Crypto Currency Thread (Vol.2)
Discussion
Blown2CV said:
so we're chopping in centralised government control for freedom AKA just what some guy founder decides he wants to do to line his own pockets or push some agenda or other. Really egalitarian s
t.
Now you're getting it. t. That's why true decentralisation matters. That's what the nakamoto consensus fixes.
RichTT said:
Blown2CV said:
so we're chopping in centralised government control for freedom AKA just what some guy founder decides he wants to do to line his own pockets or push some agenda or other. Really egalitarian st.
Now you're getting it. t. That's why true decentralisation matters. That's what the nakamoto consensus fixes.
Blown2CV said:
true decentralisation doesn't exist. Not in practical, real terms. The internet was meant to be truly truly decentralised and democratised and now look at it.
I think it is run pretty decentral, the internet. So are a few coins. Most people "investing" into a coin don't really think. They hope.
Blown2CV said:
RichTT said:
Blown2CV said:
so we're chopping in centralised government control for freedom AKA just what some guy founder decides he wants to do to line his own pockets or push some agenda or other. Really egalitarian st.
Now you're getting it. t. That's why true decentralisation matters. That's what the nakamoto consensus fixes.
The internet is a regulated service (at least in the UK) and even using a more independent service like Starlink leaves your access under the control of a third party.
BTC is a decentralised algorithm - even its founder cannot alter it (it could be altered in its very early days, but not now it's reached critical mass).
BandOfBrothers said:
So close, and yet so far.
The internet is a regulated service (at least in the UK) and even using a more independent service like Starlink leaves your access under the control of a third party.
BTC is a decentralised algorithm - even its founder cannot alter it (it could be altered in its very early days, but not now it's reached critical mass).
You can always alter the price of a thing if you have a lot of it. However markets function because multiple actors have access. So not BTC has multiple large funds involved which compete they can adjust the price via buying large blocks or selling but they can't control what you do with your BTC they can't take it from you or tax it. So there is a difference but there are also similarities.The internet is a regulated service (at least in the UK) and even using a more independent service like Starlink leaves your access under the control of a third party.
BTC is a decentralised algorithm - even its founder cannot alter it (it could be altered in its very early days, but not now it's reached critical mass).
BandOfBrothers said:
BTC is a decentralised algorithm - even its founder cannot alter it (it could be altered in its very early days, but not now it's reached critical mass).
It can alter itself though right? the difficulty?proof of work, but that work is not fixed is it, the first bitcoin took pence to mine, the current ones presumably tens of thousands? but when there is a crash in price and some miners give up on mining as it's not profitable, then by magic reasonably quickly Bitcoin gets easier to mine to ensure the fixed 10 mins block production?
What other thing of value just creates itself automatically at a predetermined steady state/rate?
Scootersp said:
BandOfBrothers said:
BTC is a decentralised algorithm - even its founder cannot alter it (it could be altered in its very early days, but not now it's reached critical mass).
It can alter itself though right? the difficulty?proof of work, but that work is not fixed is it, the first bitcoin took pence to mine, the current ones presumably tens of thousands? but when there is a crash in price and some miners give up on mining as it's not profitable, then by magic reasonably quickly Bitcoin gets easier to mine to ensure the fixed 10 mins block production?
What other thing of value just creates itself automatically at a predetermined steady state/rate?
Scootersp said:
It can alter itself though right? the difficulty?
proof of work, but that work is not fixed is it, the first bitcoin took pence to mine, the current ones presumably tens of thousands? but when there is a crash in price and some miners give up on mining as it's not profitable, then by magic reasonably quickly Bitcoin gets easier to mine to ensure the fixed 10 mins block production?
What other thing of value just creates itself automatically at a predetermined steady state/rate?
The difficulty adjustment is purely there to ensure that block production time, on average, is 10 minutes. Nothing more, nothing less. If people join the network the difficulty pushes up to maintain a ten minute block time. If people leave the network, it drops the difficulty to maintain a ten minute block time. You can see this in the hashprice index as the rewards per hash go down as more people join the network. This incentivises miners to further optimise their OPEX and find the cheapest electricity possible. proof of work, but that work is not fixed is it, the first bitcoin took pence to mine, the current ones presumably tens of thousands? but when there is a crash in price and some miners give up on mining as it's not profitable, then by magic reasonably quickly Bitcoin gets easier to mine to ensure the fixed 10 mins block production?
What other thing of value just creates itself automatically at a predetermined steady state/rate?
https://data.hashrateindex.com/chart/bitcoin-hashp...
It is designed to be stable over great lengths of time. It is this economic certainty that is part of the trust reduction appeal. I don't need to worry that a central actor is suddenly going to create 20% more bitcoin and dilute my current holdings. It's also just code that you, and anyone else, can audit at any time and that no one can force you to change. This is why decentralisation is important.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Difficulty
I get the premise, but I just don't see that anything else of value (and it's now quite significant) can come automatically at a fixed time regardless of effort?
I get that fiat can be created and you never know when and how much the taps are going to be opened, so you see the fixed production rate of bitcoin as a bonus, it's a known, a certainty, but then the effort to create it is variable?
Bitcoin was touted as digital Gold, used Gold's image and 'coin' as an inference to money. a mixture of marketing and lets say truth, but if people stop looking and digging up gold it doesn't just rise to the surface, you just get less or no Gold?
I just see this aspect not as a positive, it doesn't provide a cost/production floor/minimum price does it?
I get that fiat can be created and you never know when and how much the taps are going to be opened, so you see the fixed production rate of bitcoin as a bonus, it's a known, a certainty, but then the effort to create it is variable?
Bitcoin was touted as digital Gold, used Gold's image and 'coin' as an inference to money. a mixture of marketing and lets say truth, but if people stop looking and digging up gold it doesn't just rise to the surface, you just get less or no Gold?
I just see this aspect not as a positive, it doesn't provide a cost/production floor/minimum price does it?
Scootersp said:
I get the premise, but I just don't see that anything else of value (and it's now quite significant) can come automatically at a fixed time regardless of effort?
I get that fiat can be created and you never know when and how much the taps are going to be opened, so you see the fixed production rate of bitcoin as a bonus, it's a known, a certainty, but then the effort to create it is variable?
Bitcoin was touted as digital Gold, used Gold's image and 'coin' as an inference to money. a mixture of marketing and lets say truth, but if people stop looking and digging up gold it doesn't just rise to the surface, you just get less or no Gold?
I just see this aspect not as a positive, it doesn't provide a cost/production floor/minimum price does it?
You're getting it backwards. The issuance of new bitcoin per block and per epoch is fixed. The difficulty adjustment is there to ensure a ten minute block time remains a consistent average so that each epoch remains consistent. It's a timechain of connected blocks of data. That's all. I get that fiat can be created and you never know when and how much the taps are going to be opened, so you see the fixed production rate of bitcoin as a bonus, it's a known, a certainty, but then the effort to create it is variable?
Bitcoin was touted as digital Gold, used Gold's image and 'coin' as an inference to money. a mixture of marketing and lets say truth, but if people stop looking and digging up gold it doesn't just rise to the surface, you just get less or no Gold?
I just see this aspect not as a positive, it doesn't provide a cost/production floor/minimum price does it?
I've linked this study before: https://www.blockwaresolutions.com/research-and-pu...
Saylor - doing what he does, and for those who keep saying "it's not a currency, it's not this/that"....pertinent, because as he alludes to; BTC is more than just 1 thing, and the semantics of a word leads folks down the wrong thought path.
Guessing most will have heard of Michael Saylor - CEO of microstrategy, a s/ware company that used their Treasury to buy BTC back in 2020, and have since used a bit of financial ju-jitsu to buy a sheload more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9muM9MVsNs&t=...
Guessing most will have heard of Michael Saylor - CEO of microstrategy, a s/ware company that used their Treasury to buy BTC back in 2020, and have since used a bit of financial ju-jitsu to buy a sheload more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9muM9MVsNs&t=...
greengreenwood7 said:
Saylor - doing what he does, and for those who keep saying "it's not a currency, it's not this/that"....pertinent, because as he alludes to; BTC is more than just 1 thing, and the semantics of a word leads folks down the wrong thought path.
Its only more than one thing because their Whitepaper says its P2P network. Its unsuitable or at least ist too slow and too expensive. It can take 3 days to arrive, it can cost as much as 3% of the value. Sure there is Lightning network which is a centralized net. USDT is fast, arrives almost immediately. But costs.
Litecoin is fast and arrives in about 3 Minutes, cost hardly anything to pass on.
USDT runs on several networks and both people must use the same.
NickZ24 said:
greengreenwood7 said:
Saylor - doing what he does, and for those who keep saying "it's not a currency, it's not this/that"....pertinent, because as he alludes to; BTC is more than just 1 thing, and the semantics of a word leads folks down the wrong thought path.
Its only more than one thing because their Whitepaper says its P2P network. Its unsuitable or at least ist too slow and too expensive. It can take 3 days to arrive, it can cost as much as 3% of the value. Sure there is Lightning network which is a centralized net. USDT is fast, arrives almost immediately. But costs.
Litecoin is fast and arrives in about 3 Minutes, cost hardly anything to pass on.
USDT runs on several networks and both people must use the same.
I recently transferred a reasonable sum from my wallet to an exchange in around 15 minutes at a cost of around 2%.
Despite what all the naysayers and bigots want to believe, it functions very well once you understand how it works.
It seems that a lot of people can't rven be bothered to watch one of the many video guides that are readily available though.
Blown2CV said:
Internet decentralised apart from little things like ICANN
True and not true still not set in stone.Quite interesting is:
internetgovernance.org said:
It all has to do with ICANN’s impending new round of TLD additions. Registries want to be given free rein to make “Registry Voluntary Commitments” (RVCs) – and have ICANN enforce them. Their desire for RVCs is a function of ICANN’s – and the GAC’s – gatekeeping role. In a crowded field of new TLD applicants, prospective registries want to appease any objections from governments, intellectual property holders, or anyone else who might want to oppose their applications. So they have come up with the idea of RVCs, which allows them to promise to do whatever the GAC or any other objector might want. If the government of France is concerned about geographical indicators in a .WINE domain (this is just an example), the applicant making an RVC might promise that the .WINE TLD will strictly enforce French notions of name protections, even though ICANN has not adopted such a policy and they are not hard-coded in international law. This will make the French government happy and preclude any objection.
In principle, RVCs could be about anything. A registry concerned about the proverbial “woke mob” could promise never to issue domains to anyone whose opinions are not in accord with the principles of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. A registry hoping to avoid objections from religious conservatives could promise to banish all blasphemy. A registry hoping to enter the China market could tack on a commitment never to allow any websites that mention the June 4 Tiananmen Square incident, or never allow any reference to the Hong Kong protests. A registry seeking to avoid objections from intellectual property lobby could promise to give copyright owners special powers to monitor or take down domains.
A free market in DNS services would certainly allow any registry to institute its own policies of this type. Sure, let there be “woke” TLDs, conservative TLDs, communist TLDs, trademark maximalist TLDs, whatever.
What’s perverse and disturbing about the new push for RVCs, however, is that they are not talking about private policies, encoded in the registry’s own terms of service and self-enforced. They want ICANN to enforce them! And ICANN seems to want to enforce them. Why? Because RVCs are being used as competitive advantage in the contention for new TLDs. They are becoming a condition of market entry. And if ICANN is using them as a condition of the award, the argument is, if you promise to do this, and were given a TLD on that basis, then ICANN has to enforce that commitment.
The problem is, the RVC idea is making ICANN into an enforcer of policies intended to regulate content and services on the Internet, and this is a direct and obvious violation of its limited mission. ICANN cannot take on the role of enforcing such RVCs without violating a fundamental bylaw.
Incredibly, some people are so committed to this bad idea that they are talking about modifying a fundamental bylaw. They are literally hoping to push for a constitutional amendment that abolishes ICANN’s first amendment.
The solution is that its not so easy and straightforward. In principle, RVCs could be about anything. A registry concerned about the proverbial “woke mob” could promise never to issue domains to anyone whose opinions are not in accord with the principles of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. A registry hoping to avoid objections from religious conservatives could promise to banish all blasphemy. A registry hoping to enter the China market could tack on a commitment never to allow any websites that mention the June 4 Tiananmen Square incident, or never allow any reference to the Hong Kong protests. A registry seeking to avoid objections from intellectual property lobby could promise to give copyright owners special powers to monitor or take down domains.
A free market in DNS services would certainly allow any registry to institute its own policies of this type. Sure, let there be “woke” TLDs, conservative TLDs, communist TLDs, trademark maximalist TLDs, whatever.
What’s perverse and disturbing about the new push for RVCs, however, is that they are not talking about private policies, encoded in the registry’s own terms of service and self-enforced. They want ICANN to enforce them! And ICANN seems to want to enforce them. Why? Because RVCs are being used as competitive advantage in the contention for new TLDs. They are becoming a condition of market entry. And if ICANN is using them as a condition of the award, the argument is, if you promise to do this, and were given a TLD on that basis, then ICANN has to enforce that commitment.
The problem is, the RVC idea is making ICANN into an enforcer of policies intended to regulate content and services on the Internet, and this is a direct and obvious violation of its limited mission. ICANN cannot take on the role of enforcing such RVCs without violating a fundamental bylaw.
Incredibly, some people are so committed to this bad idea that they are talking about modifying a fundamental bylaw. They are literally hoping to push for a constitutional amendment that abolishes ICANN’s first amendment.
Reddit-user-bitzipmap said:
Yup! And even if ICANN somehow went kaput it wouldn't be the end. The DNS (domain name system) is not housed on one head server, there are tons of DNS servers run by tons of different people (ISPs, tech companies, hell you can setup your own if you have a random computer) all mirroring copies of "the big phone book" to each other.
The US department of defense funded the creation of the internet, including ICANN, and their goal from the beginning was a global computer network well-built enough to take a few nukes.
I bet the Military nowadays would have it more like an on on switch like. The US department of defense funded the creation of the internet, including ICANN, and their goal from the beginning was a global computer network well-built enough to take a few nukes.
dimots said:
Bitstamp acquired by Robinhood Markets, Inc. Should I be afraid? Been with Bitstamp since about 2012.
fear is a bad advisor. Make a cup of tea, look out of the windows and take a deep breath.Fear is still present? Make another cup of tea, look out of the windows and take a deep breath.
Repeat
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff