Cryptocurrency as the next significant stage for computing technology, not just an investment

[milkface]

5 minutes ago, Amen Warrior said:

Ive managed to live for 34 years without ever needing to send money to friends in other countries, but it's good to know we might soon be able to do that for free with something that isn't actual money but still inexplicably needs to consume loads of energy to exist.

yea cus ur not an immigrant my guy

[chenGOD]

53 minutes ago, cyanobacteria said:

it sure has, but previous relations of production are irrelevant when discussing how things are now unless youre supposing we will regress some day.  my post was clearly talking about present tense

the possibility of a double spend attack happening is not a fundamental flaw but a well understood security tradeoff and inevitable occurrence.  there is a simple solution for transaction receivers - wait for more blocks to be mined before considering transactions received.  this exponentially reduces the probability of a double spend.  and in fact most popular wallets have a built in feature helping you track the number of blocks mined on top of your transaction, called the number of "confirmations".  this article not only severely overrates the severity of this incident if you understand the technical aspects at play here, but is misleading to the point where I'm surprised this dude is allowed to write articles for this website and it undermines the website's legitimacy

I was referring to the flow of money in today's economy having a specific meaning. Yours covers a small part of it. Also, banking does not rely on the foundation of the state. Again, read economic history.

This ain't an RBF, so no, it's not understating the severity of it. https://forkmonitor.info/stale/btc/666833

Also you do realize that BTC has long been adopted as just another cog in the capitalist mode of production right? Just another means of consolidating wealth in the hands of a few.

[Alcofribas]

what is the simple answer to the question: why wouldn't unjust financial inequalities replicate themselves with crypto currencies? surely this question is dumb, idk anything about it, but we already live in a world dominated by massively rich elites so why wouldn't they also dominate the cryptosphere or whatever? don't they already have the capital advantage? i literally know nothing here so i'm just looking for a simple talking point type reply i guess.

Edited January 21, 2021 by Alcofribas

[chenGOD]

7 minutes ago, Alcofribas said:

why wouldn't they also dominate the cryptosphere or whatever? don't they already have the capital advantage?

insert "always has been" meme here.

[zlemflolia]

17 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

I was referring to the flow of money in today's economy having a specific meaning. Yours covers a small part of it. Also, banking does not rely on the foundation of the state. Again, read economic history.

This ain't an RBF, so no, it's not understating the severity of it. https://forkmonitor.info/stale/btc/666833

Also you do realize that BTC has long been adopted as just another cog in the capitalist mode of production right? Just another means of consolidating wealth in the hands of a few.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-21/why-bitcoin-double-spend-story-is-being-misinterpreted

and from a reasonable authority on the bitcoin protocol, he wrote the most popular textbook on its implementation:

 

Edited January 21, 2021 by cyanobacteria

[Alcofribas]

2 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

insert "always has been" meme here.

maybe socialism is the capitalism we learned along the way

[zlemflolia]

10 minutes ago, Alcofribas said:

what is the simple answer to the question: why wouldn't unjust financial inequalities replicate themselves with crypto currencies? surely this question is dumb, idk anything about it, but we already live in a world dominated by massively rich elites so why wouldn't they also dominate the cryptosphere or whatever? don't they already have the capital advantage? i literally know nothing here so i'm just looking for a simple talking point type reply i guess.

it basically creates a new elite with satoshi (bitcoin creator) at the top.  people at the bottom still benefit and the security of the bitcoin blockchain can still be used by other more liquid transaction types built on top of it like lightning network allowing small transactions for poor people

[Alcofribas]

5 minutes ago, cyanobacteria said:

it basically creates a new elite with satoshi (bitcoin creator) at the top.  people at the bottom still benefit and the security of the bitcoin blockchain can still be used by other more liquid transaction types built on top of it like lightning network allowing small transactions for poor people

so the reason this is so revolutionary is that poor people can more "fluidly" move meagre earnings around? 

[zlemflolia]

3 minutes ago, Alcofribas said:

so the reason this is so revolutionary is that poor people can more "fluidly" move meagre earnings around? 

the reason it's revolutionary in terms of technology is because of the technologies enabled, one of which is uncensorable, near-instant, near-feeless transactions across any distances.  as well as other things like a decentralized internet and decentralized computing in general.  the financial and wealth redistribution aspects are concerning especially given the libertarian tech bro bias in the distribution of cryptos

Edited January 21, 2021 by cyanobacteria

[Alcofribas]

2 minutes ago, cyanobacteria said:

the reason it's revolutionary in terms of technology is because of the technologies enabled, one of which is uncensorable, near-instant, near-feeless transactions across any distances.  as well as other things like a decentralized internet and decentralized computing in general.  the financial and wealth redistribution aspects are concerning especially given the libertarian tech bro bias in the distribution of cryptos

i'm skeptical there is even such a thing as a technological revolution divorced from a centralized economy. how would one even utilize a decentralized internet without the existing ownership of computer control from servers to devices? like am i doing revolution inside my samsung galaxy or what?

[Amen Warrior]

29 minutes ago, milkface said:

yea cus ur not an immigrant my guy

Yea I'm sure 3rd world immigrants own most of the bitcoins and are happily sending them to eachother all over the world, and it's not just fuckwits sitting on it forever because someone on 4chan made enough actual real money out of it to move out of their childhood bedroom in 2015.

By the way I just looked up how I'd transfer actual money (not pretend money) to my pretend immigrant family, it ranges from £0-£1, so for this extremely limited use case there's still no fucking point to it

[auxien]

19 minutes ago, cyanobacteria said:

it basically creates a new elite with satoshi (bitcoin creator) at the top.  people at the bottom still benefit and the security of the bitcoin blockchain can still be used by other more liquid transaction types built on top of it like lightning network allowing small transactions for poor people

poor people love the bitcoins. all the homeless people when i would tell them hey i dont have any cash on me they'd start yelling their btc addy at me as i walked away

also 'new elite with the creator at the top' for a market that only exists if you buy into (one way or the other, you're buying into it) sure fuckin sounds like a pyramid (Ponzi) scheme to me... 

[zlemflolia]

19 minutes ago, Alcofribas said:

i'm skeptical there is even such a thing as a technological revolution divorced from a centralized economy. how would one even utilize a decentralized internet without the existing ownership of computer control from servers to devices? like am i doing revolution inside my samsung galaxy or what?

the centralized technological industry poses backdoor issues and trust issues with hardware.  that's what the Free Open Source Software (FOSS) movement, and Free Open Source Hardware as well, aims to solve.  it means anyone can produce computing hardware to specifications that are well understood and thus it removes some of the trust required in existing companies

11 minutes ago, auxien said:

poor people love the bitcoins. all the homeless people when i would tell them hey i dont have any cash on me they'd start yelling their btc addy at me as i walked away

also 'new elite with the creator at the top' for a market that only exists if you buy into (one way or the other, you're buying into it) sure fuckin sounds like a pyramid (Ponzi) scheme to me... 

it's not fully adopted yet to reach that point clearly.  and the same can be said of any finite asset then

19 minutes ago, Amen Warrior said:

Yea I'm sure 3rd world immigrants own most of the bitcoins and are happily sending them to eachother all over the world, and it's not just fuckwits sitting on it forever because someone on 4chan made enough actual real money out of it to move out of their childhood bedroom in 2015.

By the way I just looked up how I'd transfer actual money (not pretend money) to my pretend immigrant family, it ranges from £0-£1, so for this extremely limited use case there's still no fucking point to it

try sending it to a third world country without it being stolen

[Cryptowen]

in the future we will have an economy based around perceptual capital. great leaps forward in the science of advertising. total monetization of each of your sense organs & their respective capacity for absorbing information. in the future you will be renumerated not for the amount of labour you output (this will be done by robots), but rather by the quantity of advertising you are able to input. think of your senses as the sahara desert & fortnite ads as the solar panels we want to install there. think of how much surplus attention you've been wasting, dude. we're gonna make a lotta money heisenberg. bigger ears = fatter stacks. i'm already making a cool mint by keeping the kero kero bonito shrimp song running on loop in multiple tabs each night while i sleep

[chenGOD]

1 hour ago, cyanobacteria said:

once it's developed sufficiently it will allow us to send money to friends in other countries which typically have high remittance fees, practically for free.  of course nobody in the first world cares about things like this

We can already do this domestically in Canada for free (INTERAC). The people who care about sending money internationally almost exclusively live in developed countries, as remittances are to developing countries. Also, M-Pesa exists. As do a bunch of other innovations in the FinTech world that allow for easy, secure money transactions, where you don't have to wait around for confirmations, and you have retail banking services as well (so fraud protection for example).

[auxien]

33 minutes ago, cyanobacteria said:

and the same can be said of any finite asset then

that is correct, and that is a large part of my point.

the difference is that current society has to exist on some kind of monetary system, and the one we've all bought into (the dollar, euro, yen, whatever) is essentially inescapable and is still ruling over the btc and all other cryptos and bitcoin/etc as of yet does not provide any exit strategy, even if they were to take over somehow (which won't happen). you're replacing one shitbag for a different shitbag. getting out of Amway doesn't count if you go right into Herbalife because it's 'new and better! the gains are way easier!' ...it's the same scam.

the current monetary systems tied together worldwide that we're all a part of are at least so widely distributed and heavily regulated by one another that there's some amount of safety in numbers/checks & balance. they're all fucking bullshit and evil. btc is the same. all the real money barons are starting to dig in on it and get it regulated and forcing it to conform to their rules in the best ways they can, and if they ultimately can't get it under their thumbs (or once it stops being profitable for a major crash/etc) then they'll kill it via regulatory pushes worldwide.... it's only still around because they're trying to beat it into submission. if that ain't work, they'll kill it. 

Spoiler

anyway buy my new album

 

Edited January 21, 2021 by auxien

[hijexx]

WEF and IMF are going to make it more difficult to use these things. Enjoy it while it lasts.

[zlemflolia]

29 minutes ago, auxien said:

that is correct, and that is a large part of my point.

the difference is that current society has to exist on some kind of monetary system, and the one we've all bought into (the dollar, euro, yen, whatever) is essentially inescapable and is still ruling over the btc and all other cryptos and bitcoin/etc as of yet does not provide any exit strategy, even if they were to take over somehow (which won't happen). you're replacing one shitbag for a different shitbag. getting out of Amway doesn't count if you go right into Herbalife because it's 'new and better! the gains are way easier!' ...it's the same scam.

the current monetary systems tied together worldwide that we're all a part of are at least so widely distributed and heavily regulated by one another that there's some amount of safety in numbers/checks & balance. they're all fucking bullshit and evil. btc is the same. all the real money barons are starting to dig in on it and get it regulated and forcing it to conform to their rules in the best ways they can, and if they ultimately can't get it under their thumbs (or once it stops being profitable for a major crash/etc) then they'll kill it via regulatory pushes worldwide.... it's only still around because they're trying to beat it into submission. if that ain't work, they'll kill it. 

  Hide contents

anyway buy my new album

 

you dont need to rant at me about how money is evil and how it should be abolished comrade

bitcoin is better money than state issued fiat currencies though

40 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

We can already do this domestically in Canada for free (INTERAC). The people who care about sending money internationally almost exclusively live in developed countries, as remittances are to developing countries. Also, M-Pesa exists. As do a bunch of other innovations in the FinTech world that allow for easy, secure money transactions, where you don't have to wait around for confirmations, and you have retail banking services as well (so fraud protection for example).

M-Pesa is a centralized currency technology completely controlled by the M-Pesa company whatever it's called.  These aren't innovations they're just private fiat currencies.  It's no wonder they can get widespread adoption quickly.  They're still inferior.

[zlemflolia]

6 minutes ago, hijexx said:

WEF and IMF are going to make it more difficult to use these things. Enjoy it while it lasts.

yes the state will of course oppress technologies that interfere with its power.  they cant prevent bitcoin miners from migrating to tor for chain updates and transaction writers from doing the same.  they cant prevent tor traffic being steganographically encoded in video traffic or what have you.  they are powerless and it would require massive repression to stop cryptocurrencies.  they can at best isolate them away from existing banking systems, but many people aware of crypto have already started migrating part of their portfolio off those - that's literally the whole point.

[chenGOD]

1 hour ago, cyanobacteria said:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-21/why-bitcoin-double-spend-story-is-being-misinterpreted

and from a reasonable authority on the bitcoin protocol, he wrote the most popular textbook on its implementation:

 

The bloomberg article basically says that "it hasn't crashed yet because if investors believed that it was hackable, it would plummet to zero". Given the number of investors who a) don't understand bitcoin or crypto, and b) are desperate to see their investments not go up in smoke, it makes sense that they will try to prop it up.

I'm surprised (not really, he's a BTC maximalist) that Antonopoulos doesn't acknowledge that the double-spend happened on the longest chain.

I do like how you're now citing articles from one of the leading voices of capitalism and neo-liberalism though (bloomberg), as well as shilling for a new global elite like the Winklevoss twins (they bought $11 million worth of BTC in 2013) and former Goldman Sachs traders (one of the co-owners of Coinbase, along with a guy who helped create Airbnb).

In the end though, this will all be moot, as central banks increasingly develop their own digital currencies.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/central-bank-digital-currency-a-literature-review-20201109.htm

https://www.americanbanker.com/podcast/a-fed-digital-currency-looks-inevitable-so-do-the-problems

https://www.bis.org/press/p201009.htm

https://thefinanser.com/2020/10/or-will-cbdcs-will-destroy-banking.html/

 

[chenGOD]

7 minutes ago, cyanobacteria said:

you dont need to rant at me about how money is evil and how it should be abolished comrade

bitcoin is better money than state issued fiat currencies though

M-Pesa is a centralized currency technology completely controlled by the M-Pesa company whatever it's called.  These aren't innovations they're just private fiat currencies.  It's no wonder they can get widespread adoption quickly.  They're still inferior.

Lol when you transfer money digitally over INTERAC, M-pesa, Alipay etc. it happens instantly. No waiting around for 3 confirmations (which, if BTC doesn't solve the scaling problem, will only get worse if more people end up using it - and no, LN is not a solution), and if you're defrauded, the possibility exists of getting your money back (banks don't like to be victims of fraud, it makes them look bad). You have no possibility of that happening with BTC.

I can't wait until you start quoting libertarian economists. It may come sooner than I initially thought!

[zlemflolia]

9 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

The bloomberg article basically says that "it hasn't crashed yet because if investors believed that it was hackable, it would plummet to zero". Given the number of investors who a) don't understand bitcoin or crypto, and b) are desperate to see their investments not go up in smoke, it makes sense that they will try to prop it up.

I'm surprised (not really, he's a BTC maximalist) that Antonopoulos doesn't acknowledge that the double-spend happened on the longest chain.

I do like how you're now citing articles from one of the leading voices of capitalism and neo-liberalism though (bloomberg), as well as shilling for a new global elite like the Winklevoss twins (they bought $11 million worth of BTC in 2013) and former Goldman Sachs traders (one of the co-owners of Coinbase, along with a guy who helped create Airbnb).

In the end though, this will all be moot, as central banks increasingly develop their own digital currencies.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/central-bank-digital-currency-a-literature-review-20201109.htm

https://www.americanbanker.com/podcast/a-fed-digital-currency-looks-inevitable-so-do-the-problems

https://www.bis.org/press/p201009.htm

https://thefinanser.com/2020/10/or-will-cbdcs-will-destroy-banking.html/

 

give me more information on what you're talking about, I'm seeing zero sources say that there are two spends from the same address committed to the same chain, this would indicate a bug in all mining software given that it doesn't follow consensus rules, and an increase in the total bitcoin supply.  it would be a serious issue, (though it would be good that this happened because it lets the bug get found) but I'm not seeing any legitimate sources claiming this at all.

from what I've read of your sources this is a double spend because of a forked parallel chain which for a small time period meant there was a double spend, but which was made obsolete when that forked chain with lower accumulated PoW was ignored by the majority of miners' software due to it being a mining dead-end and a loss of profit.  He may be a BTC maximalist but he also understands the technology and isn't a liar.  anyone who understands PoW understands that this happens regularly

and im not shilling anyone merely by linking it.  are you shilling cointelegraph and every link you posted?  the articles are regarding an event that either happened or didn't happened, not the neoliberal ideology.  your arms must be sore from all that reaching

central bank digital currencies will not be decentralized cryptocurrencies

5 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

Lol when you transfer money digitally over INTERAC, M-pesa, Alipay etc. it happens instantly. No waiting around for 3 confirmations (which, if BTC doesn't solve the scaling problem, will only get worse if more people end up using it - and no, LN is not a solution), and if you're defrauded, the possibility exists of getting your money back (banks don't like to be victims of fraud, it makes them look bad). You have no possibility of that happening with BTC.

I can't wait until you start quoting libertarian economists. It may come sooner than I initially thought!

if you're scammed you get your money back unless the state or those companies decide they don't want to give you it.  implementing centralized digital currencies is trivial.  if you prefer them fine, but they are competing with superior technologies.  this is getting really tedious, and I am not a libertarian but would only quote one if they said something true which I'm sure they occasionally do

and when you "own" currently inside these centralized digital fiat technologies, you only "own" it as long as the people running it don't decide to literally just edit a few bytes in their database to all of a sudden say that you don't own it anymore.  hilarious that you'd shill such garbage technologies and somehow be not self aware of the fact that they're inferior in every single way except current adoption rates.  if bitcoin suffered an issue where small groups of people could just delete your money you'd be pointing it out

Edited January 21, 2021 by cyanobacteria

[zero]

2 hours ago, Alcofribas said:

i literally know nothing here so i'm just looking for a simple talking point type reply i guess.

I literally tried that approach 3 pages back and got nowhere. good luck bruv

[chenGOD]

1 minute ago, cyanobacteria said:

central bank digital currencies will not be decentralized cryptocurrencies

No, but they will make mainstream adoption of crypto obsolete.

Your shilling happened upthread with your statement of crypto creating a new elite, and yet you still consider it a viable means of coordinating global economies. If anything, crypto (especially BTC with its limited supply) will create an even smaller group of elite, with satoshi the king of them all (if his wallet ever starts to move coins, it will be interesting to see what happens to the price of BTC).

BTC down 21% on the 7 day average and those are some big red candles on the charts.

 

 

[zlemflolia]

7 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

No, but they will make mainstream adoption of crypto obsolete.

Your shilling happened upthread with your statement of crypto creating a new elite, and yet you still consider it a viable means of coordinating global economies. If anything, crypto (especially BTC with its limited supply) will create an even smaller group of elite, with satoshi the king of them all (if his wallet ever starts to move coins, it will be interesting to see what happens to the price of BTC).

BTC down 21% on the 7 day average and those are some big red candles on the charts.

 

 

Obsolete?  Centralized fiat currencies do NOT match the most unique use-cases of decentralized cryptocurrency for monetary purposes, let alone technological purposes.  My statement that it will create a new elite is merely a statement of fact if crypto gains mainstream adoption.  I'm literally a communist who wants money abolished through obsolescence including crypto so don't inject your own feelings onto my statements of fact.  BTC just went up a ton, it's pretty unsurprising that it went down afterwords

13 minutes ago, zero said:

I literally tried that approach 3 pages back and got nowhere. good luck bruv

i don't know what info is missing.  tell me what it is you guys don't understand and I can add it to the OP