TESLA SHOULD CANCEL THE CYBERTRUCK

[Crissa]

Actually all you need is cheap android device and an internet connection to perform p2p commerce, globally.

...and able to pay for all that and a bunch of processing power which kinda, if you have all that, why would you bother with bitcoin's lack of security?

-Crissa

Sponsored

 

[PointHope]

...and able to pay for all that and a bunch of processing power which kinda, if you have all that, why would you bother with bitcoin's lack of security?

-Crissa

Lack of security?
Are still thinking in terms of a Paul Krugman 'fax machine' feelings?

Admittedly with the rapidly changing Bitcoin demographics, it is very difficult to keep up. Especially if you're living in the USA where the corporate bankster controlled media is flooding you with a steady diet of misinformation and 'crypto-shitcoin' distractions. (I know because I've been sidetracked earlier on)

 

[Crissa]

So when I doubt the security of the transactions, you move to insult an economist by name rather than his argument?

See, this is why it's a pyramid scheme. Those invested have to stay invested until they get their payout.

-Crissa

 

[PointHope]

So when I doubt the security of the transactions, you move to insult an economist by name rather than his argument?

See, this is why it's a pyramid scheme. Those invested have to stay invested until they get their payout.

-Crissa

'Pyramids', 'bubbles', 'fax machines', dont constitute cogent argument.
Paul Krugman has a very poor history of economic analysis of emerging technology.

Your security question does not make sense. Nor does the idea of waiting for 'payouts'.

The world's largest, most powerful, globally distributed computer network is indeed substance.
As is the virtually un-hackable SHA-256 cryptography, upon which Bitcoin resides.
If you can point out where and when the Bitcoin SHA-256 has failed, I would be extremely interested.

 

[Crissa]

That's just straight up dismissal.

I didn't even mention Krugman. And an asset bubble makes that asset more difficult to use in most cases, so yes, it is an argument against using bitcoin.

-Crissa

 

[SwampNut]

Comparing bitcoin to fax sounds hilarious. I feel like I'd be dumber if I googled it though.

Fax has never been secure at all, not even a tiny amount. Bitcoin is extremely secure, if we define secure in certain ways, and not if you change the meaning of "secure."

 

[Crissa]

If you can point out where and when the Bitcoin SHA-256 has failed, I would be extremely interested.

That's like saying walls of the safe are very secure when there's another door on the other side.

-Crissa

 

[PointHope]

That's like saying walls of the safe are very secure when there's another door on the other side.

-Crissa

Exactly the reason for the globally distributed decentralized computing network doing the hashing algorithm. One point of failure cannot take down the network. There isn't just one 'safe' place..
Maybe some day quantum computing can crack SHA-256.
When or if that happens a newer more resilient algorithm will be in existence and likely implemented. The whole system is open source so cracks and flaws will show immediately, and can be fixed immediately via a group consensus. You see this happening regularly with the difficulty adjustments.

Pyramid and bubble-speak really doesn't apply.
It is very likely people like Gates, Krugman, and Charlie Munger don't understand Bitcoin.
If they do understand, they are scared, and feed the FUD farm.

 

[Crissa]

Yeah, distributed has positive effects.

But bitcoin still has a valuation problem, a security problem, an ease of point of sale problem, and an energy cost problem.

Point of sale is useless until they get the energy down, the price fluctuations down, and security that means you don't lose everything if a hard drive is stolen. And Bitcoin has no impetus to do any of those things.

You should never want to 'invest' in a cryptocurrency. By definition it should be stable in value if it's to be used as a medium of exchange.

I would rather buy and sell things in Linden dollars than any of the major cryptocurrencies. Why?

• Low cost of entry - the base coin unit is not expensive. Nor is the software to transfer it.
• Dependable - Linden is a central issuer, but it uses distributed processing and storage. It's hardware independent. It has existed for six years longer than Bitcoin.
• Low energy cost - being a central issuer, verification just needs to check an entry in a database. It doesn't have to perform extra work or duplicate that work repeatedly.
• Stable value - Issuance of new Linden Dollars is based upon current valuation of the currency. It's not pegged to the USD, but it's close. You can be sure you're getting the price you want at Point of Sale and more importantly, Time of Sale and Time of Exchange. The economy generally sits between 240-290 Lindens to the USD.

Bitcoin needs to deal with these issues it it wants to be serious.

-Crissa

 

[Ogre]

Bitcoin needs to deal with these issues it it wants to be serious.

(I know you understand this, more for others)

Fundamentally the problems with Bitcoin are *baked in*.

Fundamentally the fatal flaw of Bitcoin is the fact that it costs more in terms of energy consumed to make bitcoins each year. New hardware reduces the power needs briefly, but every time additional coins are created, the cost to create the next goes up. As the price of bitcoin goes up, people can invest more in mining hardware which burns even more power…

 

[Crissa]

I think the big problem with bitcoin is that transfer proof of work is such an overhead that it's hurting them.

That they throw away more numbers than they add at this point - they don't add coins as demand requires, but let it inflate - means more and more power is wasted on mining coins that won't be minted.

-Crissa

 

[PointHope]

I think the big problem with bitcoin is that transfer proof of work is such an overhead that it's hurting them.



-Crissa

Actually; POW which is exactly what gives bitcoin the apex value.

Centralized cryptocurrency issuances have exactly zero accountability compared to Bitcoin.
Very simple mathematics are in play here.
You don't even have to very smart in math to see what's happening.

We have an entirely new economic animal, never seen before;
pure energy accountability with mathematics.

 

[Crissa]

Actually; POW which is exactly what gives bitcoin the apex value.

Centralized cryptocurrency issuances have exactly zero accountability compared to Bitcoin.
Very simple mathematics are in play here.
You don't even have to very smart in math to see what's happening.

We have an entirely new economic animal, never seen before;
pure energy accountability with mathematics.

The concept of proof of work.

The execution, maybe not.

And it's a fallacy to say centralized systems have no accountability. They may or may not, depending on how they're built.

Just like bitcoin has too much overhead.

-Crissa

 

[PointHope]

The concept of proof of work.

The execution, maybe not.

And it's a fallacy to say centralized systems have no accountability. They may or may not, depending on how they're built.

Just like bitcoin has too much overhead.

-Crissa

Any coin with a central security vulnerability cannot compete with Bitcoin.
Energy management security/accountability/transparency is clearly the path of the future.

ETH is a prime example as we watch Vitalik Buterin co-opted by the Federal Reserve, the lords of currency manipulation/fraud.

 

[Crissa]

Any coin with a central security vulnerability cannot compete with Bitcoin.

That's a fallacy in that none of the words mean anything when assembled into that sentence.

-Crissa

Sponsored