The Sceptics thread.

JohnnyFlash

Bitcoin has been around for 10 years, and is now less useful than it was 5 years ago. Then it was used by drug addicts and kiddie fiddlers to buy their fixes. Now it’s just used as a highly speculative asset. Most of which involves small ‘investors’ handing over money to ‘whales’ - a report today shows 95.94 of bitcoins are held by 3.14% of wallets.

Ethereum first launched 4 years ago. It’s only usage so far has been to make it trivially easy to launch other coins. 710 of them last year. Dapps are three years old and these are the most successful ones:

makeorbrake

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Bitcoin has been around for 10 years, and is now less useful than it was 5 years ago.

From whitepaper to present, it's almost 10 years. You're trying to suggest that if it can't achieve full development in that timeframe (despite the complexity presented in attempting to change something as fundamental as money), it has nothing to offer. I refer you to the timelime for the development of the internet (see below). By your logic, they should have stopped in 1971. If they had stopped in 1991, it would have been tragic as we were still a ways off the innovation of the modern day internet. Yours is an attitude that would stymie innovation given the opportunity.

As regards btc being 'less useful than it was 5 years ago' - you have a funny way of tracking progress. Bitcoin is the first significant milestone in crypto/blockchain. Without it, we would not have seen the development of blockchain 2.0 and 3.0 - which (despite your protestations) will go on to solve many of the issues that bitcoin has experienced.
Furthermore, bitcoin became a victim of it's own success - and as a consequence hit a scaling issue. Sometimes, you have to drop down a step in order to progress forward. Hence the development of lightning network and other layer 2 solutions.
As regards the jibe you wont let go of (i.e. drug addicts and pedo's exclusively using btc), the same nonsense was put out there by naysayers in the early days of the internet. Outside of those groups, there are plenty of us who acknowledge the value, importance and necessity of a censorship resistant means of exchange. Society comes in all shades. That a minority use it for bad purposes should not lead to the baby being thrown out with the bathwater and society to be deprived of an excellent tool as a consequence.
As an aside, here is your wonderful FIAT (in this case the USD) being used for illicit purposes.

JohnnyFlash wrote:

Now it’s just used as a highly speculative asset.

All and sundry have acknowledged that there has been a great deal of speculation over the past 6 months. However, you are suggesting that there are no people involved in crypto/blockchain with their eyes firmly fixed on developing the technology as opposed to spending their time on price speculation. That suggestion doesn't hold water.

JohnnyFlash wrote:

Most of which involves small ‘investors’ handing over money to ‘whales’ - a report today shows 95.94 of bitcoins are held by 3.14% of wallets.

There are 'whales' in the conventional investment classes also. Furthermore, the richest 1% hold 50% of the worlds wealth. I guess I'm saying ...'so what' to your statement. By the way, how many spent/throw away wallets are included in that statistic?

JohnnyFlash wrote:

Ethereum first launched 4 years ago. It’s only usage so far has been to make it trivially easy to launch other coins.

It has already established a use case in terms of the launch of ICO's (it doesn't make any difference that you don't like this). BTC had a limited programmable element. Ethereum takes that on further and is the first real attempt at a truly programmable currency although by all accounts solidity is not well regarded as a programming language. Blockchain 3.0 projects will take this on a stage further with the ability to programme in c++, javascript, etc.

JohnnyFlash wrote:

Dapps are three years old

Dapps have hardly even gotten out of the traps - you can expect plenty more Dapps coming along soon through the likes of EOS, etc.

If you maintain that crypto is of so little importance, why on earth would you spend a second of your time on it? You said a couple of posts back that you spend no more than 30 minutes a week on it - but that's certainly not true!


Internet History Timeline
1961: Leonard Kleinrock writes about Arpanet in his paper - "Information Flow in Large Communication Nets".
1965: Two computers at MIT Lincoln Lab communicate with one another using packet-switching technology.
1968: Beranek and Newman, Inc. (BBN) unveils the final version of the Interface Message Processor (IMP) specifications. BBN wins ARPANET contract.
1969: On Oct. 29, UCLA’s Network Measurement Center, Stanford Research Institute (SRI), University of California-Santa Barbara and University of Utah install nodes. The first message is "LO," which was an attempt by student Charles Kline to "LOGIN" to the SRI computer from the university. However, the message was unable to be completed because the SRI system crashed.
1972: BBN’s Ray Tomlinson introduces network email. The Internetworking Working Group (INWG) forms to address need for establishing standard protocols.
1973: Global networking becomes a reality as the University College of London (England) and Royal Radar Establishment (Norway) connect to ARPANET. The term Internet is born.
1974: The first Internet Service Provider (ISP) is born with the introduction of a commercial version of ARPANET, known as Telenet.
1974: Vinton Cerf and Bob Kahn (the duo said by many to be the Fathers of the Internet) publish "A Protocol for Packet Network Interconnection," which details the design of TCP.
1976: Queen Elizabeth II hits the “send button” on her first email.
1979: USENET forms to host news and discussion groups.
1981: The National Science Foundation (NSF) provided a grant to establish the Computer Science Network (CSNET) to provide networking services to university computer scientists.
1982: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and Internet Protocol (IP), as the protocol suite, commonly known as TCP/IP, emerge as the protocol for ARPANET. This results in the fledgling definition of the Internet as connected TCP/IP internets. TCP/IP remains the standard protocol for the Internet.
1983: The Domain Name System (DNS) establishes the familiar .edu, .gov, .com, .mil, .org, .net, and .int system for naming websites. This is easier to remember than the previous designation for websites, such as 123.456.789.10.
1984: William Gibson, author of "Neuromancer," is the first to use the term "cyberspace."
1985: Symbolics.com, the website for Symbolics Computer Corp. in Massachusetts, becomes the first registered domain.
1986: The National Science Foundation’s NSFNET goes online to connected supercomputer centers at 56,000 bits per second — the speed of a typical dial-up computer modem. Over time the network speeds up and regional research and education networks, supported in part by NSF, are connected to the NSFNET backbone — effectively expanding the Internet throughout the United States. The NSFNET was essentially a network of networks that connected academic users along with the ARPANET.
1987: The number of hosts on the Internet exceeds 20,000. Cisco ships its first router.
1989: World.std.com becomes the first commercial provider of dial-up access to the Internet.
1990: Tim Berners-Lee, a scientist at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, develops HyperText Markup Language (HTML). This technology continues to have a large impact on how we navigate and view the Internet today.
1991: CERN introduces the World Wide Web to the public.
1992: The first audio and video are distributed over the Internet. The phrase "surfing the Internet" is popularized.
1993: The number of websites reaches 600 and the White House and United Nations go online. Marc Andreesen develops the Mosaic Web browser at the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana. The number of computers connected to NSFNET grows from 2,000 in 1985 to more than 2 million in 1993. The National Science Foundation leads an effort to outline a new Internet architecture that would support the burgeoning commercial use of the network.
1994: Netscape Communications is born. Microsoft creates a Web browser for Windows 95.
1994: Yahoo! is created by Jerry Yang and David Filo, two electrical engineering graduate students at Stanford University. The site was originally called "Jerry and David's Guide to the World Wide Web." The company was later incorporated in March 1995.
1995: Compuserve, America Online and Prodigy begin to provide Internet access. Amazon.com, Craigslist and eBay go live. The original NSFNET backbone is decommissioned as the Internet’s transformation to a commercial enterprise is largely completed.
1995: The first online dating site, Match.com, launches.
1996: The browser war, primarily between the two major players Microsoft and Netscape, heats up. CNET buys tv.com for $15,000.
1996: A 3D animation dubbed "The Dancing Baby" becomes one of the first viral videos.
1997: Netflix is founded by Reed Hastings and Marc Randolph as a company that sends users DVDs by mail.
1997: PC makers can remove or hide Microsoft’s Internet software on new versions of Windows 95, thanks to a settlement with the Justice Department. Netscape announces that its browser will be free.
1998: The Google search engine is born, changing the way users engage with the Internet.
1998: The Internet Protocol version 6 introduced, to allow for future growth of Internet Addresses. The current most widely used protocol is version 4. IPv4 uses 32-bit addresses allowing for 4.3 billion unique addresses; IPv6, with 128-bit addresses, will allow 3.4 x 1038 unique addresses, or 340 trillion trillion trillion.
1999: AOL buys Netscape. Peer-to-peer file sharing becomes a reality as Napster arrives on the Internet, much to the displeasure of the music industry.
2000: The dot-com bubble bursts. Web sites such as Yahoo! and eBay are hit by a large-scale denial of service attack, highlighting the vulnerability of the Internet. AOL merges with Time Warner
2001: A federal judge shuts down Napster, ruling that it must find a way to stop users from sharing copyrighted material before it can go back online.
2003: The SQL Slammer worm spread worldwide in just 10 minutes. Myspace, Skype and the Safari Web browser debut.
2003: The blog publishing platform WordPress is launched.
2004: Facebook goes online and the era of social networking begins. Mozilla unveils the Mozilla Firefox browser.
2005: YouTube.com launches. The social news site Reddit is also founded.
2006: AOL changes its business model, offering most services for free and relying on advertising to generate revenue. The Internet Governance Forum meets for the first time.
2006: Twitter launches. The company's founder, Jack Dorsey, sends out the very first tweet: "just setting up my twttr."
2009: The Internet marks its 40th anniversary.
2010: Facebook reaches 400 million active users.
2010: The social media sites Pinterest and Instagram are launched.
2011: Twitter and Facebook play a large role in the Middle East revolts.
2012: President Barack Obama's administration announces its opposition to major parts of the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect Intellectual Property Act, which would have enacted broad new rules requiring internet service providers to police copyrighted content. The successful push to stop the bill, involving technology companies such as Google and nonprofit organizations including Wikipedia and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, is considered a victory for sites such as YouTube that depend on user-generated content, as well as "fair use" on the Internet.
2013: Edward Snowden, a former CIA employee and National Security Agency (NSA) contractor, reveals that the NSA had in place a monitoring program capable of tapping the communications of thousands of people, including U.S. citizens.
2013: Fifty-one percent of U.S. adults report that they bank online, according to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center.
2015: Instagram, the photo-sharing site, reaches 400 million users, outpacing Twitter, which would go on to reach 316 million users by the middle of the same year.
2016: Google unveils Google Assistant, a voice-activated personal assistant program, marking the entry of the Internet giant into the "smart" computerized assistant marketplace. Google joins Amazon's Alexa, Siri from Apple, and Cortana from Microsoft.
link

sexmag

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/8mwi9o/market_manipulation_or_just_a_coincidence/

grindle

Thanks God that didn't have to be me, Christ. Great post.

1991-2001 is an interesting period that makes me wonder what the IRL Johnny was like when the internet was just getting going in terms of average consumers.

"News on the web? We have Newspapers, dummy!"

"Shopping on the web? Pfft, brick and mortar retail will never be affected!"

"Emails? I already have a fax machine, how could this be better?"

"Hah! The bubble has burst, I told you so! What. A. Scam."

"Napster? Wtf? So the internet's just used for robbing things so? Should be banned, what a waste."

Johnny, this is precisely how you sound about crypto. Unwilling to take anything on board, unwilling to enter any meaningful dialogue, a bizarre belief or trust in the status quo despite hundreds or maybe thousands of years of systemic fraud and deception proving the necessity of trustlessness and self-ownership.

JohnnyFlash

The comparison between blockchain/bitcoin and the internet is false equivalence. A more accurate comparison would be between blockchain and say, the smartphone, the NoSQL database, streaming television etc - services or technologies developed on top of others. The internet involved a huge series of incremental steps- development of protocols, agreements, standards, businesses etc. Blockchain already had a network, sufficient computing power, protocols, storage, people comfortable with computers, open source development etc. It's a novel technology, but I'm sure lots of novel technologies came out between 2008 and 2010 that used this worldwide system we call the Internet to build on.

So after 10 years there hasn't been any significant use case for blockchain. It's use as a currency on the dark web markets is now over. It's only USP is that's it's very expensive to tamper the records, or take control of the consensus network. It achieves this by using monumental amounts of electricity. The more electricity you use, the more loyalty you demonstrate, and the more money you make. Proof of stake, proof of claim, and other proofs haven't been demonstrated at all yet.

Bitcoin is a terrible form of currency, a rubbish store of value, a very inefficient method of storage, and now exists only as a highly speculative asset in a bizarre ecosystem where the worst extremes of cowboy capitalism are seen as a virtue.

sexmag

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

So after 10 years there hasn't been any significant use case for blockchain.

In had to go through a lot of posts to find it but I remembered this post when you posted the above

lifeandtimes wrote: »

https://medium.com/@mccannatron/12-graphs-that-show-just-how-early-the-cryptocurrency-market-is-653a4b8b2720

Fantastic article.

Through all his reseaech(And a little assumption where required) this guy claims that we are only roughly in the year 1994 when comparing cryptocurrencies and the rise of the internet

Also just a simple search for blockchain on coindesk brings up tons of articles on block chain use cases

https://www.coindesk.com/indian-telecoms-watchdog-to-combat-nuisance-calls-with-blockchain

https://www.coindesk.com/chinas-xi-endorses-blockchain-breakthrough-economic-reform (the Chinese who you are so fond off)

https://www.coindesk.com/china-universities-plan-blockchain-dao-for-affordable-education

https://www.coindesk.com/blockchain-could-revolutionize-retail-and-cpg-industries-deloitte

S.M.B.

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

The comparison between blockchain/bitcoin and the internet is false equivalence. A more accurate comparison would be between blockchain and say, the smartphone, the NoSQL database, streaming television etc - services or technologies developed on top of others. The internet involved a huge series of incremental steps- development of protocols, agreements, standards, businesses etc. Blockchain already had a network, sufficient computing power, protocols, storage, people comfortable with computers, open source development etc. It's a novel technology, but I'm sure lots of novel technologies came out between 2008 and 2010 that used this worldwide system we call the Internet to build on.

The comparison between blockchain/bitcoin and the internet may be a false equivalence but comparing it to NoSQL databases is equally so.

A more accurate example may be a comparison between blockchain and the world wide web and we all know how big an impact that has had over the past 25 years.

I'm no crypto enthusiast and am still happily sitting on the fence but if certain issues can be resolved then I see no reason why it can't have a dramatic effect on the next 10 years.

makeorbrake

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

The comparison between blockchain/bitcoin and the internet is false equivalence. The internet involved a huge series of incremental steps- development of protocols, agreements, standards, businesses etc. Blockchain already had a network, sufficient computing power, protocols, storage, people comfortable with computers, open source development etc.

I disagree. You talk of development of protocols. What exactly is a protocol? In the case of an alternative crypto I'm currently researching (IOTA) they talk exactly in these terms. Their vision is that IOTA becomes the protocol for IoT - in the same way as http and tcp/ip are for internet.
In terms of agreements and standards, a body of work is being done on this by those directly involved in the industry.

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Blockchain already had a network, sufficient computing power, protocols, storage, people comfortable with computers, open source development etc.

It does NOT have a built out eco-system. It's not easy for people to get into crypto ...usually because of the stumbling blocks conventional systems place in the way (KYC / AML policies and the barrier to entry this creates).
A lot more work needs to be done to make crypto more palatable to the ordinary person - work on user friendly wallets, etc. Solutions that help people manage a crypto wallet so as they won't lose keys, etc.
As you rightly pointed out, bitcoin fails to scale at the moment. However, rather than stop (and which bizarrely you think everyone should just put their hands up and say, 'we're doomed'!) - this has led to blockchain 2.0 and 3.0 i.e. those involved with bitcoin are looking for solutions (and implementing) and others are starting afresh with new projects. That's innovation in motion.

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

It's a novel technology, but I'm sure lots of novel technologies came out between 2008 and 2010 that used this worldwide system we call the Internet to build on.

If you get into it, there's a whole hive of activity in terms of various solutions and spin offs. There's no Amazon amongst them - but there's plenty going on (and you know this very well - don't even suggest that you don't).

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

So after 10 years there hasn't been any significant use case for blockchain. It's use as a currency on the dark web markets is now over. It's only USP is that's it's very expensive to tamper the records, or take control of the consensus network. It achieves this by using monumental amounts of electricity. The more electricity you use, the more loyalty you demonstrate, and the more money you make. Proof of stake, proof of claim, and other proofs haven't been demonstrated at all yet.
Bitcoin is a terrible form of currency, a rubbish store of value, a very inefficient method of storage, and now exists only as a highly speculative asset in a bizarre ecosystem where the worst extremes of cowboy capitalism are seen as a virtue.

It's harder to do a reset on an existing crypto like bitcoin where as new or younger projects can be adjusted more easily. Therefore, bitcoin might not make it as a currency. That said, I'd wager that it will retain some relevance nonetheless going forward.
Other than that, if what you say is true, any day now this sub-forum will be covered in cobwebs (although I'd wager that you'll still be here - still arguing with yourself or congratulating yourself ). So call it - tell us how many more months until the debate ceases?

unkel

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

I think this sums up the grotesque nature of bitcoin mining in a slightly grotesque way.

That's a bizarre reply to my point. The world needs to go 100% renewable electricity asap anyway (we should have been there already years ago). This has nothing to do with crypto currency mining

But on a personal level, I mine crypto on a very small scale (one rig), yet I do care about the environment. The family car is an EV (charged at night, often with 100% renewable electricity), and I heat most of my hot water with a 40 tube solar thermal system. And to offset some of my extra electricity use because of the mining, I have installed a solar PV array

makeorbrake

Yale academic Robert Shiller has been championed by skeptics in recent months - with his suggestion that bitcoin would eventually cease to exist. He's still suggesting that it will be gone in 100 years but as per this interview, it seems to me that his view is softening.

The suggestion that in time, bitcoin will have undergone so much change that it wont be comparable to what it is today - I can't disagree with that - to me it's a certainty that it will evolve. He also recognises how innovative the space has become with the emergence of other crypto's and an acknowledgement 'that something may come out of this'.

JohnnyFlash

unkel wrote: »

That's a bizarre reply to my point. The world needs to go 100% renewable electricity asap anyway (we should have been there already years ago). This has nothing to do with crypto currency mining

But on a personal level, I mine crypto on a very small scale (one rig), yet I do care about the environment. The family car is an EV (charged at night, often with 100% renewable electricity), and I heat most of my hot water with a 40 tube solar thermal system. And to offset some of my extra electricity use because of the mining, I have installed a solar PV array

Wonderful stuff, Unkel. Glad to see you doing your bit (if you'll pardon the pun). The practicalities of going 100% renewable (whatever that is) is the type of thing that is perplexing some of the finest minds on the planet. Yet here is Bitcoin. What is it really? Can you answer that?


Because it appears to me that is has absolutely no use case above and beyond being a speculative asset. And while doing so, it manages to using an increasingly worrying amount of electricity; most of it produced using plain old fossil fuels.



This is a very highly regarded journal in the electrical engineering community. I'd suggest people read and digest it: https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30177-6


Again, I'd ask for what? What does Bitcoin offer the planet that makes this spending of electricity so worth while? Where can we offset this energy use in practical implications of blockchain that have a positive net impact on the world?



Here is a NY Times article about the problem. Ethereum, and all the ICOs it sluices out are included: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/21/technology/bitcoin-mining-energy-consumption.html


This is a horrifying environmental disaster. It's morally repugnant. By the end of 2019, Bitcoin will consume the entire output of every solar PV installation on the planet. Decades of research and policy blown away so we can continue this charade. For something that allows for 3 transactions per minute.



I mean, in all seriousness, really.

annie.t

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44335804

now if there only was a way to pay for stuff that doesnt have one central point of failure :rolleyes: you know like decentralised

wally1990

Blockchain moves into top spot for hottest job skills
Blockchain development is now the hottest skill in the freelance job market, growing more than 6,000% since this time last year and putting it on pace to be the new “cloud” of the 21st Century, according to a new report.

The link is

http://www.techcentral.ie/blockchain-moves-top-spot-hottest-job-skills/

The world is reacting to block chain potentials

JohnnyFlash

annie.t wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44335804

now if there only was a way to pay for stuff that doesnt have one central point of failure :rolleyes: you know like decentralised

What has the failure of a payment network got to do with bitcoin? Bitcoin allows for between 2 and 5 transactions per minute (each using the power consumption of 2 months of the average American home), and this will decrease as the blockchain size increases. So it will never be a method of paying people. That narrative is stone dead and already buried. Even the good folk on the bitcointalk have accepted that.



So Bitcoin won't be the payment mechanism to change the world. Ethereum won't be either, unless everyone wants to carry around a one terabyte ledger on their computing device. Proof of stake only encourages centralisation.



Where is there a practical implementation of blockchain that will allow for sub-second transactions, proof of purchase, and the ability to roll back a transaction in the event of an anomaly, theft, or disagreement between parties? And even if there was, what would being an early investor and hodler of these coins offer you?

JohnnyFlash

wally1990 wrote: »

Blockchain moves into top spot for hottest job skills
Blockchain development is now the hottest skill in the freelance job market, growing more than 6,000% since this time last year and putting it on pace to be the new “cloud” of the 21st Century, according to a new report.

The link is

http://www.techcentral.ie/blockchain-moves-top-spot-hottest-job-skills/

The world is reacting to block chain potentials

I'm not exactly against the potential use of blockchain. It's a novel technology, and one could speculate about how it could have merit in industries such as the legal profession, estate agencies, even utilities. But proof of work is a dead end. It's a fiasco. And all the other proofs seem to gravitate towards centralisation - thus completely negating the need for a very inefficient permanent record in the first place. A keen eye on the subject is healthy, but I will be proved right on the complete uselessness of blockchain as a means of replacing fiat. Not going to happen.



It's why I contribute here. This is not investing. This is gambling on a three legged horse in a game of tiddlywinks.

grindle

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

What has the failure of a payment network got to do with bitcoin? Bitcoin allows for between 2 and 5 transactions per minute (each using the power consumption of 2 months of the average American home), and this will decrease as the blockchain size increases. So it will never be a method of paying people. That narrative is stone dead and already buried. Even the good folk on the bitcointalk have accepted that.

Ehhhhhh, Lightning Network. I don't think it's right for BTC right now and they should have scaled on-chain first, but here we are.

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

So Bitcoin won't be the payment mechanism to change the world. Ethereum won't be either, unless everyone wants to carry around a one terabyte ledger on their computing device.

You have absolutely no idea how any of this works. Nobody would have to carry a 1tb ledger anywhere unless they want to be a node, even then it would be pruned as the network grows larger.

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Proof of stake only encourages centralisation.

Proof of stake only encourages centralisation if you imagine a world where mining contract pools won't exist, which is plainly ignorant.

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Where is there a practical implementation of blockchain that will allow for sub-second transactions, proof of purchase, and the ability to roll back a transaction in the event of an anomaly, theft, or disagreement between parties? And even if there was, what would being an early investor and hodler of these coins offer you?

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Why does the perfect blockchain not exist yet while it's still in it's infancy? And even if it did exist, why would supply/demand economics infer that the price would rise on a deflationary asset?

makeorbrake

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Bitcoin allows for between 2 and 5 transactions per minute (each using the power consumption of 2 months of the average American home), and this will decrease as the blockchain size increases. So it will never be a method of paying people. That narrative is stone dead and already buried.

You're wrong. Lightning Network and layer 2 solutions - that's in relation to bitcoin. Other than that, you have not even started to consider some of the serious altcoin projects which are scale-able and have modest to little in the way of energy usage.

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Even the good folk on the bitcointalk have accepted that.

So you're spending time on bitcointalk in the (alleged) 30minutes/week you spend on crypto discussion/investigation? They must love you over there! I barely even got started due to the group think and poor quality of discussion over there.

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

So Bitcoin won't be the payment mechanism to change the world. Ethereum won't be either, unless everyone wants to carry around a one terabyte ledger on their computing device. Proof of stake only encourages centralisation.

I'm not knowledgeable on ETH but my understanding is that they too are working on a scaling solution via sharding. On the terabyte ledger, that's inaccurate as has been pointed out to you.
On centralisation, Andreas Antonopoulos has an interesting take on that. He claims that centralisation has peaked - due to the nature of the mining kit being used. Essentially mining kit is no longer being turned around as fast (the upgrading to new kit) - and that this will ultimately mean that current centralisation will dissipate in future.

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Where is there a practical implementation of blockchain that will allow for sub-second transactions, proof of purchase, and the ability to roll back a transaction in the event of an anomaly, theft, or disagreement between parties?

You are rolling that all up by taking away what is an advantage of blockchain - the fact that it's immutable. If there's a disagreement between parties, what happens in a cash situation? That aside, you are familiar with smart contracts and the role that they are going to play in blockchain?
There are up and coming projects that allow for sub-second transactions and again, LN in the case of bitcoin.

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

And even if there was, what would being an early investor and hodler of these coins offer you?

If you are talking about an 'investment', then you're talking about someone who wants to speculate as opposed to using the coin. There are folks with an interest in both - it's a very broad church.

lostboy75

These last few pages just make such hard reading.
On one side you have the insane crypto enthusiasts, that will accept nothing bad said about crypto, and just keep repeating the same old rubbish, disregarding the quite well reasoned arguments from the well meaning sceptics.
It's clear that they just won't adapt their thinking, won't accept that if crypto was ever going to be a ' thing' it surely would have managed that on day one. Surely Crypto could just change the code now and switch from pow, and figure out any and all security flaws down the line, the way operating systems do. We all know that that is a secure way to do things. Any reasoned arguments put to these fanboys is just deftly side stepped, and then forgotten about it seems, as they immediately revert to essentially their same posts from a few days back, maybe with a few new links added to freshen the post up. It's like the brain reset in the film memento.

Oh, wait I may have gotten all the above reversed? What does sceptic mean again?

makeorbrake

lostboy75 wrote: »

These last few pages just make such hard reading. On one side you have the insane crypto enthusiasts, that will accept nothing bad said about crypto, and just keep repeating the same old rubbish, disregarding the quite well reasoned arguments from the well meaning sceptics.

Insane, wont accept, same old rubbish...Ok, and you approach the debate from a neutral position!? How are skeptics well meaning and crypto enthusiasts are not?

lostboy75 wrote: »

It's clear that they just won't adapt their thinking

Really? People can often develop entrenched positions in their opinions on stuff such as this - it's your opinion that those who see value in crypto are the ones that are in need of a change of opinion. How about it being the other way round...

lostboy75 wrote: »

won't accept that if crypto was ever going to be a ' thing' it surely would have managed that on day one.

You talk about trotting out the same old rubbish - how is this any different on your part? Has been discussed above. Your fellow skeptic believes that btc cant evolve any further - if it was of any use it would be adopted by now allegedly. I don't agree (see my previous post) - I won't bother repeating the same rationale.

lostboy75 wrote: »

Surely Crypto could just change the code now and switch from pow

Maybe they don't want to. Believe it or not, there are also some advantages with PoW.
Other than that, there are various projects that are using PoS - so it isn't as if there isn't any activity. If it's that simple, then everyone would have walked away from btc and taken up with one or more of the alternatives. That may still happen - but it's hardly that simple.

lostboy75 wrote: »

and figure out any and all security flaws down the line, the way operating systems do.

These tokens are being used as a store of value or as internet 'money'. You want to release with flaws?

lostboy75 wrote: »

Any reasoned arguments put to these fanboys is just deftly side stepped, and then forgotten about it seems, as they immediately revert to essentially their same posts from a few days back, maybe with a few new links added to freshen the post up. It's like the brain reset in the film memento.

IN YOUR OPINION! - that's the important bit. As regards the insulting 'fanboy' part - I don't think that's helpful. I've seen plenty of reasoned argument. In fact, your buddy (JF) has been accused of repeating the same old garbage time and time again if the truth be told.

lostboy75 wrote: »

What does sceptic mean again?

You mean that you want to be left in peace to group think on this thread? If that's what you want, then fine...although doesn't seem to be in the spirit of a 'discussion forum'.

lostboy75

Ok, I'm tired today, only a few hours sleep, but I assumed that my post read as ironic, I see I didn't manage that.
In case it didn't i thought the second last line would make people suspect I wasn't being serious.
I appreciate the work you and other posters here put in to try temper the sceptics posts. You guys have knowledge and insight that I would have thought at this stage might raise the pro con argument, but so far it doesn't seem to work.
I'm just getting annoyed at have to read the same arguments from the sceptics again and again. Ignoring anything they can counter argue.
A few months back I posted that I was in no way closed to people posting cons to crypto, I am in no way a die hard fanatic, I have plenty of concerns. You and a few other have greatly assisted in helping resolve some of my thoughts, but I still have concerns.
If there could be more of a reasoned discussion, I would frequent here more often.Johnny did at one stage seem to be heading that way, but has reverted to type recently.
I'm of no help in moving this forward, I don't have the time, and much more importantly the knowledge to help.

grindle

lostboy75 wrote: »

In case it didn't i thought the second last line would make people suspect I wasn't being serious.

Don't worry, I understood you were taking the piss. My heart palpitated for about a half-second when it was reading like we were in topsy-turvy land but it all seemed too outlandish to think you were being serious.
Poe's law - you're a victim of it precisely because of how ignorant the "sceptics" choose to be. Sceptics in quotations because I consider myself a sceptic, those guys are cynics (thread should be renamed tbh). There's a huge difference and they've proven that they don't care to reason, every counterpoint is a point to be ignored as you've stated. Read through their post histories - their arguments carry the same weight no matter what the subject is. Denial of reality, shades of grey don't exist, their worldview is correct and the opposing view isn't just incorrect, it's absolutely despicable and society should be ashamed for not thinking the way they do.

Things the cynics get right:

Tether. Whether or not they ARE correct about it, the shadiness surrounding it is cause for concern.

Energy consumption. Obviously an issue, but it's being worked on. Just because the cynics want to throw their soiled nappies out of the pram because it's not already set in stone doesn't discount the amount of work that has to go into the security of the chains. This is a case of non-dev brainlets thinking programmers are literal wizards and that they can cast spells within seconds of a thought.

Ehhhmmm.... Scam ICOs? I guess. But they think all tokens and coins are scams, so instead of providing any useful service by combing through the bullshít they pull the carpet from underneath themselves, invalidating any worthwhile commentary they might have on the issue.

That's probably about all they've gotten right or nearly right. They've got interesting views on privacy if they think Monero is a default negative simply because it's the coin of choice for criminals.
My argument to that would be: post your unedited bank statements, and any certs or paperwork (unedited) for any assets you own, every receipt for every purchase you've made for the last few years Let's see everything. Prove to us how unimportant privacy is.

JohnnyFlash

Finally, a usage for Bitcoin! Confusion and 15 minute transaction times leading to a free room and a refund of more than you put in. The future of money indeed.......

makeorbrake

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Finally, a usage for Bitcoin! Confusion and 15 minute transaction times leading to a free room and a refund of more than you put in. The future of money indeed.......

^Yawn...^

Kenny Logins

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Finally, a usage for Bitcoin! Confusion and 15 minute transaction times leading to a free room and a refund of more than you put in. The future of money indeed.......

Worth noting that using a third-party processor to handle Bitcoin payments defeats the purpose of Bitcoin, and this is where the problem arises. This just tells me that Coinbase is a bit sh!t.

paleoperson

Bitcoin is the very definition of a ponzi scheme. I'm sorry but the people who like bitcoin are not very bright.

Math or currency... does not work the way you think it works, not unless you're accepting that you're part of an attempted scam.

Kenny Logins

paleoperson wrote: »

Bitcoin is the very definition of a ponzi scheme. I'm sorry but the people who like bitcoin are not very bright.

Math or currency... does not work the way you think it works, not unless you're accepting that you're part of an attempted scam.

Thanks for sharing.

el diablo

paleoperson wrote: »

Bitcoin is the very definition of a ponzi scheme. I'm sorry but the people who like bitcoin are not very bright.

Math or currency... does not work the way you think it works, not unless you're accepting that you're part of an attempted scam.

I suggest you look up the definition of "Ponzi Scheme" before posting such nonsense. Then maybe you'll come to the conclusion that it's you who is "not very bright."

makeorbrake

paleoperson wrote: »

Math or currency... does not work the way you think it works

Math doesn't work the way you think it works...:D

Strange, I would have said that math works EXACTLY as you think it works but what would I know...I'm 'not that bright' apparently.

JohnnyFlash

I'm getting a fair old idea about this crypto stuff, but I'm confused about what is happening with Binance and Bitfinex. Can anyone explain? Binance came out with their own coin for fees in the past few weeks. Fair enough. Magic money, but those using binance have trust in it. What's with the lack of tethers being sent to Binance though? The Binance coin is for dust, and transaction fees, but not seeing how they are introducing liquidity into the exchange? No cash flow means no business.

grindle

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

I'm confused about what is happening with Binance and Bitfinex. Can anyone explain? Binance came out with their own coin for fees in the past few weeks. Fair enough. Magic money, but those using binance have trust in it. What's with the lack of tethers being sent to Binance though? The Binance coin is for dust, and transaction fees, but not seeing how they are introducing liquidity into the exchange? No cash flow means no business.

Binance's coin has been around for a lot longer than a few weeks.
Not sure why you're confused about liquidity - it's one of the biggest exchanges. If anybody wants to buy something which Coinbase or Kraken doesn't sell but Binance does, they transfer to Binance.

As for the lack of Tether transfers - they have TrueUSD and DAI listed now so there isn't any pressing need for Tether.