tommers
It was... Rebekah Vardy's account
Not dogecoin?!? How?!?
Bitcoin discussion and news
- Thread starter camouflage
- Start date
gosub
~#
Nah, people borrowed money to buy in at higher levels than it is now...if you are still holding you aint going a fresh influx of naive suckers to push up demandYes and no. If it had produced a bubble of fictitious capital over the last two years equal to thousands of percent, I might not yet call it a crash. Also, the stock market does represent things with actual value.
In that reverse bubble graph, I'd say we're back one frame to the bloke in the balloon, not yet back to the bloke holding the balloon. He's losing height daily, though.
joustmaster
offcumdun
Maybe.
They system will still work though. And the difficulty will decrease. Although I'd love to see LBJ's prediction happen.
It does open up an exciting possibility of hijacking the chain by having a a large percentage of nodes, though.
I have heard a lot about cryptocurrency for last few years excepially after Bitcoin price increasing so decided to invest some money in crypo too. After a while of searching I found MY BIG BOTTOM and it quite reliable service to start with.
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
Yossarian
Get thee behind me, Santa
I decided to hide some money in a hole in the wall instead - about two-thirds of it was eaten by mice, but I'm still a lot better off than I would have been if I'd put it in cryptocurrencies.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
How much money? We may have a case of getting a cat to provide a decent RoI..
keybored
Well done. You remember cat good.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Total crypto market capitalisation fictitious capital bubble: $100bn, down from $800bn at the start of the year
"Fair value" lol
Use value is still what it always was - minimal: drug dealers and other people with mostly nefarious motives included in 2,000-odd transactions per 10 minutes.
Meanwhile, the rest of the cryptos are nearly all under 10% peak value, including bitcoin cash, which was touted as an extension to bitcoin's pitifully limited use value and has collapsed from $70bn fictitious capital to under $1.5bn. My guess is that the first crypto to totally go under won't be bitcoin but something else, and it could happen pretty soon.
"Fair value" lol
Use value is still what it always was - minimal: drug dealers and other people with mostly nefarious motives included in 2,000-odd transactions per 10 minutes.
Meanwhile, the rest of the cryptos are nearly all under 10% peak value, including bitcoin cash, which was touted as an extension to bitcoin's pitifully limited use value and has collapsed from $70bn fictitious capital to under $1.5bn. My guess is that the first crypto to totally go under won't be bitcoin but something else, and it could happen pretty soon.
not-bono-ever
meh
I recall speaking to someone who was caught up in the bubble a year or two ago and - limited practical uses aside- I was trying to argue that anything with a base premise of fear is unlikely to be a smart choice. FOMO was the impetus at the time for his enthusiasm. He is now doggedly holding onto a net loss of about 50k.
not-bono-ever
meh
Booming prices- market is right
Falling prices - market is wrong
Yossarian
Get thee behind me, Santa
mauvais
on reddit or something
19sixtysix
Life as viewed from a Gay Gorbals Garret
joustmaster
offcumdun
That's hilarious
I can just imagine someone sat there trying every password they can think of.
I can just imagine someone sat there trying every password they can think of.
joustmaster
offcumdun
I still get the occasional email from Japanese lawyers about the MTGOX exchange.
Graymalkin
Ironclad Activist
Was going to post this myself. A currency and system of exchange based on mistrust... even of ones own spouse, or safety deposit boxes, wills or any kind of legal backups apparently. If it had been a scam it would be funny enough, but the sheer stupidity if this....
newbie
undisambiguated
Even if all the cryptocurrencies collapse there's still the rest of the blockchain ecosystem. I'm afraid that, despite a fair amount of reading, I'm still unable to really determine whether the energy required for cryptocurrency transactions is necessarily a fundamental of all blockchain technology.
AIUI for complete security proof-of-work transactions are required, which means substantial cryptographic effort, but that does not necessarily mean miners competing to solve the same block, although if they don't then speed of solution becomes a significant issue.
As has been said on this thread many times, Bitcoin etc don't have a significant use case. But there are potentially really compelling use cases elsewhere which could come to rely on the security and traceability of blockchain transactions. This recent article discusses its use in the $40billion insurance fraud industry (without mentioning energy requirements). This group is bullish about their plans to use it authenticate digital identity: they're partnering with big corporations so clearly somebody is taking them seriously. The sheer number of daily transactions these uses imply could dwarf cryptocurrencies, even before they really take off.
These are realworld issues, for which solutions will be sought. As Bitcoin goes the way of the tulips, are the miners simply going to redirect their enormous power usage?
AIUI for complete security proof-of-work transactions are required, which means substantial cryptographic effort, but that does not necessarily mean miners competing to solve the same block, although if they don't then speed of solution becomes a significant issue.
As has been said on this thread many times, Bitcoin etc don't have a significant use case. But there are potentially really compelling use cases elsewhere which could come to rely on the security and traceability of blockchain transactions. This recent article discusses its use in the $40billion insurance fraud industry (without mentioning energy requirements). This group is bullish about their plans to use it authenticate digital identity: they're partnering with big corporations so clearly somebody is taking them seriously. The sheer number of daily transactions these uses imply could dwarf cryptocurrencies, even before they really take off.
These are realworld issues, for which solutions will be sought. As Bitcoin goes the way of the tulips, are the miners simply going to redirect their enormous power usage?
newbie
undisambiguated
yes, but is every p-o-w blockchain transaction necessarily as carbon expensive at each Bitcoin transaction?
< that's my question, the rest is a bit of a ramble about why I'm asking it>
If it is then despite meeting some or all of the 100% foolproof security requirements the blockchain cannot possibly scale to all 7 billion of us. That includes the ability to own, authenticate, verify, update and interrogate digital identity with differing read/write authorisations and an immutable audit train for all activity. Is there any other technology that provides that 100% reliability? We're assured the blockchain does.
We (well, I) don't know how many of those Visa transactions are, or could be, mathematically wrong, ambiguous or have been fraudulently manipulated, though we do know the overall system does not meet that 100% threshold. Visa transactions that go wrong amount to just a bit more bank fraud brushed away by higher charges to cover the overhead.
At the moment there is no worldwide, common system to prove identity, yet the consequences of either an inability to do so, or an ambiguity in the results, are potentially lifechanging- that's one of the underlying features of the Windrush saga
todays news
Proving one bit of identity isn't sufficient to prove all of it and to access everything that comes with provable identity. Not now, not in 2019. Ask the people turning up on a beach in a rubber boat with or without papers trying to prove identity to claim asylum.
No-one can design a future system that is not demonstrably 100% mathematically reliable, but equally no-one can design a system that eats all the energy the world can generate.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
If you limit membership of the network to trusted actors, then you can prevent any one of them taking over the network. But then you're just left with a secure means of recording transactions, which is a solved problem, several times over.
Scorn:
Fire (and lots of it): Berkeley researcher on the only way to fix cryptocurrency
Scorn:
Fire (and lots of it): Berkeley researcher on the only way to fix cryptocurrency
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yes, that's my understanding. Blockchain tech has a use, but it's not as any form of currency.
newbie
undisambiguated
if that is true the blockchain has plenty of future in the realm of digital identity. If.
Only trusted nodes could or would have write capability to generate or update a digital record. Of course. No legally enforceable identity record can have any possibility of anonymous or un-trusted updating.
That's essentially how it works now, albeit piecemeal, inefficient and without an accessible (to the data subject) and immutable audit trail. For example only DVLA can update the points on a driving license record, only the subject (plus the police and other 'trusted' actors) can view all of it but others, who are not necessarily trusted, can be authenticated to view those points and some other parts of the record. There is an audit trail for access to medical records but the data subject doesn't have the ability to see who has accessed them. And so on, current identity procedures aren't really fit for purpose, not any more, but an old style central database, like the National Identity Register they scrapped a decade ago couldn't possibly meet privacy or security requirements.
joustmaster
offcumdun
joustmaster
offcumdun
That like driving 15 miles?
You'd have to be driving pretty slow for it to take over 4 hours to drive 15 miles.
London
Similar threads
