Crypto Currency Thread
Discussion
crypto has the best memes
here is one featuring mr green hammer up agains the green hulk!
https://twitter.com/TruthRaiderHQ/status/129721503...
here is one featuring mr green hammer up agains the green hulk!
https://twitter.com/TruthRaiderHQ/status/129721503...
DrSteveBrule said:
g4ry13 said:
Throttle Body said:
Guvernator said:
Link down below £11 and dropping fast. Oh well, that was fun while it lasted.
Is the market just shaking out the weak hands before it resumes its climb to the Moon?CzechItOut said:
'Almost nothing', not 'Nothing'99% of crypto is rubbish. The trick is to be on board the 1% that isn't.
CzechItOut said:
Pretty much the same conclusions I came to, Bitcoin has been around for 11 years now and is still a solution looking for a problem. I also find that when I try and get someone to explain why blockchain is so useful and important they spout a lot of buzz words but don't even seem to understand themselves.I honestly thought the whole of crypto would have collapsed by now, but clearly the majority of the people don't think the same way I do as it seems bigger than ever with over 6500 different coins currently available. I don't really understand how 99.99% of these are viable, other than people buying them "because blockchain".
It's almost like the dotcom boom of the 90s where adding .COM to your business name suddenly made it worth hundreds of millions of dollars. It seems that if you invent a new token, create a website with lots of buzzwords, add images of chains and finally start rumours of big tech companies being interested then your token suddenly becomes worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Still hasn't stopped me buying some though, guess the majority of people are buying it based on the greater fool theory and that they can sell it on to someone else for a lot more money.
Joey Deacon said:
Bitcoin has been around for 11 years now and is still a solution looking for a problem.
It's a well established digital currency that enables totally secure peer to peer transactions without involving a third party and has built a totally secure unhackable permanent public ledger of every transaction made. Clearly worthless.Joey Deacon said:
I also find that when I try and get someone to explain why blockchain is so useful and important they spout a lot of buzz words but don't even seem to understand themselves.
Who are you asking about blockchain? What defines 'buzz words'?Joey Deacon said:
I honestly thought the whole of crypto would have collapsed by now, but clearly the majority of the people don't think the same way I do as it seems bigger than ever with over 6500 different coins currently available. I don't really understand how 99.99% of these are viable, other than people buying them "because blockchain".
Why would 'the whole of crypto' collapse? What would precipitate this collapse? Why would nothing survive?Joey Deacon said:
It's almost like the dotcom boom of the 90s where adding .COM to your business name suddenly made it worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Which company added .com to its name and was suddenly worth hundreds of millions of dollars? Did the whole of .com collapse? I agree the internet was a flash in the pan and never really took off.Joey Deacon said:
It seems that if you invent a new token, create a website with lots of buzzwords, add images of chains and finally start rumours of big tech companies being interested then your token suddenly becomes worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Are you referring to Chainlink? Your understanding is that it is a just a website with lots of images of chains on it backed by lies about who is using it? Do you get your Chainlink information from the same source as your blockchain advice?Joey Deacon said:
Still hasn't stopped me buying some though, guess the majority of people are buying it based on the greater fool theory and that they can sell it on to someone else for a lot more money.
Yes you will find that there's always some fool who takes advice from ridiculous quarters yet decides to 'invest' anyway.Joey Deacon said:
It's almost like the dotcom boom of the 90s where adding .COM to your business name suddenly made it worth hundreds of millions of dollars. It seems that if you invent a new token, create a website with lots of buzzwords, add images of chains and finally start rumours of big tech companies being interested then your token suddenly becomes worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Still hasn't stopped me buying some though, guess the majority of people are buying it based on the greater fool theory and that they can sell it on to someone else for a lot more money.
Pretty much it. But imagine if you could go back and buy in to the early-days Amazon or Facebook. There are legitimate projects out there but the vast majority veers from misguided to outright scam.Still hasn't stopped me buying some though, guess the majority of people are buying it based on the greater fool theory and that they can sell it on to someone else for a lot more money.
dimots said:
Joey Deacon said:
It's almost like the dotcom boom of the 90s where adding .COM to your business name suddenly made it worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
dimots said:
Which company added .com to its name and was suddenly worth hundreds of millions of dollars? Did the whole of .com collapse? I agree the internet was a flash in the pan and never really took off.
Pets.comBoo.com
Flooz.com
For starters.
My partner told her boss about Link on the off-chance he might look at making a little bit of money of the next year. After all, why not pass on a good tip? Anyway, being Captain Cautious about everything and anything, he dithered. This is the man who creates a spreadsheet at the slightest notion of having to make a decision about something.
A few weeks went past, she asked him if he was considering it and he replied 'Ive spoken to some people about Bitcoins and they all said it's a scam' - or words to that affect.
She asked him who exactly he's spoken to. 'Oh, you know, my accountants'. 'Yes', she said, 'but who did you speak to specifically about Link? DrBrule sent you some info on it.'
'Nah, Bitcoins are too risky.' was his answer.
Ask the right people and you'll get the right information you need to make an informed choice. He asked people who had no greater understanding than he did. He may as well asked a random cat. The upshot is he could have - but didn't - made a couple of grand in less than a week.
Meanwhile, I've had my accountant calling me on a Saturday night thanking me for the heads-up. Likewise everybody in my office is financially better off having bought some a while ago.
Fortune favours the brave. I've either been really, really lucky or actually picked the right horse after reading the form. I think it's a 30/70 mix. It's not for everybody and if you go looking for the failures you'll find plenty, which will only prove the confirmation bias.
Edited by DrSteveBrule on Monday 24th August 16:37
Joey Deacon said:
Pretty much the same conclusions I came to, Bitcoin has been around for 11 years now and is still a solution looking for a problem.
Bitcoin is the solution to how you pay for drugs and other illegal goods and services on the Internet.Other use cases, not so much. For example, I can't see why smart contracts requires blockchain as opposed to any other trusted source.
CzechItOut said:
Joey Deacon said:
Pretty much the same conclusions I came to, Bitcoin has been around for 11 years now and is still a solution looking for a problem.
Bitcoin is the solution to how you pay for drugs and other illegal goods and services on the Internet.Other use cases, not so much. For example, I can't see why smart contracts requires blockchain as opposed to any other trusted source.
CzechItOut said:
For example, I can't see why smart contracts requires blockchain as opposed to any other trusted source.
You have a multi-million dollar self-executing contract pending. It requires multiple, varied inputs of data, some time critical. Would you trust the other parties to supply some of the information (that, if erroneous, could lose you millions) and in turn you have to satisfy them that your sources are trustworthy and neutral. Or would you prefer multiple, verified and trustless sources that have no bias to either party?dimots said:
I’m aware of the dot com bubble. Which company added hundreds of millions by adding .com to its name?
Chemdex.com in essence. $7 billion market capitalisation on just $29,000 worth of sales.Point is, if you aren't providing a use you will eventually fail. Crypto outfits you can name today will be gone within 6 months to a year. There will be survivors; the Amazons and Googles.
I can't think of a pioneering tech marketplace where there weren't a lot of casualties and a few made it our alive.
Plasma & 3D TVs?
MiniDisc & DAT taking on CDs - and eventually CDs biting the dust.
Early electric cars
The internet - that'll never catch on. Electronic mail? Why do we need that, I have a fax or the post....
Smartcontracts are a thing. Regardless of what you think about the process that powers them, they exist and will be used. They aren't a new thing, the concept has been around since the 1990s and worked on from the early 2000s. Smartcontract, the company who created Link, registered in 2004 I believe.
You won't even know when they are being used - you'll simply see that your insurance claim has been settled in a day or two, or you receive notification (while still in the airport) that you've received a partial refund on your holiday cost because the flight was delayed by 3 hours.
Edited by DrSteveBrule on Monday 24th August 21:20
dimots said:
I’m aware of the dot com bubble. Which company added hundreds of millions by adding .com to its name?
I think you are being wilfully obtuse. It was quite obviously a bit of hyerbole to illustrate the mania over .com at the time which as anyone who was in the tech industry at the time can tell you, was very real and yes, that hype was indeed used to pump the price of many companies at the time. Many parallels can also be drawn between the .com bubble and crypto currency, not least of which is the fact that many .com's very over-hyped and subsequently overvalued when they actually carried very little tangible substance, with the resulting crash being just as spectacular for a large proportion of the firms around at the time, sound familiar?For what it's worth, I'm neither a crypto evangelist or denier, just an intrigued party with a small stake, interested to see how it all plays out so no bias either way, unlike some on here.
Guvernator said:
I think you are being wilfully obtuse. It was quite obviously a bit of hyerbole to illustrate the mania over .com at the time which as anyone who was in the tech industry at the time can tell you, was very real and yes, that hype was indeed used to pump the price of many companies at the time. Many parallels can also be drawn between the .com bubble and crypto currency, not least of which is the fact that many .com's very over-hyped and subsequently overvalued when they actually carried very little tangible substance, with the resulting crash being just as spectacular for a large proportion of the firms around at the time, sound familiar?
For what it's worth, I'm neither a crypto evangelist or denier, just an intrigued party with a small stake, interested to see how it all plays out so no bias either way, unlike some on here.
As somebody with a bias, it's towards a company which has the credentials to succeed. However, I have also said 99% of crypto is rubbish and I'm prepared to accept that it could come crashing down and I was wrong. I'm excited - and a little wary - of the implications on society that the automating of so many things may bring.For what it's worth, I'm neither a crypto evangelist or denier, just an intrigued party with a small stake, interested to see how it all plays out so no bias either way, unlike some on here.
I understand enough to see there is potential, rather than simply stating 'Blockchain = useless'. It's not. It's a means to an end to a potentially revolutionary change to the world's financial markets.
I'm not trying to convince but I will defend. I appreciate your comment wasn't specifically addressed to me but as I've been quite vocal on here I thought I would state my position.
Edited by DrSteveBrule on Monday 24th August 21:29
Oh digital currency definitely has a use or there wouldn't be this much hype over it but as you've stated, the vast majority of coins out there are complete garbage. There will probably only be 2-3 winners out of this, you just have to hope that you've picked the crypto equivalent of Google to place your bet on.
Guvernator said:
dimots said:
I’m aware of the dot com bubble. Which company added hundreds of millions by adding .com to its name?
I think you are being wilfully obtuse. It was quite obviously a bit of hyerbole to illustrate the mania over .com at the time which as anyone who was in the tech industry at the time can tell you, was very real and yes, that hype was indeed used to pump the price of many companies at the time. Many parallels can also be drawn between the .com bubble and crypto currency, not least of which is the fact that many .com's very over-hyped and subsequently overvalued when they actually carried very little tangible substance, with the resulting crash being just as spectacular for a large proportion of the firms around at the time, sound familiar?For what it's worth, I'm neither a crypto evangelist or denier, just an intrigued party with a small stake, interested to see how it all plays out so no bias either way, unlike some on here.
DrSteveBrule said:
Chemdex.com in essence. $7 billion market capitalisation on just $29,000 worth of sales.
Point is, if you aren't providing a use you will eventually fail. Crypto outfits you can name today will be gone within 6 months to a year. There will be survivors; the Amazons and Googles.
This, I was implying that back in the dot com bubble just having .COM in your name ment people would blindly invest money with no real interest about the validity of the actual business model. It was just FOMO, if you hear about people making a fortune out of shares in the latest .COM IPO then you are going to want in on the next one.Point is, if you aren't providing a use you will eventually fail. Crypto outfits you can name today will be gone within 6 months to a year. There will be survivors; the Amazons and Googles.
My friend used to show me the white papers on the latest IPO and reading them was comical. I remember one was for putting internet booths into pubs and the company was valued at hundreds of millions of pounds with no sales and a few thousand pounds of assets. We both knew that this a rubbish business idea but nobody cared because "Internet"
Buying dot com shares was just a licence to print money, hence when Lastminute.com floated everyone was gloating about how much money they were going to make. It was so oversubscribed that everyone only got 35 shares each and they instantly went down in value. This was the end of the dot com bubble.
The point I am making is Crypto is essentially the same, we have people creating tokens which then become worth hundreds of millions of dollars with zero use. I have just picked Maker (MKR) at random and know nothing about it whatsoever but it has gone from $24.34 on Jan 30 2017 to $662.59 today with a market cap of $666,287,795 USD
"Maker is an Ethereum token that describes itself as “a utility token, governance token, and recapitalization resource of the Maker system.” The purpose of the Maker system is to generate another Ethereum token, called Dai, that seeks to trade on exchanges at a value of exactly US$1.00."
"The world’s first unbiased currency
Dai is a stable, decentralized currency that does not discriminate. Any individual or business can realize the advantages of digital money."
Can you explain why this is any different to the other 6000 odd coins?
DrSteveBrule said:
You have a multi-million dollar self-executing contract pending. It requires multiple, varied inputs of data, some time critical. Would you trust the other parties to supply some of the information (that, if erroneous, could lose you millions) and in turn you have to satisfy them that your sources are trustworthy and neutral. Or would you prefer multiple, verified and trustless sources that have no bias to either party?
I understand the theory of smart contracts, however I don't see why blockchain is required for their practical implementation.I also don't understand the concept of "multiple, verified and trustless sources". Firstly, why would you want multiple sources of data? You want one, single, agreed source. An example of this would be conducting a credit check during a loan application process.
Secondly, how can a source be both verified and trustless? Don't you need some trusted authority to verify the source, otherwise who is doing the verification?
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff