blockchain is a database, it tracks every transaction every 'coin' has ever been in. Once the politicians fully understand this, they and hence government will use it. They'll also get rid of the crypto where they can't identify the users. China is already doing both.

a totalitarian dream.. based on the principle that those being governed will have all their freedoms taken away by those doing the governing if allowed to..

all tied in with a social contract that rewards obedient citizens and punishes bad ones.. you will own nothing and be happy.. he he..

maybe.. but i wont be around to see it..

i vote A but B is a possibility..

trog

 

[Bomby569]

Quck temp-of-the-room check: Who thinks crypto is:

a) Long-term viable in one of its currently existing forms,
b) Here to stay, but will be implemented via some method that hasn't shown up yet,
c) An inadvertent pyramid scheme that's just waiting to collapse,
d) Some combo of the above,
e) A different take that's not easily summarized in a multiple-choice poll

This might seem like trolling or flame bait, but it's not intended to be. I think there's room left for good discussion, and it's gotten quiet in here. Personally, I land on a combo of b) and c), firmly believing that the OG crypto designers were trying to solve a social problem, not realizing the mess it would become along the way. But the way things stand, it sure doesn't seem like existing crypto has much of a chance of doing what it set out to do. It's sometimes used as actual currency, but seems more/most often employed as an investment vehicle or GRQ scheme. With the multiplication of currencies and all of the other stuff around all of this; it's hard to convince myself that it'll resolve in any sane fashion. The point I'm most skeptical on is that even if crypto makes it, what exactly is it going to solve? Say we someday track values of [ARBITRARY THING] in BTC instead of USD. Even if the money supply is fixed (as in "limited", not "repaired"), it doesn't materially change how commerce works or who has money, which in the end is simply a representation of value anyway with no intrinsic value in and of itself.

Please note that I'm a skeptic in general. I don't necessarily have any conceptual beef with the structure or tech behind crypto, but would love it if the graphics card market could normalize...

EDIT: spelling/grammar

Option d)

I think it will be the future in a completely different implementation method (technological and practical). As it is today it absolutely is a pyramid scheme, it's only value is new money getting in. You need to recruit new money for you to make money.
I can't excuse the waiste of electricity, especially in 2021 and with the problems we have of climate change.

It'a a shame because it's a great idea plagued with bad impletementation issues.

 

[Chomiq]

Quck temp-of-the-room check: Who thinks crypto is:

a) Long-term viable in one of its currently existing forms,
b) Here to stay, but will be implemented via some method that hasn't shown up yet,
c) An inadvertent pyramid scheme that's just waiting to collapse,
d) Some combo of the above,
e) A different take that's not easily summarized in a multiple-choice poll

This might seem like trolling or flame bait, but it's not intended to be. I think there's room left for good discussion, and it's gotten quiet in here. Personally, I land on a combo of b) and c), firmly believing that the OG crypto designers were trying to solve a social problem, not realizing the mess it would become along the way. But the way things stand, it sure doesn't seem like existing crypto has much of a chance of doing what it set out to do. It's sometimes used as actual currency, but seems more/most often employed as an investment vehicle or GRQ scheme. With the multiplication of currencies and all of the other stuff around all of this; it's hard to convince myself that it'll resolve in any sane fashion. The point I'm most skeptical on is that even if crypto makes it, what exactly is it going to solve? Say we someday track values of [ARBITRARY THING] in BTC instead of USD. Even if the money supply is fixed (as in "limited", not "repaired"), it doesn't materially change how commerce works or who has money, which in the end is simply a representation of value anyway with no intrinsic value in and of itself.

Please note that I'm a skeptic in general. I don't necessarily have any conceptual beef with the structure or tech behind crypto, but would love it if the graphics card market could normalize...

EDIT: spelling/grammar

U.S. regulators exploring how banks could hold crypto assets - FDIC chairman

A top U.S. bank regulator said U.S. officials are looking to provide a clearer path for banks and their clients that are looking to hold cryptocurrencies, in order to keep control over the fast-developing asset.

www.reuters.com

That could include clearer rules over holding cryptocurrency in custody to facilitate client trading, using them as collateral for loans, or even holding them on their balance sheets like more traditional assets.

https://markets.businessinsider.com...s--says-blockchain-is-more-important-10829640

Additionally, Solomon adds that bitcoin is not the key thing in this scenario. Rather the focus should be on how blockchain can aid in accelerating digitalization in the financial services sector.

Once big boys secured enough BTC and other cryptos (while telling everyone else not to invest in it) they can start talking about "accepting" crypto.

 

[Bomby569]

U.S. regulators exploring how banks could hold crypto assets - FDIC chairman

A top U.S. bank regulator said U.S. officials are looking to provide a clearer path for banks and their clients that are looking to hold cryptocurrencies, in order to keep control over the fast-developing asset.

www.reuters.com

https://markets.businessinsider.com...s--says-blockchain-is-more-important-10829640

Once big boys secured enough BTC and other cryptos (while telling everyone else not to invest in it) they can start talking about "accepting" crypto.

Banks are heavily controled since the 2008 disaster (at least in Europe), they would have problems dealing with that much volatility in their balance sheets. They could hold a small percentage but nothing major, or they get a bad trimester and they would be in the red not fulfilling all the capital requirement

 

[Outback Bronze]

All current crypto will become worthless.

This is why its worth something in its current state. The bank/governments cant take my BTC as its not issued by them. It also has value because of its so called decentralized nature.

But I must admit if they start shutting down miners like they're doing in China then who knows...

 

[KLiKzg]

U.S. regulators exploring how banks could hold crypto assets - FDIC chairman

A top U.S. bank regulator said U.S. officials are looking to provide a clearer path for banks and their clients that are looking to hold cryptocurrencies, in order to keep control over the fast-developing asset.

www.reuters.com

https://markets.businessinsider.com...s--says-blockchain-is-more-important-10829640

Once big boys secured enough BTC and other cryptos (while telling everyone else not to invest in it) they can start talking about "accepting" crypto.

This would be "the acceptance" of the coins & drive their value up.

& there is a possibility of getting too much equity in the coins, to drive the market by the banks.

Interesting possibilities.

 

[RandallFlagg]

a totalitarian dream.. based on the principle that those being governed will have all their freedoms taken away by those doing the governing if allowed to..

all tied in with a social contract that rewards obedient citizens and punishes bad ones.. you will own nothing and be happy.. he he..

maybe.. but i wont be around to see it..

i vote A but B is a possibility..

trog

Well, we very nearly had a comptroller of the currency who wrote a paper advocating elimination of private banks, all deposits held in the Federal Reserve, and the use of a national cryptocurrency. Ten years ago I would have laughed at such an openly autocratic and totalitarian tool being implemented and handed to the government, but many support these ideas today. It will come to pass I'm sure, as you say I hope I'm not around to see it.

 

[R-T-B]

Quck temp-of-the-room check: Who thinks crypto is:

a) Long-term viable in one of its currently existing forms,
b) Here to stay, but will be implemented via some method that hasn't shown up yet,
c) An inadvertent pyramid scheme that's just waiting to collapse,
d) Some combo of the above,
e) A different take that's not easily summarized in a multiple-choice poll

This might seem like trolling or flame bait, but it's not intended to be. I think there's room left for good discussion, and it's gotten quiet in here. Personally, I land on a combo of b) and c), firmly believing that the OG crypto designers were trying to solve a social problem, not realizing the mess it would become along the way. But the way things stand, it sure doesn't seem like existing crypto has much of a chance of doing what it set out to do. It's sometimes used as actual currency, but seems more/most often employed as an investment vehicle or GRQ scheme. With the multiplication of currencies and all of the other stuff around all of this; it's hard to convince myself that it'll resolve in any sane fashion. The point I'm most skeptical on is that even if crypto makes it, what exactly is it going to solve? Say we someday track values of [ARBITRARY THING] in BTC instead of USD. Even if the money supply is fixed (as in "limited", not "repaired"), it doesn't materially change how commerce works or who has money, which in the end is simply a representation of value anyway with no intrinsic value in and of itself.

Please note that I'm a skeptic in general. I don't necessarily have any conceptual beef with the structure or tech behind crypto, but would love it if the graphics card market could normalize...

EDIT: spelling/grammar

ab. The versions that exist are here to stay, but will likely be scaled down. Crypto itself is going to change big though.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Another user brought the following to my attention;

North Korean hackers stole nearly $400 million in crypto last year

“Banner year” thanks to skyrocketing cryptocurrency values, vulnerable startups.

arstechnica.com

And wow!

 

[80-watt Hamster]

So: the recent news about Intel producing a mining ASIC got my brain mulling crypto as a whole again. Crypto depends on large amounts of compute, currently distributed compute. There's lots available right now because there's still (some) growth/profit potential for participating in the system, which generally means mining. So, when difficulty gets too high, when and if value stabilizes and the profit to be gained by participating in the compute pool vanishes and the participants along with it, AND a given currency gains acceptance as a currency and not an investment vehicle, where does the computation for chain maintenance come from? Do participants get a cut of transaction fees? If so, is it reasonable to expect that will offset the operating cost to the operator?

This question largely pertains to decentralized crypto. A state-sponsored currency would necessarily have a differently-configured back-end (I'd presume, anyway).

 

[Vayra86]

So: the recent news about Intel producing a mining ASIC got my brain mulling crypto as a whole again. Crypto depends on large amounts of compute, currently distributed compute. There's lots available right now because there's still (some) growth/profit potential for participating in the system, which generally means mining. So, when difficulty gets too high, when and if value stabilizes and the profit to be gained by participating in the compute pool vanishes and the participants along with it, AND a given currency gains acceptance as a currency and not an investment vehicle, where does the computation for chain maintenance come from? Do participants get a cut of transaction fees? If so, is it reasonable to expect that will offset the operating cost to the operator?

This question largely pertains to decentralized crypto. A state-sponsored currency would necessarily have a differently-configured back-end (I'd presume, anyway).

Proof of Stake covers that problem by giving compute pool a 'stake' in the transaction management. So quite literally you chip in to maintain the system and you get compensated for it. The amount of grunt will determine the speed of transactions and therefore allow larger stakes. Stake price can increase/decrease (dynamically) to save a network, but its likely transaction cost will rise along with it, etc etc etc. It seems like a workable system, but its going to fight against banks doing their transactions for X cost when and if it finally gets there. And, coins are going to compete with one another too. Consolidation however seems very likely because we want control and reliability over transactions.

At that point its going to likely evolve (devolve?) into a typical commercial affair: who can deliver the service that is demanded at the lowest price and what are the conditions that make up that price.

Looking at banking the last decades, they've come to cost us a lot more over time while they don't offer more in any way shape or form. This is strange, and this is the breathing room crypto might take advantage of to gain leverage over fiat/centralized. A big part of that cost increase in 'using banks' as societies is related to security, which is precisely a problem crypto says it could fix rather effectively.

Thats the optimistic scenario

 

[80-watt Hamster]

Proof of Stake covers that problem by giving compute pool a 'stake' in the transaction management. So quite literally you chip in to maintain the system and you get compensated for it. The amount of grunt will determine the speed of transactions and therefore allow larger stakes. Stake price can increase/decrease (dynamically) to save a network, but its likely transaction cost will rise along with it, etc etc etc. It seems like a workable system, but its going to fight against banks doing their transactions for X cost when and if it finally gets there. And, coins are going to compete with one another too. Consolidation however seems very likely because we want control and reliability over transactions.

At that point its going to likely evolve (devolve?) into a typical commercial affair: who can deliver the service that is demanded at the lowest price and what are the conditions that make up that price.

Looking at banking the last decades, they've come to cost us a lot more over time while they don't offer more in any way shape or form. This is strange, and this is the breathing room crypto might take advantage of to gain leverage over fiat/centralized. A big part of that cost increase in 'using banks' as societies is related to security, which is precisely a problem crypto says it could fix rather effectively.

Thats the optimistic scenario

Yeah, optimism seems to be the key factor here. Wish I could get my bookmarking act together, because somebody around here posted a link to a rather extensive editorial largely built around the Byzantine general problem, and why NFTs and crypto haven't solved and can't solve it. The gist I got was once you're on proof of stake, an entity that can manage a majority stake has an opportunity to compromise the chain. Now, this is extremely difficult to do by design, but supposedly not impossible as claimed. The final thesis seemed to be that blockchain ownership is still ultimately based on trust in the system, which is fundamentally not different than where we're at now.