Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 335. (Read 2032265 times)

This can not work economically. What can, work, and what they can gravitate into, is a market for services between the devices, for instance payment for wifi as a first attempt, but other markets can be discovered.

I want to expand on this a bit.

Consider the modus operandi of David Johnston's Bitangels/Mastercoin mafia.

They rope in mostly young and inexperienced developers via their hackathons that promise (contracts worth up to) large sums of money, then make sure any vaguely interesting idea that emerges gets bolted on to a otherwise-useless appcoin.

They then spend a considerable amount of time promoting the resulting pump and dump. After all possible value has been extracted from the idea they simply move on like a plague of locusts to the next idea. (when was the last time you heard a progress update from APICoin?)

This process generates a large number of accomplices of varying degrees of culpability:

• The developers who get pulled into the system now have their reputations invested in the viability of the appcoin, not to mention the sunk costs of spending so much time on the projects
• The aspiring Bitcoin journalists who helped to promote the appcoins and who accepted advertisement money don't want to admit they participated in something shady without doing any due diligence
• The conference organizers who accepted money from the appcoin project don't want to admit that there are too many Bitcoin conferences to only accept clean money
• The people who bought into the IPO and didn't get out soon enough don't want to admit their money is gone
• The businesses who court outside investment know that some of the investors can't tell the difference between legitimate opportunities and P&D scams, and that many of the investors they court get involved in some of those schemes. They don't want the investors to become spooked and leave the space entirely.

I know of at least two different employees of Bitcoin companies who were required to censor their personal social media accounts on pain of termination because they were being publicly critical of scammy startups. In both cases, their employers cited common investors between the two companies as the reason why criticism could not be allowed.

I also heard one episode of a popular Bitcoin podcast where one of the hosts expressed some regret for accepting work from a project that turned out to be a scam and both other hosts immediately leaped into action to stop her attempt to assume some accountability (lest her example illuminate their lack of assuming similar accountability, presumably).

These bad ideas spread like viruses, and it's increasingly difficult to find somebody who isn't infected to some degree or another.

It certainly will for some of these devices. A portable room heater being one example. That is absolutely 100% efficiency. There is nowhere else for the heat to go. In most of the others the device can be designed in such a way that the efficiency approaches or reaches 100%. For example, in the case of a hair dryer you can put the mining chip at the air intake before the coils and reduce the power to the coils by the same amount. You get the same output as before. Clothes dryer, etc. is quite similar.

On the mobile/IoT side I think they are looking more at the distribution aspect and less at the efficiency of mining being significant.

EDIT: okay sure, there are RF emissions, and the deliberate power output for WiFi or mobile, but that is negligible compared to even 10 W of actual mining power. There is still no question this far exceeds the efficiency of dedicated mining.

The efficiency isn't going to be perfect because the nature of the heat may not be fully fungible with the original source of the heat in such devices.

Phone absolutely not.

Thus (unless they don't really expect to scale this into mobile phones) I think it is more of a play on the fact that small changes in electricity bill are uncorrelated in the minds of the users.

People in the developing world have no concept of what makes their electricity bill change every month. They will ignorantly feel they are getting something for free, when in fact they are being enslaved yet again. These banksters are very clever.

Absolutely yes. Phone, maybe not. That's more of monetization play, and a long shot on creating a distribution vehicle for micro-BTC that could be used for micro-payments.

But for any device that produces heat (toaster, portable heater, hair dryer, clothes dryer, towel warmer, dishwasher dry cycle, etc.), the efficiency of mining is infinite.

I think you are misunderstanding the paradigm being used now is a slowburn. By the time the frogs realize they are boiling, they are already dead.


Apparently they are doing it already. And I don't see any civil war. How do you explain this discrepancy?

I don't understand why you are angry at me when I am doing everything I can think of to devise a technological and marketing coup to this battle which is nearly lost for certain.


Or they have the means and have strategically decided to store it all up now and begin the war in a few years from now when their timing is ripe, so as to prevent premature adoption and network effects development of technological counter measures.

OPEC observed that raising oil prices led to increase conservation and efficiencies. Markets do react. TPTB are surely aware they must maximize the concentration of their collapse and war.


Why does it bother you that I want to want fight technologically and marketing-wise to attempt to provide a frontier for more people versus what I perceive to be their plans, strengths, and weaknesses. I am playing chess. What is wrong with that?


The majority are not going to forsake the government. Thus you give up? I refuse to give up and instead hope that with a technological solution, a segment of the population can be emboldened to resist the will of the majority.

This is exactly what I am asking about
'Contributing their electricity' seems a polite way of phrasing it

Whilst the cost of running any electrical device ought to fall over time, any device with embedded mining will be relatively more expensive to run and less efficient, no ?

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/05/18/bitcoin-startup-21-unveils-product-plan-embeddable-mining-chips/?mod=rss_Technology




The plan is to have users pay for their phones and/or services by contributing their electricity. This is a way embedding usury into the masses' digital life. And it is a way of implementing the 666 system. Larry Summers who is leading the way towards a cashless, NWO is onboard.

Smooth, as I told you we are losing network effects race. You all over at Monero need stop fucking around with delusion about complacency and get serious.

It is irrelevant.

They do not gain the popular acceptance to collect information and enforce stuff based on it on such a high level without a civil war. And if you are not careful, they will round you up in the early stage, just as they did in Russia starting 1917 (see, 100 years!). So they either have the technology but not the means to legally use it against you, and you are safe. Or there is a war and you are dead. Or you move away and don't care shit.

Sorry to bother the other readers but it really gets on my nerves that an intelligent guy bothers himself with the government so much. It is their job to bother you, not yours to bother yourself with them.

The battle is not technical (although it helps). If the aim is that people forsake government, it is accomplished by forsaking government, not by developing stuff while caring about government.

Ok, perhaps you can help me understand, as I am really stuck on this one. Is it possible for a toaster/phone + mining chip to be as/more efficient than the best ASIC's on the market, and if it is not, how can this be a cost-efficient way to mine? I get that the network effect of so many devices mining would be hugely beneficial for BTC, and the 'free BTC' could be a PR/adoption coup, but is there a 'sleight of hand' going on here? Will consumers be receiving what they perceive as 'free BTC' through their toasters or phones, but in reality end up paying more than the market rate for BTC due to the higher electricity costs of running/charging these devices? Surely a toaster-miner has to be more expensive to use than a regular toaster, even if only at the margin, where it is not noticed as a small increase in the electricity bill.
In a market economy the most cost-efficient mining ought to win out, but this seems like a possible (intentional) way to 'distort' that.
Apologies if I am missing something completely obvious

EDIT: Also, as I understand it, a percentage of these mined morsels will go directly to 21Inc, making them yet more expensive for Joe Public.
It almost seems like a legal mining bot-net

If I recall correctly, the Bitcoin dev team was really excited about Zerocoin, until they saw that computational overhead which rightfully scared them away.

Now a zerocoin sidechain that is merged mined with Bitcoin and only lives off of it's own transaction fees, would enable people to fully clean any coin they have for a modest fee.

But my point was that if the IP is the same (or different IP correlated to the same individual) for transaction that created outputs and that spends any of those outputs (without needing to know which is the change), then analysis can presume the output(s) being spent in the ring are those which match the correlated IP address.

Note I am presuming the NSA can obtain the records from your ISP to ascertain it was you on shared IP address and not another user of the same ISP.

Yes, you are right. I was wrong with my claim I can compute Monero private key. -> I'm not so good :-) ... nevermind.

I'll be sure to make a small hedge in Zerocoin too and I'll be using my Bitcoins not Moneroj, there is clearly of pattern of innovation to legacy that Monero will skip even with Zerocoin because of its optionally transparent features

edit: first I'll have to be relatively sure zercoin/zerocash is not a scam and no one can create infinite coins like said before.

http://zerocash-project.org

https://github.com/scipr-lab/libsnark

http://www.scipr-lab.org/

rpietila I wasn't phrasing it as "you are wrong". I was wondering what the natural synergy is. Perhaps gamers are rebellious enough by nature. My son is a game aholic  and he doesn't seem to be phased by anything. He does exactly what he damn pleases, including refusing to get a job or go see the sunshine (sounds like somebody I know around my age except the refusing to hold a job part although my job is like a game to me). Surely he is not your demographic though as he doesn't have $100.

i2p is somewhat better because of what they call garlic routing where multiple separate messages are deliberately combined to frustrate timing/traffic attacks. I don't know of a careful analysis of how effective that is, but at least they try.

Well, I don't want to go deeper here (people in general rightfully feel that CK has very little to do with gold collapsing - especially as CKgold is doing well - sorry I had to..), so let's stop this topic please.

There is no fighting the government here: I told about the shit - if you fight it, your hand gets dirty. If you ignore it and continue walking, it wears off gradually.

Gamers are just people, and it's just normal to prefer keeping stuff to you. Also we have to remember that CK is not a standalone business idea, it was purposefully designed to increase and strengthen Monero economy and adoption, so they cannot be separated. Most games also are not valued at $5k per player. So yes there is something special in CK, which I am not telling you here. Thank you for interest, and welcome to join  

It does hide every new address (in the sense that it is just a random number), and the change is blinded just like any other payee. You can't tell by monitoring at the network level which outputs are change and which are not. You also can't tell by monitoring at the network level which outputs are being spent, so you can't ever be sure that change is being spent.

Wallets do have to be careful how they select coins to avoid skewing probabilities. The best is probably to spend a change output by itself without combining with other outputs (this could be spent back to yourself, but at that point it no longer can be identified as change). It's probably still okay to spend it with other outputs of yours that don't share a near ancestor.

Even so, the worst case is a probabilistic correlation that is still denyable, and which erodes away after multiple transactions. At the IP level it is definitely true that monitoring Monero traffic reveals far, far less useful information than monitoring Bitcoin traffic.

I have no idea what Odalv is talking about, he makes these claims about simultaneous equations but he seems not to understand the math at all. He previously claimed you could steal coins that way, but I guess he's given up on that nonsense now and moved on to some other likely nonsense.