Why is everyone obsessed with fake crypto currency on this board? Do you guys invest in anything real...

>grr those darn kids and their new fangled technology
how old are you user

did you think after the dot com bubble that the internet was done for
?

Yeah, buddy, it has to still has to crash to being almost worthless then grow organically for 10 years.

Probably older than your father.

But you are misunderstanding that particular analogy.

In this case, the "internet" is the theories of block chain and smart contracts, which has a small limited value to the world.

But cryptos as they exist today are the flash-in-the-pan companies during the dot com, the ones who got all the investors and looked so promising, but fell apart because they were all hype and no results.

I know this is going to be hard to understand, but even block chain and smart contracts aren't really good ideas.

The overhead and energy requirements make them useless to most organizations, especially when there is an existing system that does roughly the same thing already in place.

>smart contracts
>limited value
>distributed trustless systems
>limited value

Even organizations, the slowest things to adopt, are realizing how unstoppable this technology is. hyperledger.org/members

yeah there are shitcoins which are equivalent of pets.com, but there is also

>Amazon
>Google
>Apple

etc, etc there

crypto moves roughly an order of magnitude faster than the stock market. Recovery will not take anywhere near a decade. 2 years, tops.
I saw crashes in 2011 and 2014. This is nothing special

NOBODY thinks there is little risk

Most of us have been robbed in one way or another

Tray again, boombaby

They have limited value because they seem to have far too much overhead to be useful when scaled.

(and I am open to correction if I am wrong, so please do)....

1. blockchain requires a coin, since you have to "reward" those who verify transactions.

2. The process of verifying transactions take massive amount of computing power, and electricity to the point that coins such as bitcoin require $5k / coin to operate.

So the question is... why would anyone be interested in such a thing?

There seems to be a semi-religious view of the whole "trustless" argument, but the current system, if not entirely trustless, is still based on established relationships with protections on both sides.

The simplest example... credit cards and debit cards. Already they act as a portable digital form of cash, they can be used almost everywhere in the world right now, and they offer protection to both the buyer and seller during transactions.

With the exception of those who want to do transactions off the books (which itself is a very limited number of end-users), what advantage does block chain offer to justify the massive overhead and expense they require?

inb4: you don't understand the tech.

I understand it enough. This is a legitimate question, try to give more than a blow-off answer.

t. grug

I don't know if that makes your generation better or worse.

Is it better to be ripped of knowing you're going to be ripped off, or ripped off never seeing it coming?

I need to go to sleep, but scaling is an open problem that the top devs are very concerned about solving while not sacrificing security.

Top devs meaning good cryptos, e.g. ones that aren't BTC.

Look into Ethereum. They are doing away with PoWork which is a terrible thing.

This is a system not for the organizations and powers that be, but for people

It's called peer-to-peer, not Corporation-to-Corporation

The irony is that cryptocurrencies technology is far, far more understandable than the modern financial market.

ETH seems be be better designed for a lot of reasons (which include an expanding supply).

But the whole overall cost/benefit of cryptos is like if Rube Goldberg went into the currency business.

I see everything that you are talking about coming

It's just that your analysis is missing one little bitty thing.

Blockchains are more efficient than any other way to organize data

Have you been to steemit.com?

Have you figured it out yet? No servers, no employees, no bills - it's just a distributed ledger. The website itself that you read is a block explorer. Pic is of Engadget capitulating and signing up for this whole twit- I mean steemit thing.

I am not telling you that steemit is a great website or anything. I am telling you that the entire internet will be rebuilt. Steemit is like looking at a Yahoo directory listing in the early days of www.

You don't think getting paid to post is more efficient than getting bombarded with ads?

Any data that needs to be organized is better off on a blockchain, whether they are private or decentralized

You are about to see a decentralized Uber, Facebook, Air B+B, upwork.
you name it. It will all be peer to peer, and commission free and you don't think a revolution is coming..

>The process of verifying transactions take massive amount of computing power, and electricity to the point that coins such as bitcoin require $5k / coin to operate.

No, this is proof of work... Look into delegated Proof of Stake dPOS

Very successful since 2014, Bitshares, Steem, and EOS (coming soon). Weiss ratings consistently gives these 3 the highest ratings

Excellent reply. Far more detail than I usually get.

Would this allow them to edit stories/pages after they have been posted (like newspapers doing corrections?)

>2. The process of verifying transactions take massive amount of computing power, and electricity to the point that coins such as bitcoin require $5k / coin to operate.

Yeah, you don't understand the tech. Look up Proof of Stake. Not to mention other forms of proof are beginning to be figured out as well.

>The simplest example... credit cards and debit cards. Already they act as a portable digital form of cash, they can be used almost everywhere in the world right now, and they offer protection to both the buyer and seller during transactions.

This is retarded mom and pop level thinking. Blockchain offers so many more possibilities than replacing USD. Again, you don't understand the tech.

:)

Remember that our generation doesn't trust anyone for good reason.

The blockchain is an immutable ledger, it can't be edited without everyone knowing, and this has attractive use cases

there are plenty of places you can discussion this shit elsewhere boomer

That's a double-edged sword.

Anyone familiar with the story of Room 641a should already know that the only reason their ID's haven't been linked to them is because no one has really tried.

And as far as storing transactions... is it worth the overhead to be able to prove that 3 years ago I bought a big mac?

This is the modern proverbial equivalent to “to be, or not to be”

If we boomers can handle 40 posts an hour shilling various coin, you can handle one post asking if you're all nuts.

This isn't a safe space, this is Veeky Forums.

Because I'm poor user. There, you happy?

Absolutely I have a portfolio of traditional stocks and trade options from time to time. I work in FICC.

Stop letting them brand you, asshat. Boomer or not, you have a brain, and you could at least do yourself the favor of researching the thing you shit on before you ask a board full of Internet strangers who have no reason to tell you the truth, or any useful info really, on why literal billions of dollars are/have been used to purchase stakes in the most speculative investment since the dot com bubble. If you came here looking for a useless argument, look no further. you’ve filled a thread with words and you’re going to leave not a single bit more educated on what Blockchain technology is or why it’s going to be around in the future.

Truth. Typical boomer thinks he knows everything and that we're all just falling for a ponzi. Clearly made up his mind about the entire concept of blockchain just based on the fact that proof of work is shit.

Doesn't even understand that user wasnt even referencing anonymity in the slightest.

Oh I've studied it, I just reject the idea that it's the best thing since sliced bread.

The tech might have some interesting uses, but the coins will never replace dollars, and sometimes less is more in terms of overhead etc.

And I think if you're talking about the infrastructure of financial institutions, they would probably prefer to have verification and relationships between other known banks than to have all that turned over to some anonymous agent.

But user, it has been growing organically for the past 10 years.
The thing is, you just found out about it 6 months ago...

I haven't given up in it completely. I'm still trying to filter through it all to figure out which parts will stick, and which parts are shit.

As far as me being a know-it-all boomer; well, there ARE things we know, and having living memory of financial history doesn't hurt either.

I'm reacting more to the people who claim that every shitcoin on the market is going to moon in time for them to go to the lambo dealer.

The good parts of the tech will stay, and will be used. But nearly every current coin (with maybe 3 exceptions), will go to zero and the people who have their life savings in them will be busted.

Guys what do you have in your portfolio?

LMT, T, WM, AEP, DTE, VZ, CSX, CMCSA, PRU, VOD, GE, ABX, KR, PFE, AA, DIA

other anons are going to tell you you are retarded because you don't know about proof of stake...

you aren't

you are right that this is all a massive bubble

there are major tradeoffs that have to be made whenever making a centralized system distributed, an especially when making it trustlessly distributed

Vitalik and Eth all claim they're going to solve the scaling with meme magic, etc.

It is all vaporware. It cannot be done.

Protip: how do you think Google has become the top CS firm in the world?

They have been doing massive research in distributed systems for the past decade

Even their trustful distributed systems have massive tradeoffs and scaling limitations @ scale

A blockchain will never supplant VISA / Mastercard etc. as you say

Anyone who claims it will has never studied CS / Cryptography / has a basic understanding of information theoretic limits that come up when trying to establish consensus on a global network

You have zero fear?

That our economy has been J'appd? Look at a 40 year Japan chart pic related. The demographics are the same as what happened in Japan 30 years ago.

Dow Jones could go down 50% from here permanently and the economic fundamental, historical PE ratios, etc, would not be violated.

I can't believe you live without fear and accuse us of being on easy street.

The upcoming crash will be so unprecedented. Everyone will want out of stock market and real estate at the same time. Nobody really wants these broken down houses and or this inefficient companies

Yikes

No, no fear. But I also have a different philosophy from most people here....

1. My time horizon isn't 3 months or 6 months, it's 30-40 years. Ups and downs will always happen, they always have and they always will. But historically, you are better off staying in the market than getting out.

2. Because i do automatic dividend reinvestment, when the market tanks occasionally it works out better in the long run. Since changes to dividend payments always lag behind big market drops, your dividend dollar buys more shares each quarter, so you actually wind up further ahead when it goes back up.

3. Some stocks, like AEP, pride themselves on their dividend history. AEP, for example, has paid a dividend every quarter for the last 120 years. Think of what would have to happen for them to be willing to stop that record?

4. With LMT, my biggest worry is that peace will suddenly break out all over the world.

5. If there is a total absolute crash like you suggest, we're all screwed anyway. Instead of worrying about our investments, we would be worrying about the lack of electricity and running water.

A "blockchain" doesn't even have to be distributed you retard. The computing waste generated by BTC is due to the success rate of the hash being adjusted to reward on a consistent basis by increasing the specific parameters the hash has to be in a more difficult manner. This decreases the probability of solving the hash and thus requires more computing time.

You can run a blockchain on your computer with no hash requirements. The security remains the same. This is how a company would use the blockchain for it's internal verification requirements.

Which is the point I was getting at, though I didn't have the terms to explain it as you did.

So... to continue the thought in light of your comment....

... if a company uses blockchain and they do the verification on their own servers, they would have no need to create coins to reward those doing the verification.?

This is why I have been saying that the tech has value but the coins don't. Once you eliminate all of the random outside servers verifying, the coins are redundant.

We're of the same mind, gramps

Just curious, how do you feel about your GE bags? I was looking at them today deciding about whether or not to jump in and decided against

Goddamn it can we not just have one fucking thread about equity without it degrading in to "FUK U BLOK CHN IS BETTER" you can get just as good returns in equity, especially if you leverage with options

How this is relevant to my post faggot? I never said anything to the contrary.

I would not put money into GE.

It was once a great company, now it's shit. I won't go into the reasons why for sake of avoiding another long post.

I'm bag holding on GE from shares I bought about a year ago. A few months back I bought puts on GE, which are doing real well and will offset losses.

The company will probably be broken up, so there's the potential of gaining in a 5-10 year time horizon when they offload all of their shit into a poison spin off and let the profit centers fly.

But if you're not in there already, it's not worth getting into it now waiting on that. There's a lot more money to be made elsewhere.

EOS, which will kill Ethereum, coming out June 1st has a developers kit and it comes with or without coin "token" for your app

In two years more data will be on blockchains without coins than with them

youtube.com/watch?v=4giyoZnuKPU

Because the whole chain of replies started with my comment that ctyptos are a get-rich-quick ponzi/bubble. We've gone full circle and reconnected to the original point.

A coin is just a distributed blockchain. Blockchain is the only interesting "technology" to come from this whole debacle. From the inception of BTC, the thing was touted as a "store of value" because of the combo of distributed blockchain. BTC is clearly just a speculative commodity at this point and I guess is good for shuffling money around without institutions but you still go through institutions for deposit and withdrawal which negate the entire concept of BTC.

You can decrease the computation problem with proof of stake but it's still just a shitcoin that awards early adopters for hopping on a meme and riding a bubble and for this reason will never be adopted as a replacement for fiat

Your claim that blockchain has "limited value" was primarily based on the fact that it "takes a massive amount of computing power". That showed a huge lack of understanding which I addressed.

The fact that private blockchains work and exist is completely irrelevant. Yes, they can be useful, no they can't completely replace public blockchains.

look at all of these guaranteed replies. wew lad

>1 post from this ID

Go to website, create "MyCoin" with a total population of 100 million coin. Talk friend into buying 1 coin for $10. Market cap is now $1 billion. Start picking out lambo,

You are correct about the speculative bubble. Market cap is a meaningless number. If people were to start pulling out cash in any numbers, the price would collapse in moments.

An outside agency can still verify a private ledger because the hash algorithm is deterministic given an input...

The only thing coins do is make "a thing" for creating a hash. Literally all a bank needs to do is have their own hashing computer for their ledger, and then publish the ledger/ hash and allow everyone to verify it.

Shitcoin is just shoehorned into a convenient technology to extract money from rubes, unless your intent is to avoid government detection in which case you have a legitimate use for digital currency. But we all know your wallet isn't safe from government inquiry

You've got it the wrong way around. BTC was the proof of concept, and now it's the most uninteresting technology to come out of blockchain.

>You can decrease the computation problem with proof of stake but it's still just a shitcoin that awards early adopters for hopping on a meme and riding a bubble and for this reason will never be adopted as a replacement for fiat

I literally said above that thinking about blockchain as being something to replace fiat is retarded.

But that's literally every Veeky Forums thread in case you haven't noticed

Point taken, probably a result of my not knowing all of the specific terms though I have a working knowledge of the concepts.

But block chain itself DOES have limited value.

It's OK to reinvent the wheel, but when the big money people already has a wheel that's doing the job just fine, they're not inclined to change everything just because something else is a little better.

I'm talking more real world than theoretical.

Take a pizza restaurant, for example. In recent years there have been some pretty cool advancements in oven technology. It's expensive, but it's better.

For people building NEW restaurants, they might choose to go with it. But people who already own restaurants? Trust me, every restaurant owner I've ever known would say "ya, but what we have is good enough".

That goes back to my comments about credit cards. They have a system that works and is deployed worldwide. They may use blockchain internally for some stuff, but they're not going to changeover their entire worldwide system just because the new system is a little better.

That's what I mean by limited.

1. Crypto never was about replacing fiat
2. But it's not impossible

In case of mass adoption volatility would disappear, but I don't see any of existing coins to be adopted... Ltc maybe.

There's tech emerging from this whole ordeal, sure, but the fact that they're attached to a coin isn't some immutable paradigm. All shitcoin technologies can just be adopted by banks like auto-pay of contracts and whatever else. The shitcoin is just a way for devs to cash in on the hype. It has no future use.

This is all our dear boomer friend is trying to say.

Obviously the people replying in this thread are far smarter than people in other threads, but you're one of the few people (other than us noncoiners) who have said that it won't replace fiat.

I'm amazed.

This whole post sounds like you think it's up to business owners to control the choice of consumers. Blockchain is a disruptive force, it doesn't care what a pizza restaurant owner thinks, it will force him to adapt or die.

Where were you in 2012 when libertarians and anarchists were creaming their pants over the concept of replacing fiat with BTC

Why do you think crypto is limited to financial markets? Do you not realise this is bigger than that?

>investing in btc in the middle of the btc bubble

It's been my experience that the customer doesn't care. All that matters to them is that they can buy their product, that the transaction is fast, and that they aren't ripped off.

In other words, most would rather not know how the sausage will be made.

I've noticed a lot of that recently. People are shilling coin because their goal is the destruction of the US and other nations.

you are such a fucking donkey it's hurting me. user, please stay away from crypto, you brought up pizza in your example, I would stick to that realm if I were you. Aside from the hot cheese and sauce it's much safer.

YES. And that tech/use in other areas does not necessarily include the adoption of some memecoin. Anyone can create a ledger. I don't know why a company would attach it's business dealings to some shitcoin when it could just host its own computations

One post and you use it for that? At least the other people in here who disagree with me can use reason and logic to explain why they think I'm full of shit.

I would say that most of the people on Veeky Forums are smart enough to become rich by the time they're old but let's face it that's fucking boring.

So most customers didn't care about Uber and kept using taxis? Or airbnb and motels? If there's a better, more innovative service out there people will use it.

I don't say it will not happen and I myself would prefer using only crypto or gold-backed tokens or whatever but it really matters that at least I have a choice.

Many fiat currencies are as volatile btw and there is always a fact of that my visa card can be blocked.

I don't plan "cashing out" in case of becoming rich.

I don't think it would necessarily cause the collapse of the nation, just that some very vocal people are extremely suspicious about quantitative easing fractional reserve lending and the Federal Reserve in general (and in my opinion rightly so). Basically a return to something analogous to a gold-standard that would be impervious to bank meddling

It is, but it's also a sure thing.

Time goes faster than you think. A lot faster. A blink of an eye ago, I was 18. A blink of an eye from now (less actually), I will be dust.

If you're younger than 25 and can afford $200 per month, you'll be a millionaire when you're an old fart.

You're going to get old one way or the other. It's up to you to decide what's at the end of your rainbow.

Look at powerledger.

> Not financial industry
> Enviro friendly
> Makes use of society's leftovers
> User gets passive income
> No centralised authority to worry about fucking you over

How is this done better by any other method?

>Blockchain is like a hot pizza pie, everyone wants it fresh and hot but nobody wants it in their lap

You won't be rich because crypto is fundamentally worthless. It's like a poker game of crowdfunding.

Ok(

In your example I think it would be more along the lines of... would people want a 6-wheel car.

In terms of the end user, (not the internal workings), what does this tech have to offer that the existing tech doesn't? (this is a serious question)

They have a right to be pissed and distrustful.

I remember the last crash. The bottom line was this.... the choice was between doing something that no one wanted, or letting the entire world economic system collapse.

I'm not exaggerating when I say that if they had done nothing the ATM's would have stopped issuing cash, and the grocery stores would no longer have food in them.

No one wanted the bailout. It was against everything that most of us stand for. But sometimes life serves you a shit sandwich and you have to take a bite.

(He still doesn't get it)

Before we go down that road, watch the 2005 movie "Enron: The smartest guys in the room"

They did something almost identical.

Why buy overpriced "real estate"? Which part of it is real? The interest and tax part I guess.

I need to make it in crypto before I can move onto real estate nigger.

larp

I think the image was a pun.

And speaking of Enron and the idea of trading excess energy:

Speculation winds up being the next step. And when that happens, people learn to manipulate the markets.

In the case of Enron, they created artificial scarcity by routing power out of California. They created fake blackouts just so they could gouge them on the price of restoring electricity.

Here a recorded phone call where they talk about grandma sitting in a dark home

youtube.com/watch?v=DOLNWF5QMxY

You are producing an actual service (selling energy to the grid) and getting compensated. You can already sell your excess power to the grid so I don't see the point.

Sparkz are bought with Fiat. I just scrolled through the white paper. If I missed anything else let me know... Or are you expecting people to speculate wildly on an energy contract? That's literally the last thing I want happening to my energy generation

What I WANTED after the crash were some dusty old banker butts in some musky old cells

You and me both.

Customers aren't gonna flock to crypto over fiat because "oooh it has blockchain" thats retarded. Uber clearly offered a better service, cheaper and far more convenient due to the app. Right now, there is nothing more useful about crypto for 99% of people who use money, except perhaps anonymity, but very few people care about that irl.

It's still early days, eventually blockchain will largely just be hidden behind apps and other services which people won't even realise is working on blockchain. And do you not realise how shit will be cheaper without the massive overheads of large companies to sustain?

> You can already sell your excess power to the grid so I don't see the point.

To centralised organisations who can arbitrarily change shit whenever they want or fuck you over in other ways

Yeah... Because they provide a reliable public utility and are held accountable by lawmakers. In the US, utility companies have to detail every expense to the local govt in order to justify the price they require so they can maintain the business. Power transmission is more than just burning coal... Its maintaining an entire grid. If everyone has EV panels on their roof obviously it's time to rethink the way energy is managed. If you didn't notice you have to attach some contraption to your meter in order to generate coins.

Crypto started out as more of a political movement than a technological one. The idea of cryptocurrencies and decentralized peer to peer systems is by no means new - see cypherpunks, 1990s internet/information superhighway rhetoric bs, etc. It probably is mostly hype and central institutions, government, and corporations will slowly transition themselves into the tech and most of these shitcoins will die off as blockchain is utilized by private entities.

The hype can most simply be attributed to the fact the the tech is free/open source and market unregulated. Simple as that.
Just imagine that if instead of blockchain tech being revealed to the pubic by an anonymous creator after a financial collapse it was instead quietly patented by a public company on the nyse. Would the value of that companys shares be at all comparable the madness of the cryptobubble?
That isn't to say that dctrl and crypto won't take off. Maybe there really will be a decentralized global stock exchange, or something like github where developers collect bounties in shares of a project they believe in, or maybe it'll be used to reward hosting of Tor relays, selling bandwidth VPNs, etc etc etc.

So where you stand on crypto can be found by answerin: tech vs govt. Will govt be able to regulate the market or will the tech circumvent it? Does privacy and crypto even have a place in the future that we're building? It seems to undermine perhaps even outright reject efforts made by major powers to utilize massive stored personal data to create a giant neural network (quantum comps, globalization, AI, mass surveillance --all point towards same direction)
Cryptocurrency was created as a tool by far left libertarians to delegitimize power and now strangely enough the establishment wants a slice of the cake without eating the poisoned political frosting.
We're in the midst of an information technology arms race and crypto empowers the individual at the cost of established institutions.