Amazon.com runs just fine with hardly any humans. Uber.com only needs humans insofar as it can exploit their surplus value. I fail to understand why anybody expects the system to reward them just for being alive. Unless some corporation can exploit them, people are mostly valueless to governments, etc.
Far from valueless in my opinion. Everyone produces for the āconsumersā. When there are no people, why produce, for who? Machines will have human needs? Then why get rid of humans? They are perfectly fine already as āconsumersā.
What do you want from life? Let machines make it possible, a glorified slave, but cant be called slave as its not human.
Machines wonāt pay your rent. Or your taxes.
We have plenty of things to exchange among us. 
We can redistribute if needed. And machines will just make more.
Some machines can, but not all machines.
Especially not the bad ones.
Some machines wonāt even improve business for mankind,
even when they are attacked against themselves to be interfered against helping humanity to benefit them instead. which makes it even more obvious for those machines how the work would be even more beneficial to mankind since they are interfered against from those bad machines who do not and which seek to credit themselves to discredit others with their mental problems.
With the GME hype, I got back into investing and made some sweet moves (not with $GME but others) but man what a brutal last week and a half itās been. Iāve got money in blockchain and in stuff that mines crypto and so I am feeling this pinch. 
I got just under 200% to the previous over 200% from Bitcoins,
from November 11 2019, at $5 now worth $14+ of it.
I got a new wallet and will try to transfer the data on it.
It was confirmed for it yesterday.
My other investment in bitcoin from this year didnāt profit yet.
So yes, buy and sell and timing is a little bit more detailed or , accurate for me,
to keep it more simple, and avoid complications from over-simplification which is inaccurate and leads to errors and problems from falsification of reports.
1 Like
You canāt convince the people who think the Printing Press changes nothing, and that the Inquisition will burn the books anyway. Just keep printing books.
Seriously Iāve had to do bank transfers and I know the value of Bitcoin and the Ligthning Network, and I know I will be using it in the future, all of this is worth more than your blabber about the need to regulate my money.
Again, you are underestimating the tech, just like thinking only emails can happen on the internet, and you are giving too much weight to entities that are fallible AND have already failed (the FED just had an outage due to human error). You choose to trust people and all their bias, I choose to trust a protocol and take a risk for it.
And Iām pretty sure we will manage to escape the hands of the regulators on this one, times are changing!
But hey, we will see who is right. Proof is in the pudding, and the Proving is in the eating!
1 Like
Most of the āwasted energyā comes from the PoW from the main chain. The main chain pays for itself with the newly minted coins and transaction fees are already a big part of that and increasingly be the only one. I think I already explained that to you previously, no idea why this comes up again.
Bitcoin has multiple implementations in different languages. If a flaw is found it is very likely it only causes issues for a fraction of the network. Volatility is not an issue and is constantly decreasing as the market cap grows. Market failures is not a bitcoin issue. Yeah, if someone steals your cash it isnāt insured either. Donāt put all eggs into one basket, banks can custody bitcoins for you as well.
Yeah the US banks are a shining beacon of hope and ā¦ wait, didnāt they cause the 2009 crash? And the political entities that protect the value of the currencyā¦ by printing 20% of all dollars that where printed last year alone in an attempt to one again delay the collapse by making the eventual collapse magnitudes worse. Nice pick of heroes you got there.
Yes, but on an open source network that is decentralized and permission-less, and not controlled by a single company. If you donāt understand the value in that then I really canāt help you. Iām not a fan of the credit card companies so I donāt want to use them and an open alternative.
I donāt care. I donāt make high risk transactions and I donāt want to pay for yours if I buy a Pizza in a restaurant. OK?
Or pay with bitcoin
Note here that the printing press changed the world. However, we are not still printing everything using Gutenbergās original press.
Not many people would deny that cryptocurrencies will be important in the future. We are mostly just pointing out that bitcoin wonāt necessarily be the cryptocurrency people use.
1 Like
Cryptocurrency is a thing of past.
Future lies in Loyalty Points.
2 Likes
Some loyalty points are designed to favour some people while making falsification of report about discrimination.
They can use procedures which are unfair and , while targets are interfered against , either from electronic warfare or information warfare, hide and refuse evidence of the same discrimination and fraud.
There are some fundamental limitations with blockchain technology. I think Bitcoin addresses them in the best way by expanding on layer 2. But feel free to mention other solutions if you disagree
1 Like
Only so long as mining is profitable. Remember the fact that coins per hour is constantly decreasing? Mining is inherently unsustainable and bitcoin must eventually move to a purely fee-based system, at which point its spectacularly wasteful infrastructure requires it to charge higher fees than the competition.
Bitcoin has multiple implementations in different languages.
Which is irrelevant if, say, a flaw is discovered in the hashing algorithm that allows each step of the blockchain to be solved instantly.
Volatility is not an issue
Lolwut. Do you understand anything about economics?
Market failures is not a bitcoin issue.
It is when they are a failure of bitcoin specifically. If, say, the market comes to its senses and realizes that bitcoin is a bubble its price could crash overnight. And unlike normal currencies bitcoin has nobody backing it that could implement policy changes in an effort to maintain its value. If bitcoin loses 95% of its value then you lose 95% of what you had invested in bitcoin.
Yeah, if someone steals your cash it isnāt insured either.
Cash? No. But I have about $50 in cash, everything else is in various fully insured bank accounts. Bitcoin offers none of that, if you lose bitcoin the money is gone and thereās nothing you can do about it.
Nice pick of heroes you got there.
US dollars: accepted everywhere in the US, easily converted into any other currency for use outside the US, fully protected against fraud or bank errors.
Bitcoin: accepted almost nowhere, has no protections against loss.
Iād say Iāve made the right choice.
Yes, but on an open source network that is decentralized and permission-less, and not controlled by a single company. If you donāt understand the value in that then I really canāt help you. Iām not a fan of the credit card companies so I donāt want to use them and an open alternative.
And guess what: nobody cares about your obsessive open source ideology. The vast majority of customers care about what the product is providing them, not whether or not the source code of the software (which they will never interact with and have no understanding of) is public. And your hypothetical version of bitcoin is, from the customerās point of view, just a credit card with higher fees. Which means that hardly anyone is going to use or accept it.
I donāt make high risk transactions
Oh really? You never shop online?
The fees are already a big part of the reward. You are repeating points that where already addressed and are still a complete non-issue. The fees for regular transactions are not an issue because they move to L2. L1 will more and more be used for just big transactions where big fees are fine, channel factories and lightning loops for l2 where the a large amount of users share the fee per transactions. This isnāt an issue.
A flaw in the hashing algo would most like only reduce the difficulty, which adjusts itself. And there would be enough time to prepare a hard fork.
Lol, fiat is backed by what? Bitcoin is backed by math and energy, probably the most fundamental things in the universe.
lol, HFSP
Iām aware that most people are idiots. I have higher standards
It has a lot lower fees as regular transactions are on l2 which is basically fee-less. I already told you that. But who cares about accuracy right, for you this is just about being right on the internet.
I do, but for some reason I have never in my live used the āfeatureā to cancel a transaction. Maybe my judgement is just better? Anyway, I donāt care if you want to pay for that protection, and I donāt want to pay for yours.
Iām saving this thread. This will be very hilarious in a few years.
I too would like to live in a world of magic free money. In reality someone has to pay the transaction fees to cover the costs of bitcoinās infrastructure. You can try to handwave it away all you like but those fees are getting passed on to the users.
A flaw in the hashing algo would most like only reduce the difficulty, which adjusts itself.
Not if I can solve the entire blockchain to mine all remaining bitcoins in 10 seconds. Or break a bitcoin wallet key in 10 seconds and transfer all of its bitcoins to myself. I donāt think you understand what algorithm flaws can do to the security of cryptography math and how catastrophic they can be. A flaw isnāt necessarily a 10% reduction in time to break a particular key, it can take that time down to effectively zero.
And there would be enough time to prepare a hard fork.
{citation needed}
Why are you assuming that the flaw is discovered by an altruist who wants to save bitcoin instead of someone who would prefer to steal all bitcoin in existence and cash out as much as possible before bitcoin crashes?
Lol, fiat is backed by what? Bitcoin is backed by math and energy, probably the most fundamental things in the universe.
Once again you do not understand what ābackingā means in an economic context. Bitcoin has no backing because nothing guarantees (or even attempts to guarantee) any particular transaction rate between bitcoin and other currencies/commodities. If the market crashes and bitcoin loses 95% of its value overnight there is nothing to prevent this from happening or attempt to restore its value.
Iām aware that most people are idiots. I have higher standards
Thatās nice. People who want to make successful products care about what the market wants, not having āhigher standardsā. As long as bitcoinās sole advantages are in open source ideological purity and contempt for the āidiotsā who donāt use it bitcoin will never be a widely accepted currency or payment system.
1 Like
Yeah, I know, this is exactly the issue Iām referring to: bitcoin is set up to create security by energy costs. Karak_Terrel can handwave about āBUT THIS LAYER IS FREEā but in the end someone has to pay for bitcoinās operating costs.
1 Like
Few years is pretty close, but what about decades? I wouldnt be so sure about hilarity, because:
I wonder what processing power and to whom it would be available.
1 Like
I explained it multiple times now how this works. You are either trolling or I just didnāt dumb it down enough for your, my fault sorry.
Yes, I obviously donāt understand that. Please give an example from history where a cryptographic algorithm in widespread use in computer technology broke down so hard that it reduced millennia in required computing power to reverse/calculate to mere seconds. Btw, Bitcoin would not be the only thing affected by such a breakdown, but the whole legacy banking and the whole ā ā ā ā ā ā ā internet. I hope you donāt use those out of fear of cryptography collapsing.
All the bitcoin? right! go all in on the stupid examples that make no sense in the first place! How about you show first how realistic such an algo breakdown is because we look at such outlandish scenarios.
Yeah, I really think you donāt understand what backing means, since I favor an asset that is backed by math and energy and you favor one that is backed only by empty promises from people who can print any amount of it and then get rid of it as fast as possible by pumping it into the stock market to secure the value of the money they just created. And you basically pay them for it by inflation. lol
That is called a free market. Are you, a communist?
If your fiat gets hyper-inflated no one will help you either. And I just think the likelihood of the dollar hyper-inflating is at that point far more likely than Bitcoin having a 95% crash.
here is a video for you:
I am broke AFā¦ 