61–70 of 158 posts
The way I understand bitcoins might be flawed but would certainly appreciate clarification ... My problem with bit coins is that early people who start mining have a greater advantage than later ones. While that's not the classic definition of a Ponzi scheme (in the classic definition, payouts at each round are funded by new participants), it is a feature bitcoin shares with them. If someone started mining bitcoin wh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All those things are true. But I still am not seeing any points raised in the discussion here that haven't already been made in any of the countless other discussions that have already played out here on HN in the past few weeks. It's not that Bitcoin isn't new and interesting-- it is-- but that there is nothing new and interesting to say about it today that wasn't said (here) yesterday.
I didn't see any Bitcoin discussion yesterday. To be blunt, you're doing more harm than good by complaining about the discussion. For every person that cries "dupe", there are ten more who are grateful for that dupe. Dupes are a good thing.
And I'm not crying "dupe"-- it's not that people are re-posting an old article with evergreen content.
Instead, people are having the same conversation over and over again, making the same points, repeatedly. I don't think that's a good thing.
The way I understand bitcoins might be flawed but would certainly appreciate clarification ... My problem with bit coins is that early people who start mining have a greater advantage than later ones. While that's not the classic definition of a Ponzi scheme (in the classic definition, payouts at each round are funded by new participants), it is a feature bitcoin shares with them. If someone started mining bitcoin wh…
Some of the early adoptors of BitCoins have 1% of all the current BitCoins each.
The way I understand bitcoins might be flawed but would certainly appreciate clarification ... My problem with bit coins is that early people who start mining have a greater advantage than later ones. While that's not the classic definition of a Ponzi scheme (in the classic definition, payouts at each round are funded by new participants), it is a feature bitcoin shares with them. If someone started mining bitcoin wh…
The situation is not much better with inflating fiat currencies. Those who are closer to the money spigot have an advantage over those who are further way.
Isn't the waste also present even without bitcoin, too? Governments make complex laws and regulations in different industries. They do 'magic tricks' to make fiat currency appear and disappear. Banks do complex things to make a profit that largely do not correspond to creating real value for society. Competing companies do the same things, duplicating effort, mostly to make a profit. (e.g. Do we really need so many s…
It's not just the way we are, it's the way we are under capitalism.
But I agree that the wastefulness of Bitcoin is nothing compared to the waste caused by capitalism as a whole.
So, when we waste our processing power on credits generated on limited supply by the Bitcoin network, it's a waste, but when we waste our time on acquiring credits created in limited quantities by the (Central) Banks it's okay. I guess the issue here is that calculated bitcoins don't contribute anything. The grid should be used for something useful such as folding proteins or even SETI for that matter.
Any system of checks and balances will have its price. Look at what we do with gold: we dig it from a hole in Africa, we transport it in other countries, we dug holes or build vaults and throw it there. Like Warren Buffett said, it has no utility, if Martians were to look at the process they would scratch their heads. Except for the guarantee of uniqueness. Which is one of the most powerful invariants against corrupt…
Gold also is usefull in the industry and electronics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold#Industry http://www.gold.org/technology/uses/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't see any Bitcoin discussion yesterday. To be blunt, you're doing more harm than good by complaining about the discussion. For every person that cries "dupe", there are ten more who are grateful for that dupe. Dupes are a good thing.
The top story for most of the day yesterday was about Bitcoin, actually. And I'm not crying "dupe"-- it's not that people are re-posting an old article with evergreen content. Instead, people are having the same conversation over and over again, making the same points, repeatedly. I don't think that's a good thing.
As something like Bitcoin becomes more popular, people will naturally have questions and concerns. Should they search for the answer before asking? Maybe, but it doesn't really matter if they don't. People are free to downvote them for asking. But they don't, and the resulting conversation becomes interesting for those who haven't seen its variants, such as me.
You've been a member of HN almost as long as I have. Haven't you noticed the destructive effects meta-discussion has on articles? If so, why are you perpetuating it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Except for the guarantee of uniqueness. There are a few more actually: gold is one of the least putrescible materials out there (it's one of the least reactive elements available and as one of the royal metals very few acids can attack it), it has a distinctive look, and it has a very high density (most denser metals were only discovered in or after the 19th century, and are generally more valuable) which makes it…
The idea that gold has no real value is bizarre.
Gold does not have much intrinsic value (not actually correct anymore, in our modern world gold is used quite a bit in industrial contexts): apart from being shiny, before the 19th century there wasn't much it could be used for. The vast majority of its value was extrinsic and pretty much arbitrary, in its use as part of monetary exchange systems.
The same can be said of diamond, by the way.