Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 578.

jmw74

full member

Activity: 236

Merit: 100

Quote from: Odalv on January 04, 2015, 04:13:49 PM

Quote from: adam3us on January 04, 2015, 04:08:38 PM

Quote from: justusranvier on January 04, 2015, 02:55:59 PM

Quote from: adam3us on January 04, 2015, 10:38:15 AM

He thinks he can get to 100k TPS.

What's the problem with doing 100k TPS on the main chain?

(other than non-answers like "it's hard to do")

I said what on the thread that you trimmed

security...

Quote from: adam3us

I really dont think you want that on the main chain because its weaker, and he cut down a lot of bitcoin features to get it. But its useful.

I am talking about the specific sharding approach. Its not easy sharding a block chain, and he made security tradeoffs to do it.

Nothing against someone doing it if they can do it securely (ie without impacting the security of the rest of the coins on the chain) or without making the centralisation very bad.

Adam

Seems he do not understand what is 100k TPS.

100,000 transactions * 260 bytes * 60 seconds * 60 minutes * 24 hours = 2 246 400 000 000 bytes per day = 2.25 TB / day

True, but that would be 10x Visa's peak rate. Their average rate is more like 2000.

I'm not sure of 100k was meant as the peak or average, I'd assume peak.

My home cablemodem connection can handle 10,000.

Odalv

legendary

Activity: 1414

Merit: 1000

Quote from: adam3us on January 04, 2015, 04:08:38 PM

Quote from: justusranvier on January 04, 2015, 02:55:59 PM

Quote from: adam3us on January 04, 2015, 10:38:15 AM

He thinks he can get to 100k TPS.

What's the problem with doing 100k TPS on the main chain?

(other than non-answers like "it's hard to do")

I said what on the thread that you trimmed

security...

Quote from: adam3us

I really dont think you want that on the main chain because its weaker, and he cut down a lot of bitcoin features to get it. But its useful.

I am talking about the specific sharding approach. Its not easy sharding a block chain, and he made security tradeoffs to do it.

Nothing against someone doing it if they can do it securely (ie without impacting the security of the rest of the coins on the chain) or without making the centralisation very bad.

Adam

Seems he does not understand what is "100k TPS".

100,000 transactions * 260 bytes * 60 seconds * 60 minutes * 24 hours = 2 246 400 000 000 bytes per day = 2.25 TB / day

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4760

Merit: 1283

Quote from: cypherdoc on January 04, 2015, 03:49:07 PM

...

Quote from: tvbcof on January 04, 2015, 10:33:37 AM

Some bizarre form of Tourette Syndrome

What question?

The question was snipped in a cowardly weasely and entirely unsurprising sort of way, but the link still works. I think even you will be able to understand it, but I'll try to make it even more elementary if need be. Note that even Justus readily admits that the actual reward that miners can achieve will approach zero due to unlimited supply of hashing power. Knock yourself out.

Quote from: cypherdoc on January 04, 2015, 03:49:07 PM

Btw, you said above you would prefer SC's to be tokenized systems because of efficiency, speed and ease of use. Are you crazy or is this a holdover from your socialist days?

It's a holdover from the last time I pulled out my wallet and paid my neighbor for something he had and I wanted.

You really have zero ability to visualize abstraction do you? Read my post above where I outlined some of the REAL problems with sidechains. It doesn't matter how the back-end of a sidechain happens to work, and there are a vast number of possibilities (that's one of the main points of sidechains!) If you don't like or don't understand a particular sidechain, don't use it. What is it about freedom of choice that confuses you Libertarians so thoroughly?

adam3us

sr. member

Activity: 404

Merit: 362

in bitcoin we trust

Quote from: justusranvier on January 04, 2015, 02:55:59 PM

Quote from: adam3us on January 04, 2015, 10:38:15 AM

He thinks he can get to 100k TPS.

What's the problem with doing 100k TPS on the main chain?

(other than non-answers like "it's hard to do")

I said what on the thread that you trimmed

security...

Quote from: adam3us

I really dont think you want that on the main chain because its weaker, and he cut down a lot of bitcoin features to get it. But its useful.

I am talking about the specific sharding approach. Its not easy sharding a block chain, and he made security tradeoffs to do it.

Nothing against someone doing it if they can do it securely (ie without impacting the security of the rest of the coins on the chain) or without making the centralisation very bad.

Adam

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on January 04, 2015, 03:56:18 PM

Yet this from you:

Quote from: brg444 on January 04, 2015, 11:49:29 AM

what is this bizarro world where any ledger of ownership qualifies as a blockchain Huh

You have spoken at length about federated servers without ever actually understanding how they work.

Why should I take your opinion seriously or even consider your attacks on sidechains if I cannot trust anymore whether or not you grok them?

This discussion has been all over the place and plastered with comments and critiques from people who have apparently not even taken a minute to understand the concepts behind the sidechain technology.

What's more concerning is the actions of others who are blindly supporting these assertions and increasing the confusion.

I appreciate the contributions of most here, especially Adam but some would really benefit from stepping outside this cacophony and sharpen their understanding instead of adding to the noise.

Odalv

legendary

Activity: 1414

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cypherdoc on January 04, 2015, 04:01:29 PM

And confirmed by Odalv, your partner in crime.

You are so confused. :-)

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: brg444 on January 04, 2015, 03:59:52 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on January 04, 2015, 03:56:18 PM

Quote from: brg444 on January 04, 2015, 03:52:30 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on January 04, 2015, 03:43:25 PM

Quote from: adam3us on January 04, 2015, 01:37:58 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc

Quote from: tvbcof

I've always been more inclined to favor more of a token system for 'exchange currency' duty. Under such a 'token flavored sidechain' I would only wish to be able to verify that I am in sole control of my tokens and could induce a particular native Bitcoin retrieval on demand. For such a system I would accept a certain amount of slop since this would go a long way toward implementation efficiency, and I won't die if I lose (or gain) a few nickles in some sort of a SC failure.

none of what you're saying then makes sense compared to what Adam has been saying.

SC's are blockchains except in the case of federated server SC's (but even that definition is being fuzzed over by the SC ppl calling an internal ledger a SC Huh

)

I think it was more JorgeStolfi with the internal ledger (the sofa/couch in bitstamps office?), I would not call an internal ledger a chain - a chain has to be real-time publicly audited I think, to be called a chain.

With federated peg there is a real side-chain, including mining, consensus rules etc and then the federated peg servers act as a protocol adaptor - the peg servers are full nodes on the side-chain, and pegged coins are paid to their multisig address (eg 10 of 15) and the side-chain fullnodes and miners watch the multisig address on the bitcoin network, and coins arriving there count as a peg to put coins into the side-chain; and when the side-chain hashrate majority approves a return peg to reanimate a coin, the federated pegs are watching the side-chain as they are full nodes there too, so they release the funds to the address the return peg tells them to.

Now obviously the limitation is if >= 10 of the federated peg servers are hostile or compromised, they could take the coin without approval of the side-chain. But short of that it is the side-chain consensus and miners etc that arbitrate what coins move across the peg.

Adam

Ok, this is new info to all of here who assumed federated server implementations of SC's were just that, server based only, without blockchains. This sounds more like a Ripple type system with gateways and a blockchain.

Are you kidding me?

I can't believe we've been discussing this for the last few hundred pages and you are yet to have a clue about the underlying tech.

Quote from: cypherdoc on January 04, 2015, 03:29:33 PM

Don't bother with the simpleton.

He's been operating under the assumption that SC's are token, not blockchains, lol.

you are so, so confused. the last few pages were brillant really. I had a blast watching from the sidelines.

Yet this from you:

Quote from: brg444 on January 04, 2015, 11:49:29 AM

what is this bizarro world where any ledger of ownership qualifies as a blockchain Huh

merely pointing out some of you who are actually entertaining this false assumption proposed by professional troll jstolfi

And confirmed by Odalv, your partner in crime.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on January 04, 2015, 03:56:18 PM

Quote from: brg444 on January 04, 2015, 03:52:30 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on January 04, 2015, 03:43:25 PM

Quote from: adam3us on January 04, 2015, 01:37:58 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc

Quote from: tvbcof

I've always been more inclined to favor more of a token system for 'exchange currency' duty. Under such a 'token flavored sidechain' I would only wish to be able to verify that I am in sole control of my tokens and could induce a particular native Bitcoin retrieval on demand. For such a system I would accept a certain amount of slop since this would go a long way toward implementation efficiency, and I won't die if I lose (or gain) a few nickles in some sort of a SC failure.

none of what you're saying then makes sense compared to what Adam has been saying.

SC's are blockchains except in the case of federated server SC's (but even that definition is being fuzzed over by the SC ppl calling an internal ledger a SC Huh

)

I think it was more JorgeStolfi with the internal ledger (the sofa/couch in bitstamps office?), I would not call an internal ledger a chain - a chain has to be real-time publicly audited I think, to be called a chain.

With federated peg there is a real side-chain, including mining, consensus rules etc and then the federated peg servers act as a protocol adaptor - the peg servers are full nodes on the side-chain, and pegged coins are paid to their multisig address (eg 10 of 15) and the side-chain fullnodes and miners watch the multisig address on the bitcoin network, and coins arriving there count as a peg to put coins into the side-chain; and when the side-chain hashrate majority approves a return peg to reanimate a coin, the federated pegs are watching the side-chain as they are full nodes there too, so they release the funds to the address the return peg tells them to.

Now obviously the limitation is if >= 10 of the federated peg servers are hostile or compromised, they could take the coin without approval of the side-chain. But short of that it is the side-chain consensus and miners etc that arbitrate what coins move across the peg.

Adam

Ok, this is new info to all of here who assumed federated server implementations of SC's were just that, server based only, without blockchains. This sounds more like a Ripple type system with gateways and a blockchain.

Are you kidding me?

I can't believe we've been discussing this for the last few hundred pages and you are yet to have a clue about the underlying tech.

Quote from: cypherdoc on January 04, 2015, 03:29:33 PM

Don't bother with the simpleton.

He's been operating under the assumption that SC's are token, not blockchains, lol.

you are so, so confused. the last few pages were brillant really. I had a blast watching from the sidelines.

Yet this from you:

Quote from: brg444 on January 04, 2015, 11:49:29 AM

what is this bizarro world where any ledger of ownership qualifies as a blockchain Huh

merely pointing out some of you who are actually entertaining this false assumption proposed by professional troll jstolfi

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: brg444 on January 04, 2015, 03:52:30 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on January 04, 2015, 03:43:25 PM

Quote from: adam3us on January 04, 2015, 01:37:58 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc

Quote from: tvbcof

I've always been more inclined to favor more of a token system for 'exchange currency' duty. Under such a 'token flavored sidechain' I would only wish to be able to verify that I am in sole control of my tokens and could induce a particular native Bitcoin retrieval on demand. For such a system I would accept a certain amount of slop since this would go a long way toward implementation efficiency, and I won't die if I lose (or gain) a few nickles in some sort of a SC failure.

none of what you're saying then makes sense compared to what Adam has been saying.

SC's are blockchains except in the case of federated server SC's (but even that definition is being fuzzed over by the SC ppl calling an internal ledger a SC Huh

)

I think it was more JorgeStolfi with the internal ledger (the sofa/couch in bitstamps office?), I would not call an internal ledger a chain - a chain has to be real-time publicly audited I think, to be called a chain.

With federated peg there is a real side-chain, including mining, consensus rules etc and then the federated peg servers act as a protocol adaptor - the peg servers are full nodes on the side-chain, and pegged coins are paid to their multisig address (eg 10 of 15) and the side-chain fullnodes and miners watch the multisig address on the bitcoin network, and coins arriving there count as a peg to put coins into the side-chain; and when the side-chain hashrate majority approves a return peg to reanimate a coin, the federated pegs are watching the side-chain as they are full nodes there too, so they release the funds to the address the return peg tells them to.

Now obviously the limitation is if >= 10 of the federated peg servers are hostile or compromised, they could take the coin without approval of the side-chain. But short of that it is the side-chain consensus and miners etc that arbitrate what coins move across the peg.

Adam

Ok, this is new info to all of here who assumed federated server implementations of SC's were just that, server based only, without blockchains. This sounds more like a Ripple type system with gateways and a blockchain.

Are you kidding me?

I can't believe we've been discussing this for the last few hundred pages and you are yet to have a clue about the underlying tech.

Quote from: cypherdoc on January 04, 2015, 03:29:33 PM

Don't bother with the simpleton.

He's been operating under the assumption that SC's are token, not blockchains, lol.

you are so, so confused. the last few pages were brillant really. I had a blast watching from the sidelines.

Yet this from you:

Quote from: brg444 on January 04, 2015, 11:49:29 AM

what is this bizarro world where any ledger of ownership qualifies as a blockchain Huh

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: STT on January 04, 2015, 03:48:25 PM

Quote from: markj113 on January 04, 2015, 03:26:23 PM

Gold outperformed every currency apart from the US $ in 2014, 0.8% down on the year

I think most people know how the US $ will end up so get some gold while you can

I was just going to point out similar that despite the thread title it has generally not been true that gold is collapsing. It went upto 1900 and has that true enough and its not gained anything but overall its not a losing asset in the longer term.
Like this last yearly view, gold gained alot in 2014 before losing most of it again which is just holding steady in the big picture. As far as miners are concerned their costs have reduced from the oil price drop which generally means they make more money even though gold price has stayed level, I think they are better off in 2015 then 2014

Quote

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6gnMsIIIAEyKqQ.png:large

Coffee is being used more in asia ? Not sure if its gaining but we can expect gold similarly to gain from any rise in use

2014 was simply a cooling off phase of the longer term trend of this thread which should reestablish itself in 2015.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on January 04, 2015, 03:43:25 PM

Quote from: adam3us on January 04, 2015, 01:37:58 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc

Quote from: tvbcof

I've always been more inclined to favor more of a token system for 'exchange currency' duty. Under such a 'token flavored sidechain' I would only wish to be able to verify that I am in sole control of my tokens and could induce a particular native Bitcoin retrieval on demand. For such a system I would accept a certain amount of slop since this would go a long way toward implementation efficiency, and I won't die if I lose (or gain) a few nickles in some sort of a SC failure.

none of what you're saying then makes sense compared to what Adam has been saying.

SC's are blockchains except in the case of federated server SC's (but even that definition is being fuzzed over by the SC ppl calling an internal ledger a SC Huh

)

I think it was more JorgeStolfi with the internal ledger (the sofa/couch in bitstamps office?), I would not call an internal ledger a chain - a chain has to be real-time publicly audited I think, to be called a chain.

With federated peg there is a real side-chain, including mining, consensus rules etc and then the federated peg servers act as a protocol adaptor - the peg servers are full nodes on the side-chain, and pegged coins are paid to their multisig address (eg 10 of 15) and the side-chain fullnodes and miners watch the multisig address on the bitcoin network, and coins arriving there count as a peg to put coins into the side-chain; and when the side-chain hashrate majority approves a return peg to reanimate a coin, the federated pegs are watching the side-chain as they are full nodes there too, so they release the funds to the address the return peg tells them to.

Now obviously the limitation is if >= 10 of the federated peg servers are hostile or compromised, they could take the coin without approval of the side-chain. But short of that it is the side-chain consensus and miners etc that arbitrate what coins move across the peg.

Adam

Ok, this is new info to all of here who assumed federated server implementations of SC's were just that, server based only, without blockchains. This sounds more like a Ripple type system with gateways and a blockchain.

Are you kidding me?

I can't believe we've been discussing this for the last few hundred pages and you are yet to have a clue about the underlying tech.

Quote from: cypherdoc on January 04, 2015, 03:29:33 PM

Don't bother with the simpleton.

He's been operating under the assumption that SC's are token, not blockchains, lol.

you are so, so confused. the last few pages were brillant really. I had a blast watching from the sidelines.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: tvbcof on January 04, 2015, 03:37:30 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on January 04, 2015, 03:29:33 PM

Quote from: justusranvier on January 04, 2015, 03:03:53 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on January 04, 2015, 10:33:37 AM

Some bizarre form of Tourette Syndrome

If you have trouble understanding how businesses survive the economic reality that competition in a free market reduces the profitability of all ventures over time, then maybe you can go ask them for yourself how they manage to deal with it?

There are millions of them in the world, so it shouldn't be too hard to find a few and talk with them.

Let us know how your investigation goes.

Don't bother with the simpleton.

He's been operating under the assumption that SC's are token, not blockchains, lol.

And what about his blather above that accounting doesn't need to pay attention to details, lol?

I notice that cypherdoc also avoided my very simple and easy to understand question like the plague. I'll give you two a few days to come up with some sort of a plausible answer, but won't expect much more than 'because free market.'

BTW, I know first hand how 'they manage to deal with it', and it's not pretty. Certainly it's not where I want to see Bitcoin go whether it makes me a fortune or not.

What question?

Btw, you said above you would prefer SC's to be tokenized systems because of efficiency, speed and ease of use. Are you crazy or is this a holdover from your socialist days?

STT

legendary

Activity: 4172

Merit: 1462

Quote from: markj113 on January 04, 2015, 03:26:23 PM

Gold outperformed every currency apart from the US $ in 2014, 0.8% down on the year

I think most people know how the US $ will end up so get some gold while you can

I was just going to point out similar that despite the thread title it has generally not been true that gold is collapsing. It went upto 1900 and has that true enough and its not gained anything but overall its not a losing asset in the longer term.
Like this last yearly view, gold gained alot in 2014 before losing most of it again which is just holding steady in the big picture. As far as miners are concerned their costs have reduced from the oil price drop which generally means they make more money even though gold price has stayed level, I think they are better off in 2015 then 2014

Quote

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6gnMsIIIAEyKqQ.png:large

Coffee is being used more in asia ? Not sure if its gaining but we can expect gold similarly to gain from any rise in use

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: adam3us on January 04, 2015, 01:37:58 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc

Quote from: tvbcof

I've always been more inclined to favor more of a token system for 'exchange currency' duty. Under such a 'token flavored sidechain' I would only wish to be able to verify that I am in sole control of my tokens and could induce a particular native Bitcoin retrieval on demand. For such a system I would accept a certain amount of slop since this would go a long way toward implementation efficiency, and I won't die if I lose (or gain) a few nickles in some sort of a SC failure.

none of what you're saying then makes sense compared to what Adam has been saying.

SC's are blockchains except in the case of federated server SC's (but even that definition is being fuzzed over by the SC ppl calling an internal ledger a SC Huh

)

I think it was more JorgeStolfi with the internal ledger (the sofa/couch in bitstamps office?), I would not call an internal ledger a chain - a chain has to be real-time publicly audited I think, to be called a chain.

With federated peg there is a real side-chain, including mining, consensus rules etc and then the federated peg servers act as a protocol adaptor - the peg servers are full nodes on the side-chain, and pegged coins are paid to their multisig address (eg 10 of 15) and the side-chain fullnodes and miners watch the multisig address on the bitcoin network, and coins arriving there count as a peg to put coins into the side-chain; and when the side-chain hashrate majority approves a return peg to reanimate a coin, the federated pegs are watching the side-chain as they are full nodes there too, so they release the funds to the address the return peg tells them to.

Now obviously the limitation is if >= 10 of the federated peg servers are hostile or compromised, they could take the coin without approval of the side-chain. But short of that it is the side-chain consensus and miners etc that arbitrate what coins move across the peg.

Adam

Ok, this is new info to all of here who assumed federated server implementations of SC's were just that, server based only, without blockchains. This sounds more like a Ripple type system with gateways and a blockchain.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4760

Merit: 1283

Quote from: cypherdoc on January 04, 2015, 03:29:33 PM

Quote from: justusranvier on January 04, 2015, 03:03:53 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on January 04, 2015, 10:33:37 AM

Some bizarre form of Tourette Syndrome

If you have trouble understanding how businesses survive the economic reality that competition in a free market reduces the profitability of all ventures over time, then maybe you can go ask them for yourself how they manage to deal with it?

There are millions of them in the world, so it shouldn't be too hard to find a few and talk with them.

Let us know how your investigation goes.

Don't bother with the simpleton.

He's been operating under the assumption that SC's are token, not blockchains, lol.

And what about his blather above that accounting doesn't need to pay attention to details, lol?

I notice that cypherdoc also avoided my very simple and easy to understand question like the plague. I'll give you two a few days to come up with some sort of a plausible answer, but won't expect much more than 'because free market.'

BTW, I know first hand how 'they manage to deal with it', and it's not pretty. Certainly it's not where I want to see Bitcoin go whether it makes me a fortune or not.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: justusranvier on January 04, 2015, 03:03:53 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on January 04, 2015, 10:33:37 AM

Some bizarre form of Tourette Syndrome

If you have trouble understanding how businesses survive the economic reality that competition in a free market reduces the profitability of all ventures over time, then maybe you can go ask them for yourself how they manage to deal with it?

There are millions of them in the world, so it shouldn't be too hard to find a few and talk with them.

Let us know how your investigation goes.

Don't bother with the simpleton.

He's been operating under the assumption that SC's are token, not blockchains, lol.

And what about his blather above that accounting doesn't need to pay attention to details, lol?

markj113

legendary

Activity: 2254

Merit: 1043

Gold outperformed every currency apart from the US $ in 2014, 0.8% down on the year

I think most people know how the US $ will end up so get some gold while you can

adam3us

sr. member

Activity: 404

Merit: 362

in bitcoin we trust

Quote from: MarketNeutral on January 04, 2015, 01:52:13 PM

Quote from: adam3us on January 04, 2015, 01:37:58 PM

With federated peg there is a real side-chain, including mining, consensus rules etc and then the federated peg servers act as a protocol adaptor - the peg servers are full nodes on the side-chain, and pegged coins are paid to their multisig address (eg 10 of 15) and the side-chain fullnodes and miners watch the multisig address on the bitcoin network, and coins arriving there count as a peg to put coins into the side-chain; and when the side-chain hashrate majority approves a return peg to reanimate a coin, the federated pegs are watching the side-chain as they are full nodes so they release the funds to the address the return peg tells them to.

Now obviously the limitation is if >= 10 of the federated peg servers are hostile or compromised, they could take the coin without approval of the side-chain. But short of that it is the side-chain consensus and miners etc that arbitrate what coins move across the peg.

[...] side-chain concepts are new to me and I want to make sure I understand. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a federated peg would be easier to implement than a SNARK peg or a SPV peg, right? No hard or soft fork?

Right no changes needed.

Quote from: MarketNeutral

But on the other hand, am I correct to assume that the failure points of a federated peg are theoretically more dangerous?

Yes failure modes kick in if the threshold of federated servers is compromised or untrustworthy, and could be worse as there is more flexibility on coding smart-contract enforced limits with the spv-peg (or for now hypothetical snark-peg).

Quote from: MarketNeutral

Moreover, as one whose company is currently developing private mining hardware, how do these peg/token side chains directly affect the bitcoin mining protocol (in terms of the block header's nonce, merkle root, etc), if at all? Absent a fork, nothing changes?

Nothing changes for hw miners. Any changes are in the pool (local or remote) the miners are connected to - which fullnodes its getting merkle information from.

I'd say outside of side-chains, and just in general, a soft-fork (or even 99% of conceivable hard-forks) the mining algorithm would not change. The miners just need some basic formatting about headers to continue to work and they're fine as is.

I think the unlikely because of self-preservation, but main way hypothetically you'd see mining change is if miners got far too centralised and it became an disruptive day to day problem for bitcoin security, and mining operators rejected or ignored complaints, the economic majority could eventually fell forced to defensively break the current deployed ASICs with a minor software change. The so-called 'big-red-button'. Its not fun in any direction because it leads to erratic hashrate risks from the hash-rate shake up as GPUs & FPGAs are reshuffled and revised ASICs fast-tracked.

Adam

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4760

Merit: 1283

Quote from: justusranvier on January 04, 2015, 03:03:53 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on January 04, 2015, 10:33:37 AM

Some bizarre form of Tourette Syndrome

If you have trouble understanding how businesses survive the economic reality that competition in a free market reduces the profitability of all ventures over time, then maybe you can go ask them for yourself how they manage to deal with it?

There are millions of them in the world, so it shouldn't be too hard to find a few and talk with them.

Let us know how your investigation goes.

In other words 'because free market' and 'because sound money'. Typical Libertardian fallback to a non-answer. Why should I have hoped for more?

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1013

Quote from: tvbcof on January 04, 2015, 10:33:37 AM

Some bizarre form of Tourette Syndrome

If you have trouble understanding how businesses survive the economic reality that competition in a free market reduces the profitability of all ventures over time, then maybe you can go ask them for yourself how they manage to deal with it?

There are millions of them in the world, so it shouldn't be too hard to find a few and talk with them.

Let us know how your investigation goes.

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 578. (Read 2032291 times)