Jarkko Mattheiszen
The FU guy.
And back when this stuff was new, you could use your PC to mine the coins. Because these days it takes a lot more juice, this is considered quite a light setup for mining AFAIK:
Is anyone here into Cryptocurrency?
- Thread starter SocialNumb
- Start date
And back when this stuff was new, you could use your PC to mine the coins. Because these days it takes a lot more juice, this is considered quite a light setup for mining AFAIK:
Definitely Jarkko, I've seen some rigs on youtube. Mining hardware can get expensive if you want to play with the big boys.
Flow Of Time
Member
- Oct 6, 2012
- 686
- 0
- 16
Still don't quite get it.. This system rewards you with "money", for cracking a "block"? What do they gain from the block being cracked?
Here you go Flow Of Time:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1mu4yj/can_someone_explain_mining_like_im_5_please/
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1mu4yj/can_someone_explain_mining_like_im_5_please/
Flow Of Time
Member
- Oct 6, 2012
- 686
- 0
- 16
AD Chaos
MGTOW
- Aug 3, 2009
- 1,602
- 14
- 38
If you want to create bitcoins you have to 'load a log' or some sort of exponential algorithm (don't remember the terminology) of all previous bitcoins created, so, as more bitcoins come into existence, you need more sophisticated/powerful computer(s) in order to create new ones.
That's part of the Ponzi scheme, the original bitcoin creators are hoarding most of them, and creating hype to get more people into the pyramid. When the bubble bursts they bail out with 'real' money, while investors get ripped off (just as it already happened in Japan).
There's no such thing as a 'responsible central bank'. That's like defending criminals by calling them honest thieves or merciful assassins.
Whether the currency is created by 'internet nerds' or the thieves of a central bank, the problem is those forms of money don't have intrinsic value.
At least fiat money is paper; bitcoins are a number on a screen.
That's part of the Ponzi scheme, the original bitcoin creators are hoarding most of them, and creating hype to get more people into the pyramid. When the bubble bursts they bail out with 'real' money, while investors get ripped off (just as it already happened in Japan).
There's no such thing as a 'responsible central bank'. That's like defending criminals by calling them honest thieves or merciful assassins.
Whether the currency is created by 'internet nerds' or the thieves of a central bank, the problem is those forms of money don't have intrinsic value.
At least fiat money is paper; bitcoins are a number on a screen.
TheWinterSnow
Den Mørke Natt
Like was mentioned here earlier in the video with Peter Schiff, bit coin or any other alternative concurrency needs to be backed by something with intrinsic value. Cryptocurrency is currently (no pun intended) in its infantile stage but the conversation and experimentation is a major leap in the right direction. I see the final and stable version of this being a system where people re putting in something of intrinsic value such as gold, silver, hell even copper and platinum, the electronic mining would be the method to obtain interest on your balance equal to the amount of value created by such service, which would be charged as a branch tax/account fee. If there is a constant supply of a physical good going into such bank(s) than you are increasing the supply, going back to the argument that the currency can't increase in value by just sitting, you get in what you put out. By having an income of real goods of value the "tax" for mining electronically is the mechanism that counteracts the change in value over gold when it it comes into a higher supply thus locking the value of the intrinsic good with the digital currency and there will be little elasticty in the value of the currency, which is a good thing and a great mechanism to keep governments from going on spending sprees.
For all of you saying it's a "Ponzi scheme" and that's that.
http://www.dell.com/learn/us/en/uscorp1/campaigns/bitcoin-marketing?c=us&l=en&s=corp
Welcome to the future.
Edit: Hustler.com (NSFW, obviously) takes three coins:
Bitcoin
Litecoin
Dogecoin.
newegg.com takes Bitcoin
okcupid.com takes Bitcoin
overstock.com takes Bitcoin
cars.com takes Bitcoin
bandcamp takes Bitcoin
and 9908 other sites take Bitcoin.
Up next, the known world.
http://www.dell.com/learn/us/en/uscorp1/campaigns/bitcoin-marketing?c=us&l=en&s=corp
Welcome to the future.
Edit: Hustler.com (NSFW, obviously) takes three coins:
Bitcoin
Litecoin
Dogecoin.
newegg.com takes Bitcoin
okcupid.com takes Bitcoin
overstock.com takes Bitcoin
cars.com takes Bitcoin
bandcamp takes Bitcoin
and 9908 other sites take Bitcoin.
Up next, the known world.
It's definitely not a ponzi scheme but are these coins even sustainable currencies?
Isn't it all just ones and zeros at this point? I don't even use cash at this point. What gives it value? Just the fact that we think it has value. Kinda like, the dollar. (making it harder and harder to "mine" gives it more value as well)
Anyways, I'm no expert on these things. Money is money to me. If the world agrees shit is valuable,(in some cases it is) I would use that too.
Anyways, I'm no expert on these things. Money is money to me. If the world agrees shit is valuable,(in some cases it is) I would use that too.
TheWinterSnow
Den Mørke Natt
Isn't it all just ones and zeros at this point? I don't even use cash at this point. What gives it value? Just the fact that we think it has value. Kinda like, the dollar. (making it harder and harder to "mine" gives it more value as well)
Anyways, I'm no expert on these things. Money is money to me. If the world agrees shit is valuable,(in some cases it is) I would use that too.
Money shouldn't me ones and zeros, it is supposed to represent something that has equal value to everyone.
Old banks were safe places to store your gold, used for transaction. The bank would give people receipts so that they could redeem that gold at a later date. The banks started realizing that people weren't coming in anymore but imply were using the receipts as a transfer in ownership at the bank. People ere confident that the gold would be there in the bank and it could be redeemed.
Banks then started printing variable demonstrations so that transfer of gold could be easier.
The ones and zeros in your bank account should be nothing more than noting a transfer of ownership of actual gold. Since we don't have a gold standard anymore the total value of all the paper currency in the economy is only equal to the total number of gold we have.
When the market recognizes that there isn't enough paper money to back up goods and services (and gold) it corrects itself, also known as burst bubbles. The housing bubble and stock market crash of 2008 is a prime (no pun intended) example of what happens when the government prints more money than it has to fund itself and give to corporate banks to give out loans to people who wouldn't normally have gotten them hadn't the FOMC artificially lowered interest rates. Interest rates traditionally are controlled by the consumers rate of consumption, giving incentive for people and businesses to either spend now, or save for the future.
What happens when government prints more money for itself that it doesn't have? It effectively allows the government to steal the money in your bank account or the paper money you have stored up in your house/safe etc. That is because the money you hold on to is now worth less, it looses value because it now represent less gold than it used to. The same thing happens to stock and their power of company ownership, when new investors come in and they have to print more stock, old stock holders now own less of the company and therefor the stock is worth less.
When the economy effectively checks and tries to balance it's imaginary checkbook and recognizes a discrepancy, that it spent more money than it had, it has to correct itself. The economy that I am personifying is collectively the budgets of all individuals, corporations and the state/federal budgets. When the market realizes it has a deficit, stocks are sold because the holders become uncertain of the economy and everything comes to a grinding halt. Obviously you would stop spending if you realized you were a grand over on the books a particular month.
If you don't spend money than companies stop making product, and investors and stockholder sell of their share because the company is now worth less and could possibly go under. All because we collectively the economy thought there was more gold in the bank than there was. Paper money now is nothing more than an IOU but there is a high chance that the recipient will never get paid.
Like I mentioned before, money needs to be backed by something with intrinsic value, something that goes not age, something that is moderately rare and has similar if not equal value to all people in a particular economy. The inflation/deflation rates of gold due to supply and demand is the most stable mineral/element in the world, and has historically been <1.0% minus the gold rush but it did correct itself over the following 8 years after. That is hat makes it good for trade, it still has the same value as it did 200+ years ago. Our paper money on the other hand, hasn't had the same track record.
Loren Littlejohn
Lover of all boobage.
TimatWaves
Tim at Waves
He's Dead, Jim
Member
Gold is good for constraining central banks. They can't be irresponsible. If they're responsible, there is no need for gold and the constraints it places on monetary policy. The Fed is responsible. The Venezuelan central bank and the Zimbabwean central bank are not. Ergo, we're fine.
This Vox article, though it has an inflammatory title, also offers some compelling arguments against the gold standard and backing currencies with physical assets.
It's cool that companies (including Waves) accept BitCoin, and it's an interesting concept. I just don't think any actual economists, who study and understand economics, would really endorse the gold standard using some of the same arguments BitCoin people make against the fiat dollar. It's like a climate scientist saying global warming is a farce. It just doesn't happen, and the people who do say it are generally cranks. The University of Chicago Business School did a survey a couple of years ago of top economists, Republicans and Democrats, and asked them whether they thought going back to gold was a good idea. Literally 0 of them said yes. One responded, "Love of the G.S. implies macroeconomic illiteracy." A bit harsh, but you get the idea.
So if your pro-cryptocurrency arguments are driven by fear of the collapse of the fiat dollar and a desire for something more intrinsically stable, whether gold or something else, I'm not sure that's a coherent argument. Wanting alternative currencies because they're interesting investments outside the purview of government is definitely an argument in their favor, though, and it would be neat if they became more popular in countries like Venezuela and Argentina, where the government prints money willy-nilly.
AD Chaos
MGTOW
- Aug 3, 2009
- 1,602
- 14
- 38
I don't know how someone can contradict a simple and sound principle like this, but I guess it won't stop people from trying.
AD Chaos
MGTOW
- Aug 3, 2009
- 1,602
- 14
- 38
No one is.
Society should break free from the modern-day slavery of the banking system (which apparently includes Bitcoins), but that won't happen without some deep hyperinflation crash first (maybe not even then, tbh).
This post is filled with inaccuracies and misconceptions, you should learn what (largely electronic) fiat money *currency truly is, before doing things like calling a central bank 'responsible':
Last edited by a moderator:
My "slavery" affords me a lot of shit I don't need. It's pretty cool.
tl:dw lol
Honestly I know exactly what they're going to say from my past/present watching conspiracy theory vids. Not saying that is one but it's the same reasoning concerning banking and the Federal Reserve system.
tl:dw lol
Honestly I know exactly what they're going to say from my past/present watching conspiracy theory vids. Not saying that is one but it's the same reasoning concerning banking and the Federal Reserve system.
TheWinterSnow
Den Mørke Natt
When you also know what groups and politicians were responsible for the federal reserve act, why they wrote the act and how they used centralized banking to remove the gold standard and the deficit that has come with it you wouldn't call any central bank let alone The Federal Reserve and the FOMC responsible.
The reason most mode economists are against a gold standard is because in the state that our economy is in it would be a very painful transition, our current government is way to big to function and lot of departments would have to be shut down. Many currently taught economist are taught that a centralized bank that controls the money supply based on what it believes is best for the economy is desirable. Then you have the same economists that claim that the US debt will never have negative effects in the economy and the government. Then you have the officials in the FMOC that boldly claim that there are no mechanisms to check and balance their decisions and that they are above the law.
Having spent years of research on current events, US history and historical economics among many other things (its a strange hobby) I can't find any mechanisms where locking a fiat currency to the supply and demand relationship of paper money to gold (or other intrinsically valued item) is a bad thing compared to the Federal Reserve printing money out of thin air when the government doesn't have enough tax dollars to operate their budget.
Now if someone would provide the mechanisms and statistics with historical references on why centralized fractional reserve banking that is controlled by the Federal Reserve and how inflation and debt is not necessarily a bad thing is better than locking the value of paper money to something that does not change in value outside the demand for people to consume or save resources, I am all ears, I can't say I have ever gotten a detailed answer other than "just because" or "you need government to regulate because their would be chaos and corporation will turn people into slaves"...and also the array of ad hominems and insults rather than actually answer a genuine question. And those insult are almost never directed to me, those are the typical responses of "economists" when asked similar questions.
Similar threads
