Chat Forum
It is currently Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:16 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2377 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 11:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 47139
Quote:
The intention of the graph in this context is to show that Bitcoin has faced multiple drops, on a percentage basis, greater than this supposed all time worst crash.


Which would be relevant if the article was only about bit coin and in fact didn't state it thought Bitcoin was a winner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2018 1:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7840
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
The intention of the graph in this context is to show that Bitcoin has faced multiple drops, on a percentage basis, greater than this supposed all time worst crash.


Which would be relevant if the article was only about bit coin and in fact didn't state it thought Bitcoin was a winner.


Pretty much every other crypto that's been around awhile has gone through the same thing. Alts basically act as leveraged Bitcoin with regard to price.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 14693
Quote:
Myles Udland
‏ @MylesUdland

"Coinbase disclosed that almost twenty percent of executed volume on its platform was attributable to its own trading." Thanks for playing. https://virtualmarkets.ag.ny.gov/ (h/t @EpsilonTheory)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2018 6:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8739
paddyor wrote:
Quote:
Myles Udland
‏ @MylesUdland

"Coinbase disclosed that almost twenty percent of executed volume on its platform was attributable to its own trading." Thanks for playing. https://virtualmarkets.ag.ny.gov/ (h/t @EpsilonTheory)


That's a good read. Pleased to see that Bitstamp don't trade on their own platform. Best exchange for mine.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 441
goeagles wrote:
The intention of the graph in this context is to show that Bitcoin has faced multiple drops, on a percentage basis, greater than this supposed all time worst crash. Because of that, log scale is absolutely appropriate. I don't really care whether or not you think the graph is misleading in some other context.

Except the price graph does a terrible job as humans do not naturally perceive percentage drops on log scales. Creativity with price graphs - stretching the scales, sliding the scales, using log scales has been the mark of the financial charletanism for a century at least.
goeagles wrote:
And Bitcoin isn't particularly risky when a small part (say 1%) of a larger portfolio because it is much less correlated with the market than other assets (although increasingly less so). Let's take 2 portfolios. Option A is 60% equities and 40% bonds. Option B is 60% equities, 39% bonds and 1% Bitcoin. Which do you think would have had greater volatility over the last year?

This makes no sense. Playing roulette - as long as it's only with 1% of your portfolio - will not greatly affect the overall volatility of the portfolio either.

And the less correlated aspect is useless to an investor if the expected return is negative.

And I'd be very surprised if the daily volatility of the Option B was lower. But feel free to show me the numbers: overall sharpes and the daily return coorelation matrix for the 3 asset classes. Although since you are talking about only 1% allocated to bitcoin, the differences of course will be minscule.
goeagles wrote:
Edit to add that Bitcoin, like gold, is also a hedge against tail risk and that any discussion of how risky it is is incomplete without that.

How is it a hedge against tail risk? Gold has 1000s of years of documented history as a hedge against calamity - what pedigree has bitcoin got? It didn't even exist before the GFC and its price bubble coincided with one periods of huge price inflation across multiple asset classes.

The closest time we have to be able to test it would be the period from mid-late 2011 to about a year later when equity volatility spiked and gold soared. Unlike gold, bitcoin shed half it's value.

The bitcoin boosters are always moving the goalposts; first it was going to revolutionize payments, until it turned out that it was sh1t for payments. Then it was going to free us from the tyranny of "the man" until China dominated mining - meaning the network could be fücked anytime the freedom loving Chinese govenment decided. Then it was going to act as a long term store of value, until it turned out to be sh1t for that too with 50% drawdowns occurring on a regular basis. Next it's a "haven" asset that people will rush to in times of crisis except the only time in its tiny history where we had a significant risk-off period, it shed value.

But I don't know why I bother with this stuff - it's hard to know whether I'm talking with someone who is sipping the coolaid or someone who is pressing the bottles into people's hands. Honestly, if you weren't an investor in BTC, would you be spending time defending it? It's absolutely worthless from every perspective - even the technology (cryptographic distributed ledger) is a curiosity and nothing more.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 2:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8739
derriz wrote:
goeagles wrote:
The intention of the graph in this context is to show that Bitcoin has faced multiple drops, on a percentage basis, greater than this supposed all time worst crash. Because of that, log scale is absolutely appropriate. I don't really care whether or not you think the graph is misleading in some other context.

Except the price graph does a terrible job as humans do not naturally perceive percentage drops on log scales. Creativity with price graphs - stretching the scales, sliding the scales, using log scales has been the mark of the financial charletanism for a century at least.
goeagles wrote:
And Bitcoin isn't particularly risky when a small part (say 1%) of a larger portfolio because it is much less correlated with the market than other assets (although increasingly less so). Let's take 2 portfolios. Option A is 60% equities and 40% bonds. Option B is 60% equities, 39% bonds and 1% Bitcoin. Which do you think would have had greater volatility over the last year?

This makes no sense. Playing roulette - as long as it's only with 1% of your portfolio - will not greatly affect the overall volatility of the portfolio either.

And the less correlated aspect is useless to an investor if the expected return is negative.

And I'd be very surprised if the daily volatility of the Option B was lower. But feel free to show me the numbers: overall sharpes and the daily return coorelation matrix for the 3 asset classes. Although since you are talking about only 1% allocated to bitcoin, the differences of course will be minscule.
goeagles wrote:
Edit to add that Bitcoin, like gold, is also a hedge against tail risk and that any discussion of how risky it is is incomplete without that.

How is it a hedge against tail risk? Gold has 1000s of years of documented history as a hedge against calamity - what pedigree has bitcoin got? It didn't even exist before the GFC and its price bubble coincided with one periods of huge price inflation across multiple asset classes.

The closest time we have to be able to test it would be the period from mid-late 2011 to about a year later when equity volatility spiked and gold soared. Unlike gold, bitcoin shed half it's value.

The bitcoin boosters are always moving the goalposts; first it was going to revolutionize payments, until it turned out that it was sh1t for payments. Then it was going to free us from the tyranny of "the man" until China dominated mining - meaning the network could be fücked anytime the freedom loving Chinese govenment decided. Then it was going to act as a long term store of value, until it turned out to be sh1t for that too with 50% drawdowns occurring on a regular basis. Next it's a "haven" asset that people will rush to in times of crisis except the only time in its tiny history where we had a significant risk-off period, it shed value.

But I don't know why I bother with this stuff - it's hard to know whether I'm talking with someone who is sipping the coolaid or someone who is pressing the bottles into people's hands. Honestly, if you weren't an investor in BTC, would you be spending time defending it? It's absolutely worthless from every perspective - even the technology (cryptographic distributed ledger) is a curiosity and nothing more.


Your view on Ripple?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16686
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2018/09/21/bitcoin-flaw-could-have-allowed-dreaded-51-takeover/

Part of my job is IT compliance / security so I get notified of issues. This sort of thing makes me laugh, its incredibly lax. Rank amateurism in fact


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8739
sewa wrote:
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2018/09/21/bitcoin-flaw-could-have-allowed-dreaded-51-takeover/

Part of my job is IT compliance / security so I get notified of issues. This sort of thing makes me laugh, its incredibly lax. Rank amateurism in fact


Patched and also in older versions anyway. Do you code?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16686
sorCrer wrote:
sewa wrote:
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2018/09/21/bitcoin-flaw-could-have-allowed-dreaded-51-takeover/

Part of my job is IT compliance / security so I get notified of issues. This sort of thing makes me laugh, its incredibly lax. Rank amateurism in fact


Patched and also in older versions anyway. Do you code?


I don't code, we use outside consultants for that. It is the comments under this that are very worrying

Tweeted respected cryptocurrency expert and Cornell University professor, Emin Gün Sirer

Emin Gün Sirer

@el33th4xor
· Sep 19, 2018
Major bug in Bitcoin Core, that can cause a total network fracture for BTC.

Empirically, bugs like this are found regularly in every coin. No implementation has been shown to be superior to others. All noise to the contrary is false marketing. https://twitter.com/bitcoincoreorg/stat ... 2224860161

Looks like the bug fix made its way to Litecoin, but only after the BTC fix was announced. Does not look like Litecoin devs were notified of the bug prior to patch.

Copycat currencies are at risk. By definition, there's always a group upstream that knows their vulnerabilities.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8739
sewa wrote:
sorCrer wrote:
sewa wrote:
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2018/09/21/bitcoin-flaw-could-have-allowed-dreaded-51-takeover/

Part of my job is IT compliance / security so I get notified of issues. This sort of thing makes me laugh, its incredibly lax. Rank amateurism in fact


Patched and also in older versions anyway. Do you code?


I don't code, we use outside consultants for that. It is the comments under this that are very worrying

Tweeted respected cryptocurrency expert and Cornell University professor, Emin Gün Sirer

Emin Gün Sirer

@el33th4xor
· Sep 19, 2018
Major bug in Bitcoin Core, that can cause a total network fracture for BTC.

Empirically, bugs like this are found regularly in every coin. No implementation has been shown to be superior to others. All noise to the contrary is false marketing. https://twitter.com/bitcoincoreorg/stat ... 2224860161

Looks like the bug fix made its way to Litecoin, but only after the BTC fix was announced. Does not look like Litecoin devs were notified of the bug prior to patch.

Copycat currencies are at risk. By definition, there's always a group upstream that knows their vulnerabilities.


Yeah. Look the Core code is open source. Anyone with sufficient knowledge can read it and look for holes. It's been around for coming on 10 years now. Holes get found and holes get closed. This is good. Bugs happen in software.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16686
sorCrer wrote:

Yeah. Look the Core code is open source. Anyone with sufficient knowledge can read it and look for holes. It's been around for coming on 10 years now. Holes get found and holes get closed. This is good. Bugs happen in software.


Eh, no its not good. Certainly not if you get up one morning and all your cash is gone. The worrying thing from a compliance perspective is having identified the weakness the why did the developers not inform the litecoin developers in a timely fashion? You have to build trust in your product and this does not help at all


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8739
sewa wrote:
sorCrer wrote:

Yeah. Look the Core code is open source. Anyone with sufficient knowledge can read it and look for holes. It's been around for coming on 10 years now. Holes get found and holes get closed. This is good. Bugs happen in software.


Eh, no its not good. Certainly not if you get up one morning and all your cash is gone. The worrying thing from a compliance perspective is having identified the weakness the why did the developers not inform the litecoin developers in a timely fashion? You have to build trust in your product and this does not help at all


You shouldn't have all your cash invested in BTC. I agree that it's not ideal. Software writing is difficult. I hadn't heard of this Litecoin angle before although I knew about the flaw. I'd agree that devs should notify other devs using a common codebase if there is a flaw. As you well know, in the majority of cases flaws are actually quite difficult to exploit in the real world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 6:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 30131
Location: Planet Rock
sorCrer wrote:
sewa wrote:
sorCrer wrote:
sewa wrote:
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2018/09/21/bitcoin-flaw-could-have-allowed-dreaded-51-takeover/

Part of my job is IT compliance / security so I get notified of issues. This sort of thing makes me laugh, its incredibly lax. Rank amateurism in fact


Patched and also in older versions anyway. Do you code?


I don't code, we use outside consultants for that. It is the comments under this that are very worrying

Tweeted respected cryptocurrency expert and Cornell University professor, Emin Gün Sirer

Emin Gün Sirer

@el33th4xor
· Sep 19, 2018
Major bug in Bitcoin Core, that can cause a total network fracture for BTC.

Empirically, bugs like this are found regularly in every coin. No implementation has been shown to be superior to others. All noise to the contrary is false marketing. https://twitter.com/bitcoincoreorg/stat ... 2224860161

Looks like the bug fix made its way to Litecoin, but only after the BTC fix was announced. Does not look like Litecoin devs were notified of the bug prior to patch.

Copycat currencies are at risk. By definition, there's always a group upstream that knows their vulnerabilities.


Yeah. Look the Core code is open source. Anyone with sufficient knowledge can read it and look for holes. It's been around for coming on 10 years now. Holes get found and holes get closed. This is good. Bugs happen in software.

I have very little knowledge of softy but I nearly LOL when I read "this is good"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 441
sorCrer wrote:
derriz wrote:
goeagles wrote:
The intention of the graph in this context is to show that Bitcoin has faced multiple drops, on a percentage basis, greater than this supposed all time worst crash. Because of that, log scale is absolutely appropriate. I don't really care whether or not you think the graph is misleading in some other context.

Except the price graph does a terrible job as humans do not naturally perceive percentage drops on log scales. Creativity with price graphs - stretching the scales, sliding the scales, using log scales has been the mark of the financial charletanism for a century at least.
goeagles wrote:
And Bitcoin isn't particularly risky when a small part (say 1%) of a larger portfolio because it is much less correlated with the market than other assets (although increasingly less so). Let's take 2 portfolios. Option A is 60% equities and 40% bonds. Option B is 60% equities, 39% bonds and 1% Bitcoin. Which do you think would have had greater volatility over the last year?

This makes no sense. Playing roulette - as long as it's only with 1% of your portfolio - will not greatly affect the overall volatility of the portfolio either.

And the less correlated aspect is useless to an investor if the expected return is negative.

And I'd be very surprised if the daily volatility of the Option B was lower. But feel free to show me the numbers: overall sharpes and the daily return coorelation matrix for the 3 asset classes. Although since you are talking about only 1% allocated to bitcoin, the differences of course will be minscule.
goeagles wrote:
Edit to add that Bitcoin, like gold, is also a hedge against tail risk and that any discussion of how risky it is is incomplete without that.

How is it a hedge against tail risk? Gold has 1000s of years of documented history as a hedge against calamity - what pedigree has bitcoin got? It didn't even exist before the GFC and its price bubble coincided with one periods of huge price inflation across multiple asset classes.

The closest time we have to be able to test it would be the period from mid-late 2011 to about a year later when equity volatility spiked and gold soared. Unlike gold, bitcoin shed half it's value.

The bitcoin boosters are always moving the goalposts; first it was going to revolutionize payments, until it turned out that it was sh1t for payments. Then it was going to free us from the tyranny of "the man" until China dominated mining - meaning the network could be fücked anytime the freedom loving Chinese govenment decided. Then it was going to act as a long term store of value, until it turned out to be sh1t for that too with 50% drawdowns occurring on a regular basis. Next it's a "haven" asset that people will rush to in times of crisis except the only time in its tiny history where we had a significant risk-off period, it shed value.

But I don't know why I bother with this stuff - it's hard to know whether I'm talking with someone who is sipping the coolaid or someone who is pressing the bottles into people's hands. Honestly, if you weren't an investor in BTC, would you be spending time defending it? It's absolutely worthless from every perspective - even the technology (cryptographic distributed ledger) is a curiosity and nothing more.


Your view on Ripple?

No strong opinion because I don't know much about it. Do you mean as a technology/platform or the coin?

I think all the current coins are worthless. It costs zero to create them and they deliver no or very little utility. The prices are sustained purely by hype and bullshit.

I used to think the tech was interesting and that there must be novel applications waiting to be discovered but even there I'm skeptical. I don't expect any interesting applications to emerge in the near future. All businesses/companies want to be able to use legal systems to correct mistakes - hard cryptography is simply not an attractive tool in such a world. PKI is an idea that's great in theory but has achieved fudge all traction despite it being around for decades. It's 10 times easier to just roll-out a serverless architecture on the cloud than try to deploy an application built on a distributed ledger.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 6:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8739
Lightning network grown another 10% this month with capacity up 15% to around 110 BTC.

Interesting video released this weekend paying for a Coke with a QR Code and Lightning Network.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Fb6Xww2P7c


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 8:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 30122
I haven't watched this yet, but I will at some stage. Gilder was THE guru of the 90s - I sort of thought he was dead - but he has a big new theory about blockchain over the cloud.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cidZRD3NzHg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 4:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5352
Isnt Litecoin the best for maximising the Lightning Network?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 4:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 30131
Location: Planet Rock
It's all a steaming pile of excrement


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 12:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16686
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/20/bitcoin-price-plunges-2018-low-cryptocurrency-value

Another great buying oppurtunity, 4387 dollars


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 3:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 30122
Amazing thread to dip back into. I see I 'predicted' (by pulling some figure out of my arse) this was going to $500. The Spectator did a detailed special section on Crypto last week. Not sure why, and I didn't read it in detail. So there's still things going on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 3:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16686
TranceNRG wrote:
Cryptos bouncing back today. I was tempted to buy more the other day but decided not to increase my exposure.


:D :D :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 4:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 30131
Location: Planet Rock
sewa wrote:
TranceNRG wrote:
Cryptos bouncing back today. I was tempted to buy more the other day but decided not to increase my exposure.


:D :D :D

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 11:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 14693
https://twitter.com/DoveyWan/status/1064878600594305025

The wheelbarrow gives it a Weimar vibe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 11:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 30122
:shock: :shock: :shock:

https://twitter.com/DoveyWan/status/1064878600594305025

fake?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2018 12:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20949
Location: SOB>Todd
So, is democracy saved yet?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2018 10:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 441
Surely this thread deserves a bounce? Bitcoin has lost nearly half it's value since goeagles presented that comforting graph. And the other coins (which you were supposed to buy for "diversification") have done even worse.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1411
But I thought it was supposed to be a currency, not an investment?
I must have missed something :?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 30131
Location: Planet Rock
goeagles wrote:
Edit to add that Bitcoin, like gold, is also a hedge against tail risk and that any discussion of how risky it is is incomplete without that.


Bitcoin is bouncing it's way down nicely


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2018 3:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 30131
Location: Planet Rock
derriz wrote:
goeagles wrote:
Bowens wrote:


It's not even Bitcoin's worst % loss in the last 5 years.

Image

That's a very deceptive graph.

Using a log price scale makes it look like an investor at the peak has only suffered minor losses.

The true scale of fall since the peak are clear when you scale the price linearly:
Image

lost more than half it's "value" again since your post.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13069
Anonymous. wrote:
sewa wrote:
TranceNRG wrote:
Cryptos bouncing back today. I was tempted to buy more the other day but decided not to increase my exposure.


:D :D :D

Image



:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8739
In far more important news: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/wo ... ken-place/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2018 11:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 441
sorCrer wrote:

For me this is represents all that's wrong with the crypto technology research. Someone has managed to come up with a complicated, slow, expensive and non-general mechanism to do a limited form of 2 phase commit and this achievement gets hyped as a breakthrough.

Meanwhile "traditional" unhyped technologies (databases, message queues, app servers, CICS, etc.) have been able to support fully general distributed transactions across products from different vendors using 2-phase commit for decades (e.g. X/Open XA is nearly 30 years). Distributed transactions are trivial (outside of the blockchain hype-bubble) and are not even considered a problem.

This "breakthrough" demonstrates that trying to build applications on this technology (blockchain) makes trivial tasks incredibly complex and difficult. Outside of some tiny tiny niches, you'd be mad to consider building any application on blockchain.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2018 11:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16686
sorCrer wrote:


I am sure that is great consolation to the likes of Trancenrg who was busy buying shitloads of bitcoin at 20k and now finds them worth 3.3k


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2018 12:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm
Posts: 9259
sorCrer wrote:


That article highlights the problem crypto currencies have if they are ever to really become mainstream. I am reasonably smart, fairly tech savvy and have free cash that is always looking for a home.

Yet I read that article and I get exactly the same impression I get when I read any article about crypto currencies - it is written for the benefit of the "insiders", not the general population. It is dripping with jargon and techno babble and should scare off anyone who is not immersed in the technology every day.

To really become mainstream, crypto currencies need to be communicated in a different way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2018 12:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:57 pm
Posts: 975
derriz wrote:
sorCrer wrote:

For me this is represents all that's wrong with the crypto technology research. Someone has managed to come up with a complicated, slow, expensive and non-general mechanism to do a limited form of 2 phase commit and this achievement gets hyped as a breakthrough.

Meanwhile "traditional" unhyped technologies (databases, message queues, app servers, CICS, etc.) have been able to support fully general distributed transactions across products from different vendors using 2-phase commit for decades (e.g. X/Open XA is nearly 30 years). Distributed transactions are trivial (outside of the blockchain hype-bubble) and are not even considered a problem.

This "breakthrough" demonstrates that trying to build applications on this technology (blockchain) makes trivial tasks incredibly complex and difficult. Outside of some tiny tiny niches, you'd be mad to consider building any application on blockchain.


Not only that, but aren't blockchain resolutions INCREDIBLY energy-inefficient? I'm wary of reports and studies that try to estimate the energy consumed for blockchain activities such as mining Bitcoin, but it's clear we are talking about Gigawatts. This is "hidden" in the decentralised structure of blockchain, but the consumption is very much a reality.

Once blockchain were to expand to provide whatever solutions the world deemed necessary (2-phase commit, proof of work, replacement of tangible currencies) wouldn't the required energy consumption by miners/peers/whatever they end up being called cripple the combined global energy generation networks?

Blockchain appears to run counter to the global trend of energy-efficiency and appears to be an onerously expensive methodology for society.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2018 12:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 30122
A5D5E5 wrote:
sorCrer wrote:


That article highlights the problem crypto currencies have if they are ever to really become mainstream. I am reasonably smart, fairly tech savvy and have free cash that is always looking for a home.

Yet I read that article and I get exactly the same impression I get when I read any article about crypto currencies - it is written for the benefit of the "insiders", not the general population. It is dripping with jargon and techno babble and should scare off anyone who is not immersed in the technology every day.

To really become mainstream, crypto currencies need to be communicated in a different way.


Atomic swap is pretty catchy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2018 1:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm
Posts: 9259
Seneca of the Night wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
sorCrer wrote:


That article highlights the problem crypto currencies have if they are ever to really become mainstream. I am reasonably smart, fairly tech savvy and have free cash that is always looking for a home.

Yet I read that article and I get exactly the same impression I get when I read any article about crypto currencies - it is written for the benefit of the "insiders", not the general population. It is dripping with jargon and techno babble and should scare off anyone who is not immersed in the technology every day.

To really become mainstream, crypto currencies need to be communicated in a different way.


Atomic swap is pretty catchy.


Meh. Atomic is so 19th century. The cool kids are into supersymmetric particles now. I'd go for "Quantum squark exchange".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8739
jezzer wrote:
derriz wrote:
sorCrer wrote:

For me this is represents all that's wrong with the crypto technology research. Someone has managed to come up with a complicated, slow, expensive and non-general mechanism to do a limited form of 2 phase commit and this achievement gets hyped as a breakthrough.

Meanwhile "traditional" unhyped technologies (databases, message queues, app servers, CICS, etc.) have been able to support fully general distributed transactions across products from different vendors using 2-phase commit for decades (e.g. X/Open XA is nearly 30 years). Distributed transactions are trivial (outside of the blockchain hype-bubble) and are not even considered a problem.

This "breakthrough" demonstrates that trying to build applications on this technology (blockchain) makes trivial tasks incredibly complex and difficult. Outside of some tiny tiny niches, you'd be mad to consider building any application on blockchain.


Not only that, but aren't blockchain resolutions INCREDIBLY energy-inefficient? I'm wary of reports and studies that try to estimate the energy consumed for blockchain activities such as mining Bitcoin, but it's clear we are talking about Gigawatts. This is "hidden" in the decentralised structure of blockchain, but the consumption is very much a reality.

Once blockchain were to expand to provide whatever solutions the world deemed necessary (2-phase commit, proof of work, replacement of tangible currencies) wouldn't the required energy consumption by miners/peers/whatever they end up being called cripple the combined global energy generation networks?

Blockchain appears to run counter to the global trend of energy-efficiency and appears to be an onerously expensive methodology for society.


Lightning Network (allowing for off chain transactions) was invented to mitigate the energy consumption. But you are correct proof of work transactional verification is not as energy efficient as proof of stake due to its competitive and lottery like mechanism.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 30131
Location: Planet Rock
sewa wrote:
sorCrer wrote:


I am sure that is great consolation to the likes of Trancenrg who was busy buying shitloads of bitcoin at 20k and now finds them worth 3.3k

In it for the tech


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16686
Anonymous. wrote:
sewa wrote:
sorCrer wrote:


I am sure that is great consolation to the likes of Trancenrg who was busy buying shitloads of bitcoin at 20k and now finds them worth 3.3k

In it for the tech


:lol: :lol: :lol: :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2377 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Fat Old Git, frankster, Google Adsense [Bot], guy smiley, Hong Kong, Jake, jambanja, kingswood, kiwidutchie, Laurent, maxbox, message #2527204, pjm1, RuggaBugga, Sards, Sydvicious, Turbogoat, Xupi and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group